The US Presidential Election [Archive]

Magnetic Duty

13-09-08, 11:00 PM

My vote is exceedingly tainted for very very selfish reasons. Being in a neighbouring country to the United States of America, and being an enegry and resource super power, and having trade with the United States ammount to multiple billions of dollars a day, I would have to throw my support behind a candidate I feel would be best for Canada.

When Obama started squaking about wanting to renegotiate NAFTA I became worried for the economic state of both nations. Although job losses and a loss, to some degree, of sovereignty has been felt on both sides of the border, because it has been more than twenty years entrenched in our economies I think that it would be an entirely foolish move to scrap it and renegotiate. It would end up costing all sides involved; and if any nation cannot afford that right now it would be the United States of America.

I am also a strong liberal and feel the Democrats too often paint themselves with this term, but fail to deliver. I find it gross to go around giving liberalism such a bad name. Liberal International won't even accept them! At least the Republicans don't pretend to be something other than right winged.

This said, I am skeptical of the ability of either party to deliver what I would like to see in America in terms of civil liberties and social progression; thus I wipe social issues from my slate of important criteria a candidate must meet for my support since both sides are inadequate.

As for what I think of the candiates, Obama is exceedingly arrogant and doesn't deserve to be so. When you're running to be the President you don't fly over and have a (expensive) trip to Europe in order to talk policy with leaders of other nations so you can pretend you have international experience in the world. I've been to China and Japan; does that make me qualified to deal with Asian nations in issues of trade and diplomacy? The speech he made in Germany was just so he could ego stroke himself.

As for McCain, I'd like to see him hush hush about how he was in Vietnam. Again this view might be tainted because of geography, but being tortured in what we view here as an illigitimate war does not make you some hero. Being a soldier in general does not strike sympathy from me. What I like about McCain is that he told off the insanity of the religious right way back when. Of course he is appealing to them with Palin, but that isn't him going back on his own word - he has her to do it for him ;)

holypotatoes

14-09-08, 12:23 AM

Gah I don't even know who I want to vote for. One of them is trying to take my guns from me and the other is trying to take my right as a woman to choose to have an abortion if I wanted one (not that I'll probably ever get the opportunity for that since I don't plan on getting knocked up any time soon unexpectedly :p ). Both sides tend to annoy the piss out of me. I have never understood why we can't have a candidate that's basically a compromise between the two parties. The Democrats and Republican's seem very flawed to me. They need to start working together instead of thinking their side is better or else this country is never going to get any better. Granted I have a feeling if Obama wins and the economy starts to get better under him, the Dems are definitely going to try throwing that in the Repubs faces since they'll think Democrats are the only way to get things done. When in all actuality, if a Dem gets put into office and the economy gets better it's only because it can't really get any worse. Bush made sure of that. :lol: So yeah, I'm torn on who to choose for, guns or pro choice? Decisions, decisions. :s

KingofCretins

14-09-08, 12:48 AM

I'm really glad that LRae did this parsing it out by distinguishing whether respondents are American or not. I had a feeling that "33-7" or whatever it was was not representative of any sample that will actually be voting. Obviously, I will be voting for McCain/Palin. This is actually the first time in four elections so far that I have a ticket I actually want to elect, not just use to vote against something else. My Dole and Bush votes were mostly because I was being shown much worse alternatives. McCain and Palin are actually people I believe in.

Compared to European politics America really doesn't have a party on the left I'd class McCain as being on the right and Obama as being on the centre right. I don't see anyone standing on issues like nationalised healthcare, redistribution of wealth or better social services for instance.

Actually I believe there is a socialist party of America or some such thing but it appears to be tiny and as you apparently need millions if not bllions of dollars to become president and as socialism has become a dirty word in America they probably don't count too much.

Well, "dirty word" happens when, as a political philosophy, it has the largest body count in the history of mankind. More 50,000,000 dead in the 20th century in pursuit of socialist utopia. It troubles me every day that that philosophy *still* is capable of gaining ground, even in places that have already been victimized by it, and I am very pleased that we've managed to marginalize it where it belongs in the US. I mean, Obama as "centre right"? He's an avowed socialist that learned politics at the knees of Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky. For him to be "centre right" is to define, I dunno, Hugo Chavez or Castro as "slightly left of center".

Gah I don't even know who I want to vote for. One of them is trying to take my guns from me and the other is trying to take my right as a woman to choose to have an abortion if I wanted one (not that I'll probably ever get the opportunity for that since I don't plan on getting knocked up any time soon unexpectedly :p ). Both sides tend to annoy the piss out of me. I have never understood why we can't have a candidate that's basically a compromise between the two parties. The Democrats and Republican's seem very flawed to me. They need to start working together instead of thinking their side is better or else this country is never going to get any better. Granted I have a feeling if Obama wins and the economy starts to get better under him, the Dems are definitely going to try throwing that in the Repubs faces since they'll think Democrats are the only way to get things done. When in all actuality, if a Dem gets put into office and the economy gets better it's only because it can't really get any worse. Bush made sure of that. :lol: So yeah, I'm torn on who to choose for, guns or pro choice? Decisions, decisions. :s

I usually stay far, far away from this topic, but I feel obliged to point this out -- were the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow, exactly zero abortions would be made illegal by that process. What would happen is that the question would, as a matter of state law, stabilize across the country with different states' legislatures (y'know... the people) defining different laws. The 10th Amendment says that anything that's not expressed to the federal government to oversee is for the states to oversee. Nothing in Article I, II, or III gives the federal government power over abortion, or reproduction of any kind. So I really hope that you don't think of overturning Roe as making something illegal as a consideration in voting. It would just become a matter for you to take to your state legislature.

holypotatoes

14-09-08, 01:42 AM

I usually stay far, far away from this topic, but I feel obliged to point this out -- were the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow, exactly zero abortions would be made illegal by that process. What would happen is that the question would, as a matter of state law, stabilize across the country with different states' legislatures (y'know... the people) defining different laws. The 10th Amendment says that anything that's not expressed to the federal government to oversee is for the states to oversee. Nothing in Article I, II, or III gives the federal government power over abortion, or reproduction of any kind. So I really hope that you don't think of overturning Roe as making something illegal as a consideration in voting. It would just become a matter for you to take to your state legislature.
Well then that still doesn't make any sense. If it's not really doing anything besides giving the states power why the hell does the government want to overturn it in the first place? Why is leaving it as it is now such a problem for Republicans?! It makes no sense. It's just the government trying to take even more control over us as citizens. I say leave it be. There's a reason it's been working as long as it has. Same with guns. Leave it f**king be. Stop tryin to change s**t that's been working for years. :cussing: it is a boiler room thread, we need some anger involved. :xd :lol:

sherrilina

14-09-08, 01:48 AM

I will be voting for Obama/Biden of course--even if Obama doesn't have as much experience in the SENATE as McCain (I don't count Palin's experience of governing a small town--honestly, you might as well try to say that a college Student Body President has enough executive experience to be US President, and that's often over more people than in her town! :p--or of governing a small state (in people) like Alaska--especially when we already know from Bush that state governor does not equal enough executive experience or good leader), I think he would be better for our country in his policies, and with his sharp mind and attempts not to delve into totally dirty politics in his campaign. I think that "100 years in Iraq" is far too long--they THEMSELVES have said they want us out, and thus McCain can't claim to be respecting their sovereignty and say we're going to stay there interminably at the same time. I think that we desperately need a break from the Bush years, and that McCain would not provide that, especially given how close he's made his votes and policies to Bush lately--even if he is now spacing himself a little further from Bush than before, his record stands, and it just shows more of his dishonesty. I also think we need improved international relations and image in the world, and that McCain and his way of thinking and attitudes will not get us that.

I also don't want Palin as president if McCain gets cancer again or something and dies--some people say she's great because she's so honest and whatnot. Well fine--I personally like Huckabee as a person, and think he's also a great, honest guy--I heard that he promoted a Democrat within his administration for example on merit, which shows some good. Do I want him as president? Hell no--because I don't like his policies, even if I like him personally. Though I don't like Palin personally either--her whole "being mayor of a tiny town is like being a community organizer, and thus makes me more qualified than Obama" (yes KoC, I know she's also governor, but I'm going off what SHE said--that even her mayoral experience made her more qualified) is just plain absurd--there is such a BIG (literally and figuratively!) difference between the number of people in her town and the complexity of it, and the complexity and size of the US populace that I don't think you can make a real comparison--you might as well say Duncan Kane is good to go as President after being president of Neptune High! I think that someone working in the national senate would have a better idea of how the US government works and runs, etc, than a little town mayor.

As for her personal situation, of course it shouldn't pertain to politics--but then again, given how "OMG NO SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE THAT IS FORNICATION AND ANTI-FAMILY VALUES!" (Edward Cullen would NOT approve! Sorry, couldn't help throwing that in! ;)) the religious right is, I think it's a tad hypocritical that they're not making a bigger deal out of it--can you imagine what they'd be saying if one of the Democratic candidate's kid was knocked up? And even a conservative uber-Catholic Spanish old man (who thinks McCain would be better) I was talking to says that there's a 90% chance that a marriage at 17 only b/c of a baby is going to end badly, and that if it were his daughter who was pregnant he would have her wait until the baby is born, and have them decide some time afterwards if they still love each other enough to commit to marrying.....it bothers me. I feel like that's as much a sacrilege to marriage (marrying in a hurry at such a young age only b/c of a baby--not because they want to at the moment) as the religious right believe gay marriage to be....

Back to Palin though--she just rubs me in the wrong way. As a person and in her policies--and it's not just because she's a woman. I know a very feminist pro-Hilary, Obama-hater who still dislikes Palin, especially in her comments about Hilary--and I agree to some extent. You can't really compare Hilary's political achievements as far as her long and hard presidential campaign to the point of being a serious contender to Palin's "oooh, I got picked!" as far as working to break the glass ceiling....

Really, I think any pro-choice feminist who votes for McCain out of vegence against Obama for not being Hilary (those idiotic PUMA people) or because of Palin is just shooting themselves in the foot, since in doing so they are hurting themselves on their issues like Roe v. Wade, etc.

Anyway, in short, Obama! And now....

I am also a strong liberal and feel the Democrats too often paint themselves with this term, but fail to deliver. I find it gross to go around giving liberalism such a bad name. Liberal International won't even accept them! At least the Republicans don't pretend to be something other than right winged.

This said, I am skeptical of the ability of either party to deliver what I would like to see in America in terms of civil liberties and social progression; thus I wipe social issues from my slate of important criteria a candidate must meet for my support since both sides are inadequate.
Well it's hard to deliver in a country like ours--but at least Democrats make an effort to be more progressive and liberal in their policies, unlike the Republicans.....

You have to keep in mind that our country as a whole is a LOT more conservative than many others, as has been noted, so you can't necessarily blame the Democrats for not being able to follow through on all their desires on the social front.

And it's the Republicans who most like to slather the Democratic Party with the word "liberal" as a scare tactic, so if you want to talk about pretending/dishonesty....;)

As for what I think of the candiates, Obama is exceedingly arrogant and doesn't deserve to be so. When you're running to be the President you don't fly over and have a (expensive) trip to Europe in order to talk policy with leaders of other nations so you can pretend you have international experience in the world. I've been to China and Japan; does that make me qualified to deal with Asian nations in issues of trade and diplomacy? The speech he made in Germany was just so he could ego stroke himself.
Well that trip at least proved that Obama would probably help mend America's international relations and image, given his popularity abroad, which is something that I think is sorely needed--in contrast to continuing more gung-ho aggresive "100 years in Iraq" stances. To people who care about what Bush has done to our status in the world, this trip was not a total waste and ego trip....

And McCain has done his share too, like when he stated during the Georgia crisis that he was sending envoys there to have talks and try to resolve things--um, envoys? What gives you the status to be doing that--I might as well send some envoys. That seems to me to be no better in terms of "defacto president" than what Obama did.....

Of course there's also all the money he received from Georgian lobbyists before being so gung-ho about Georgia....:p

What I like about McCain is that he told off the insanity of the religious right way back when. Of course he is appealing to them with Palin, but that isn't him going back on his own word - he has her to do it for him ;)
But when he already went back on his word on countless other issues after hopping on the "Bush is my Best Bud" pandering bandwagon to get elected as the nominee, I don't think that counts for much....

Gah I don't even know who I want to vote for. One of them is trying to take my guns from me and the other is trying to take my right as a woman to choose to have an abortion if I wanted one (not that I'll probably ever get the opportunity for that since I don't plan on getting knocked up any time soon unexpectedly :p ). Both sides tend to annoy the piss out of me. I have never understood why we can't have a candidate that's basically a compromise between the two parties. The Democrats and Republican's seem very flawed to me. They need to start working together instead of thinking their side is better or else this country is never going to get any better. Granted I have a feeling if Obama wins and the economy starts to get better under him, the Dems are definitely going to try throwing that in the Repubs faces since they'll think Democrats are the only way to get things done. When in all actuality, if a Dem gets put into office and the economy gets better it's only because it can't really get any worse. Bush made sure of that. :lol: So yeah, I'm torn on who to choose for, guns or pro choice? Decisions, decisions. :s
No one is going to take your right to bear arms away.....but as Obama said in his acceptance speech, trying to get automatic weapons off inner city streets doesn't really fall under that category.

I'm really glad that LRae did this parsing it out by distinguishing whether respondents are American or not. I had a feeling that "33-7" or whatever it was was not representative of any sample that will actually be voting. Obviously, I will be voting for McCain/Palin. This is actually the first time in four elections so far that I have a ticket I actually want to elect, not just use to vote against something else. My Dole and Bush votes were mostly because I was being shown much worse alternatives. McCain and Palin are actually people I believe in.
Wow, when did you start believing in McCain? Before he was the lesser evil for you....

Well, "dirty word" happens when, as a political philosophy, it has the largest body count in the history of mankind. More 50,000,000 dead in the 20th century in pursuit of socialist utopia. It troubles me every day that that philosophy *still* is capable of gaining ground, even in places that have already been victimized by it, and I am very pleased that we've managed to marginalize it where it belongs in the US. I mean, Obama as "centre right"? He's an avowed socialist that learned politics at the knees of Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky. For him to be "centre right" is to define, I dunno, Hugo Chavez or Castro as "slightly left of center".
I think you mean "communism"--socialism isn't quite the same thing, as seen by numerous European countries. (Unless you mean a body count in say, Denmark?)

I usually stay far, far away from this topic, but I feel obliged to point this out -- were the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow, exactly zero abortions would be made illegal by that process. What would happen is that the question would, as a matter of state law, stabilize across the country with different states' legislatures (y'know... the people) defining different laws. The 10th Amendment says that anything that's not expressed to the federal government to oversee is for the states to oversee. Nothing in Article I, II, or III gives the federal government power over abortion, or reproduction of any kind. So I really hope that you don't think of overturning Roe as making something illegal as a consideration in voting. It would just become a matter for you to take to your state legislature.
And what if your state legislature doesn't listen to you? To strong supporters of Roe v Wade it's an issue of whether even a woman in a conservative state where a majority of people in it want to outlaw abortion have the right to do so, or whether the woman should be able to chose her fate--which means it is quite important that RvW isn't overturned--that there are no new conservative justices appointed under yet another Republican president to make it so. So it IS important.

KingofCretins

14-09-08, 02:07 AM

Well then that still doesn't make any sense. If it's not really doing anything besides giving the states power why the hell does the government want to overturn it in the first place? Why is leaving it as it is now such a problem for Republicans?! It makes no sense. It's just the government trying to take even more control over us as citizens. I say leave it be. There's a reason it's been working as long as it has. Same with guns. Leave it f**king be. Stop tryin to change s**t that's been working for years. :cussing: it is a boiler room thread, we need some anger involved. :xd :lol:

Because it's a gross abuse of federal power that violates the face value meaning of the 10th Amendment? When the judiciary can, under the rubric of constitutional law, usurp state authority on matters of law over which the federal government was never *meant* to have any power, the Constitution itself loses meaning. Roe, as written, is a *greater* exercise of government power over the public than overturning it would be.

Though I don't like Palin personally either--her whole "being mayor of a tiny town is like being a community organizer, and thus makes me more qualified than Obama" (yes KoC, I know she's also governor, but I'm going off what SHE said--that even her mayoral experience made her more qualified) is just plain absurd--there is such a BIG (literally and figuratively!) difference between the number of people in her town and the complexity of it, and the complexity and size of the US populace that I don't think you can make a real comparison--you might as well say Duncan Kane is good to go as President after being president of Neptune High! I think that someone working in the national senate would have a better idea of how the US government works and runs, etc, than a little town mayor.

Actually, Mayor of a town versus community organizer is still, frankly, paper-rock-scissors in Palin's favor. Do you know what Obama's community organizing consisted of? Even his employer concedes that he didn't really have any *accomplishments* in that role to point to. It's basically just going door to door and registering people to vote, arranging for them to be bused to polling locations and council meetings, and general activism. It involves no actual power, obligation, or authority in a community.

As for her personal situation, of course it shouldn't pertain to politics--but then again, given how "OMG NO SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE THAT IS FORNICATION AND ANTI-FAMILY VALUES!" (Edward Cullen would NOT approve! Sorry, couldn't help throwing that in! ;)) the religious right is, I think it's a tad hypocritical that they're not making a bigger deal out of it--can you imagine what they'd be saying if one of the Democratic candidate's kid was knocked up?

It's also a non-negotiable teaching of the Catholic Church, of which more than a few members of the left are ostensibly members. I mean, I know Nancy Pelosi feels free to flat out *lie* about Church teaching from time to time, but still.

Oh, and we know *exactly* what "they" would be saying if a Democrat candidate's kid was "knocked up" -- nothing. It would be a page 6 or page 8 in the Post and Times, it would be buried by MSNBC and CNN, and it would be alluded to as "hate speech" to even raise the topic socially by Huffpost and DailyKos-ers.

Well that trip at least proved that Obama would probably help mend America's international relations and image, given his popularity abroad, which is something that I think is sorely needed--in contrast to continuing more gung-ho aggresive "100 years in Iraq" stances. To people who care about what Bush has done to our status in the world, this trip was not a total waste and ego trip....

I'd like somebody to tell me, with a straight face, when in US history we have been well-liked and celebrated by the man on the street in even countries that are close allies. It wasn't true under Clinton (as dead Marines dragged around Mogadishu would suggest it wasn't, or the countless terrorist attacks to which we were subject). It wasn't true under Reagan. It wasn't true under Carter, when the Iranians took our embassy hostage. It's a myth, this notion that America is suddenly going to be well-liked no matter *what* we do.

No one is going to take your right to bear arms away.....but as Obama said in his acceptance speech, trying to get automatic weapons off inner city streets doesn't really fall under that category.

Thankfully, despite the four illiterate Justices who dissented, things Obama loved like full gun bans such as the one in DC which turned it into such a crime plagued city, are no longer possible. As for automatic weapons -- fully automatic weapons are already illegal and already impossibly to buy legally. And there's no legitimate reason to ban semi-automatics.

Wow, when did you start believing in McCain? Before he was the lesser evil for you....

It started when he made energy independence the defining GOP issue of the election.

I think you mean "communism"--socialism isn't quite the same thing, as seen by numerous European countries. (Unless you mean a body count in say, Denmark?)

No, I meant socialism -- "communism" is what happens when a state tries to impose socialism in spite of the fact that there are always people who don't *want* to belong to the state. It's a false distinction promoted *by* socialists to distance themselves from the atrocities that are *guaranteed* when socialist authoritarianism begins.

And what if your state legislature doesn't listen to you? To strong supporters of Roe v Wade it's an issue of whether even a woman in a conservative state where a majority of people in it want to outlaw abortion have the right to do so, or whether the woman should be able to chose her fate--which means it is quite important that RvW isn't overturned--that there are no new conservative justices appointed under yet another Republican president to make it so. So it IS important.

It was only illegal in 33 states when Roe was passed -- this kind of alarmism is just... well, kind of dishonest, historically speaking. If your state legislature doesn't listen to you, you drive to another state and get one if you absolutely *must*. People have done this to get married or divorced throughout US history.

holypotatoes

14-09-08, 02:24 AM

No one is going to take your right to bear arms away.....but as Obama said in his acceptance speech, trying to get automatic weapons off inner city streets doesn't really fall under that category.

Well he physically couldn't take my right to bear arms away because he doesn't actually have enough votes in Congress to do so but just because automatic weapons are off the street, do you really think that's going to stop violence? What makes you think that Obama won't ban guns from all areas and not only inner cities? How is he going to go about this? How the hell is he going to get rid of all the "automatic" guns that are in circulation off the streets? Is he just going to ban people from selling them in that area, if so who's gonna stop people from going other places? This whole thing is ridiculous. Besides, it's not the normal law abiding citizens that aren't doing anything wrong like shooting people on purpose, it's the criminals; the one's who don't give a damn whether or not if it's illegal to have them. Again I say, leave it alone!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by KoC:
It was only illegal in 33 states when Roe was passed -- this kind of alarmism is just... well, kind of dishonest, historically speaking. If your state legislature doesn't listen to you, you drive to another state and get one if you absolutely *must*. People have done this to get married or divorced throughout US history.
The bolded part I'm gonna say something about.... that definitely didn't help your case KoC. :lol: Telling me that it was banned in more than half the states before it became legal isn't making me feel any better to turn it over to a government who is trying to overturn it and go back to state laws. :roll: I don't see why it's such a big deal to leave it be the way it is. Let people choose in whatever state they're in to have an abortion or not. :rolleyes:

sherrilina

14-09-08, 02:53 AM

Roe, as written, is a *greater* exercise of government power over the public than overturning it would be.
NATIONAL government perhaps--but not state government if they're going to start instituting bans and such again.....

It's also a non-negotiable teaching of the Catholic Church, of which more than a few members of the left are ostensibly members. I mean, I know Nancy Pelosi feels free to flat out *lie* about Church teaching from time to time, but still.
That may be--but such members don't generally emphasize the whole "no sex outside marriage" aspect so vocally in their politics, only not to follow it themselves. Like Larry Craig......or people like Reagan who marry their mistresses.

Oh, and we know *exactly* what "they" would be saying if a Democrat candidate's kid was "knocked up" -- nothing. It would be a page 6 or page 8 in the Post and Times, it would be buried by MSNBC and CNN, and it would be alluded to as "hate speech" to even raise the topic socially by Huffpost and DailyKos-ers.
Ah yes, the Great Liberal Bias.....which was the reason why Clinton was so covered by the media during the Monica (because the Liberals love to attack their own, that's part of the bias!), or why the media treated Bush more gently than Gore during the debates and campaigns, or why McCain has been often given a pass by the media and only lionized and given positive labels like "maverick," and was even given a pity party by the media when he wasn't doing as well over the summer--because of that "Liberal Bias" that always attacks the Republicans and not the Democrats! :rolleyes: I suspect that Liberal bias was behind the media's gungo-ho support initially for Iraq as well.....

Yeah, give me a break. It would have been covered just as much as the Edwards thing or the Clinton thing, to give more recent examples, don't kid yourself. There is not as great a liberal bias in the media as the right-wing always tries to suggest, especially not on the mainstream non-cable stations.

I'd like somebody to tell me, with a straight face, when in US history we have been well-liked and celebrated by the man on the street in even countries that are close allies. It wasn't true under Clinton (as dead Marines dragged around Mogadishu would suggest it wasn't, or the countless terrorist attacks to which we were subject). It wasn't true under Reagan. It wasn't true under Carter, when the Iranians took our embassy hostage. It's a myth, this notion that America is suddenly going to be well-liked no matter *what* we do.
I didn't say "no matter *what* we do." But it cannot be denied that we have gone through periods of greater international relations than others, and Clinton certain was better on that front than Bush, even with Mogadishu....

Thankfully, despite the four illiterate Justices who dissented, things Obama loved like full gun bans such as the one in DC which turned it into such a crime plagued city, are no longer possible. As for automatic weapons -- fully automatic weapons are already illegal and already impossibly to buy legally. And there's no legitimate reason to ban semi-automatics.
We'll see--but there's no reason to believe that it would deter crime to have more guns floating around. As a native of the DC area I can tell you that this is not a popular thing.....though I think the way the city is planning to implement it is okay so far.

It started when he made energy independence the defining GOP issue of the election.
Ah yes, the temporary short-term (though not even so much as far as the ocean drilling, given how long it will take to start up) energy independence plan.....

No, I meant socialism -- "communism" is what happens when a state tries to impose socialism in spite of the fact that there are always people who don't *want* to belong to the state. It's a false distinction promoted *by* socialists to distance themselves from the atrocities that are *guaranteed* when socialist authoritarianism begins.
Then why isn't there a body count in England and Denmark, etc yet?

It was only illegal in 33 states when Roe was passed -- this kind of alarmism is just... well, kind of dishonest, historically speaking. If your state legislature doesn't listen to you, you drive to another state and get one if you absolutely *must*. People have done this to get married or divorced throughout US history.
As holypotatoes notes, given that that is more than half of the states, I don't think "this kind of alarmism" would be dishonest at all, historically speaking.

Well he physically couldn't take my right to bear arms away because he doesn't actually have enough votes in Congress to do so but just because automatic weapons are off the street, do you really think that's going to stop violence? What makes you think that Obama won't ban guns from all areas and not only inner cities? How is he going to go about this? How the hell is he going to get rid of all the "automatic" guns that are in circulation off the streets? Is he just going to ban people from selling them in that area, if so who's gonna stop people from going other places? This whole thing is ridiculous. Besides, it's not the normal law abiding citizens that aren't doing anything wrong like shooting people on purpose, it's the criminals; the one's who don't give a damn whether or not if it's illegal to have them. Again I say, leave it alone!!!!!!!!!!
But he already said he wouldn't take away rifles from rural areas and such, the point of the analogy is that guns mean different things to people in inner cities and in other areas, and their respective concerns should be treated accordingly (such as more active gun control in the cities perhaps).....you don't need to worry! :comfort:

holypotatoes

14-09-08, 03:00 AM

As holypotatoes notes
You can call still call me by my real name Doppel. ;) It's in my profile so I don't mind if you say Stacy instead of holypotatoes. :lol:

But he already said he wouldn't take away rifles from rural areas and such, the point of the analogy is that guns mean different things to people in inner cities and in other areas, and their respective concerns should be treated accordingly (such as more active gun control in the cities perhaps).....you don't need to worry! :comfort:
Eh, I'll stay worried until I know it won't happen for sure. Candidates like to say everything you want to hear and then once they get in power, do the exact opposite. :s I don't trust either candidate as far as I can throw them at this point. :lol: But we'll see though.

Thomas

14-09-08, 03:05 AM

holypotatoes

14-09-08, 03:08 AM

Personally, I think it shouldn't even be up for discussion. If you think it's wrong don't get one! If you think a woman has the right to choose whether or not she carries a baby inside of her for nine months, feel free to get one. It's really that simple. I really don't see why it's such a big issue to people.

Exactly. If you don't want to do it, don't. If you do, go for it. Yeah, it's just.. dumb. I don't get it. Just leave it be.

KingofCretins

14-09-08, 04:17 AM

The bolded part I'm gonna say something about.... that definitely didn't help your case KoC. :lol: Telling me that it was banned in more than half the states before it became legal isn't making me feel any better to turn it over to a government who is trying to overturn it and go back to state laws. :roll: I don't see why it's such a big deal to leave it be the way it is. Let people choose in whatever state they're in to have an abortion or not. :rolleyes:

NATIONAL government perhaps--but not state government if they're going to start instituting bans and such again.....

I don't know what to tell you -- the simple fact is that the federal government was never meant to have its powers substantially increased by nothing more than judicial fiat. For abortion to be an area of legitimate federal authority, that power would either A) need to be expressed to the federal government by constitutional amendment, or B) the restraint on it claiming unexpressed powers lifted by repealing the 10th Amendment. But in either case, you're still talking about having to get something past the legislatures of 3/4s of the states, so if you don't consider the will of the majority to be an appopriate part of the decision-making on the subject, there's still no way to get to it. That's what the defense of Roe comes down to -- an argument that it's a more legitimate use of federal judicial power because it usurps the majority. That's twisting the counter-majoritarian principle into an argument for judicial oligarchy.

An interesting bit of very ironic history, lost to time, in the Roe opinion, was the concurrence offered by Chief Justice Burger...

I do not read the Court's holding today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting Justices... Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortion on demand.

Admit it, I don't care where you are on the issue... 35 years later, that quote is nothing short of hilarious.

Ah yes, the temporary short-term (though not even so much as far as the ocean drilling, given how long it will take to start up) energy independence plan.....

I meant the "expand our nuclear power usage to levels seen in France and other countries, updating alternate energy sources through natural gas, clean coal, while simultaneously improving our national security by cutting foreign oil out of our economy" plan.

Beats the hell out of the "if we all make sure our tires are inflated, everything will be fine after we figure out how to make the wind blow 24 hours a day in the 20 years or so it will take to make wind and solar energy cost effective and not reliant on fossil fuel for back up anyway, but no matter what we do, we can't expand our domestic oil supply" plan :)

Then why isn't there a body count in England and Denmark, etc yet?

Because they haven't jumped *off* the cliff yet, they're just staring over the edge curiously. And, for that matter, who says there aren't? Victimization by the state is what happens when socialism becomes the rule of law, but where it is already the rule of culture, there are plenty of other ways to be victimized and bullied. The "youth" riots in France, the cartoon riots, and such incidents are examples of the other kind of body count that socialist tendencies create for a society.

Personally, I think it shouldn't even be up for discussion. If you think it's wrong don't get one! If you think a woman has the right to choose whether or not she carries a baby inside of her for nine months, feel free to get one. It's really that simple. I really don't see why it's such a big issue to people.

Thomas, you can't look at the question in a vacuum -- the reason that position can't fly with the pro-life movement is because of what it is that the movements sees abortion as being. The taking of a human life. The concept "if you don't want one, don't get one" is no different to the ears of a pro-lifer than "if you don't like murder, don't kill anyone, leave the rest of us alone". Put that way, would you accept that argument in their position?

LRae12

14-09-08, 04:47 AM

As for her personal situation, of course it shouldn't pertain to politics--but then again, given how "OMG NO SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE THAT IS FORNICATION AND ANTI-FAMILY VALUES!" (Edward Cullen would NOT approve! Sorry, couldn't help throwing that in! ;)) the religious right is, I think it's a tad hypocritical that they're not making a bigger deal out of it--can you imagine what they'd be saying if one of the Democratic candidate's kid was knocked up? And even a conservative uber-Catholic Spanish old man (who thinks McCain would be better) I was talking to says that there's a 90% chance that a marriage at 17 only b/c of a baby is going to end badly, and that if it were his daughter who was pregnant he would have her wait until the baby is born, and have them decide some time afterwards if they still love each other enough to commit to marrying.....it bothers me. I feel like that's as much a sacrilege to marriage (marrying in a hurry at such a young age only b/c of a baby--not because they want to at the moment) as the religious right believe gay marriage to be....

Well regardless of anyone's religious beliefs about sex and abstinence, Palin's daughter's personal life is really nobody's business especially in a political arena AND especially considering that she's a minor. The media should never even have gone there.

Secondly, how dare ANYONE judge whether or not someone's marriage will or will not fail based on the facts that they're young and expecting a child. I find that personally offensive considering that my husband and I got pregnant before marriage when I was 17 and decided to get married because we WANTED to, not because we were having a baby. We've been married for almost 14 years now and we're doing just fine, thank you. Besides, who says that they're forced to get married? Maybe they planned on being married anyway someday and decided to move it up due to the baby. Or perhaps they are going to wait for a time before they're married. It's not like they've announced a wedding date (that I've heard).

Well that trip at least proved that Obama would probably help mend America's international relations and image, given his popularity abroad, which is something that I think is sorely needed

Yes, by all means, appease the rest of world while alienating the needs and safety of your own country, it's a great strategy....:p

Personally, I think it shouldn't even be up for discussion. If you think it's wrong don't get one! If you think a woman has the right to choose whether or not she carries a baby inside of her for nine months, feel free to get one. It's really that simple. I really don't see why it's such a big issue to people.

Which is why Roe SHOULD be overturned. Abortion is not a subject that should be up for discussion on a federal level. It should be left up to the states to decide their own laws. Before Roe it was illegal in 33 states because the majority of the voters in those states WANTED it that way. The federal government has no right to tell those states that their citizen's opinions don't count just becuase a few liberal extremists went over thier heads. Like KOC said, if you can't have your way legally in your own state, there's always the left coast. :p

Ah yes, the temporary short-term (though not even so much as far as the ocean drilling, given how long it will take to start up) energy independence plan.....

yes because the liberal plan of 'let's do nothing and hope it just gets better' is such a greater option. :p

And thinking about it, I've come to realize that I just don't put any stock in Obama's judgement calls. I mean think about it. This election wouldn't even be an *issue* if he'd picked Hillary as his running mate. Palin, though I would vote her over any Clinton any day, honestly wouldn't compete nearly as well if Obama had Hillary on his ticket. The guy's just not so smart. :lol:

EvilVampire

14-09-08, 08:53 AM

Thomas, you can't look at the question in a vacuum -- the reason that position can't fly with the pro-life movement is because of what it is that the movements sees abortion as being. The taking of a human life. The concept "if you don't want one, don't get one" is no different to the ears of a pro-lifer than "if you don't like murder, don't kill anyone, leave the rest of us alone". Put that way, would you accept that argument in their position?
That works both ways, though.
For instance:

It was only illegal in 33 states when Roe was passed -- this kind of alarmism is just... well, kind of dishonest, historically speaking. If your state legislature doesn't listen to you, you drive to another state and get one if you absolutely *must*. People have done this to get married or divorced throughout US history.

What if we were talking about, say, interracial marriage?

Yes, maybe you interpret the Constitution as banning states from passing laws prohibiting interracial marriages but not abortion, but others do not - just as others disagree with your view that an embryo has a soul (yes, I know Christians usually say their opposition is based on different grounds, but in my experience, opposition to abortion is far more common among Christians than among non-theists, and theists who believe in other religions tend to support whatever their religion supports, so I see a correlation there).

Anyway, what if, for instance, a legislature passed a law establishing strict limits on reproduction, including forced abortions, etc.?

Or maybe enforced blood donations?
Organ donations?
Just a ban on tattoos and piercings?

Sure, you could point out differences between those situations and abortion.

But similarly, someone could point out differences between, say, the killing of a pinhead-sized embryo and that of a 10-years old kid.

Some of those differences will surely be seen as more important than others by some people, and some other people will of course disagree, but in any case, the SCOTUS would interpret the Constitution and strike down some state laws interfering with people's control over their bodies, while allowing others, even if the Constitution says nothing explicitly about those matters.

EvilVampire

14-09-08, 09:15 AM

Which is why Roe SHOULD be overturned. Abortion is not a subject that should be up for discussion on a federal level. It should be left up to the states to decide their own laws.
In which cases should states be allowed to decide?

Interracial marriages?
Tattoos?
Piercings?
Burkas?
Same-gender marriage?
Same-gender sexual intercourse?
Sodomy laws?
Minimum wages?
Work conditions standards ?

Before Roe it was illegal in 33 states because the majority of the voters in those states WANTED it that way. The federal government has no right to tell those states that their citizen's opinions don't count just becuase a few liberal extremists went over thier heads. Like KOC said, if you can't have your way legally in your own state, there's always the left coast.
Yet, a similar case could be made in regard to tattoos or interracial marriage - which most people in some states wanted to ban, and which ban had been accepted for a very long time, without many people showing outrage at the constitutional violation.

Yes, I know the mainstream right-wing of today (it wasn't so in the past) claims the US Constitution prohibits bans on interracial marriage but not on abortion. Others disagree, and the question is who gets to appoint more Justices of their liking :D (I mean, Justices who are of course correct on the matter ;)...according to the one picking them :eviltail: )

KingofCretins

14-09-08, 10:13 AM

What if we were talking about, say, interracial marriage?

Yes, maybe you interpret the Constitution as banning states from passing laws prohibiting interracial marriages but not abortion, but others do not - just as others disagree with your view that an embryo has a soul (yes, I know Christians usually say their opposition is based on different grounds, but in my experience, opposition to abortion is far more common among Christians than among non-theists, and theists who believe in other religions tend to support whatever their religion supports, so I see a correlation there).

I don't want to bog down again (I did on a previous thread) with 14th Amendment law, but the Supreme Court actually already recognized marriage as a fundamental right that is a matter of "substantive due process" under the 14th Amendment. Here is another instance in which the Supreme Court blithely ignores the 10th Amendment, but at least, as opposed to in Roe had *some* textual basis upon which to do so, since marriage literally is a "process" of law.

See, here's what I don't get -- why it's a problem for any of the sovereign states of our union to have different laws on some issues to which the Constitution reserves them power. It's as if people don't think it's *really* the law until it's federal or, worse, constitutional law, and that the states are just archaic regional identities. If that's really the case, our country really has lost sight of its origin. See, I am first and foremost a textualist, and then an originalist. Meaning, I think the Constitution means what it says and says what it means, and if it's unclear what it means, we should rely on what the people who wrote it meant in writing it. I reject the idea of the Constitution as a judicially "living" document. It's only supposed to "live" in the sense that it can be formally amended, not abandoned or rewritten selectively by the courts. Surely if that was the intention, the judiciary would have been Article I and not Article III.

Anyway, what if, for instance, a legislature passed a law establishing strict limits on reproduction, including forced abortions, etc.?

Or maybe enforced blood donations?
Organ donations?
Just a ban on tattoos and piercings?

Sure, you could point out differences between those situations and abortion.

Yes I can. Which begs the question -- if you knew they weren't going to be sound analogies, why offer them? These again largely take the issue raised in Roe and look at it in a vacuum. There really isn't anyone out there who thinks Roe should be overturned that would liken a pregnancy to a tattoo, or an organ donation. Those really *are* examples of violations that affect only the individual's body. For the pro-life movement, the mother's individual rights do not stand in a vacuum, they stand next to, and must be balanced against, the rights of her unborn child. For our purposes here, I don't ask you to agree with that reading, but simply to recognize that this perspective shapes every legal and moral argument of the pro-life movement.

Some of those differences will surely be seen as more important than others by some people, and some other people will of course disagree, but in any case, the SCOTUS would interpret the Constitution and strike down some state laws interfering with people's control over their bodies, while allowing others, even if the Constitution says nothing explicitly about those matters.

And here's the other point that came to mind. The examples you raise of organ donation, or tattoos, already sound pretty clearly in 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment law. Not "penumbral", court-made rights as in Roe, but textual rights -- "to be secure in their persons... against unreasonable... seizure.

Historical sidenote, many of the Framers were actually opposed to including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The reason being that their premise in writing the Constitution was that the powers of the federal government were explicitly limited to exactly what it said, and that a Bill of Rights would create two problems. First, it would lead to confusion by the public that the rights in it were their only rights and were their rights only because they were on that list (which is why they included the 9th Amendment). Second, that to include those Amendments further restricting the power of the federal government (since the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states until after the Civil War) was to imply that the federal government had power to *anything* but the things mentioned in the Amendments (which is why they added the 10th Amendment).

And, really, they were right. The 9th and 10th Amendments have almost no legal weight anymore, people think their rights come *from* the government, and that the Bill of Rights are the only limits on the power of federal government.

Whoopi Goldberg said something that I found ridiculous when John and Cindy McCain appeared on "The View". She asked him if his intention to appoint originalist justices meant she should worry about "being a slave". There it is in a nutshell. Ms. Goldberg had no concept of the Constitution as anything other than judge-made law. The truth is, it's the 13th Amendment which assures her she won't be a slave -- an amendment proposed in Congress and ratified by state legislatures. It wasn't a right bestowed on her by the Supreme Court.

EvilVampire

14-09-08, 11:49 AM

I don't want to bog down again (I did on a previous thread) with 14th Amendment law, but the Supreme Court actually already recognized marriage as a fundamental right that is a matter of "substantive due process" under the 14th Amendment. Here is another instance in which the Supreme Court blithely ignores the 10th Amendment, but at least, as opposed to in Roe had *some* textual basis upon which to do so, since marriage literally is a "process" of law.
So, if I'm reading correctly, you're opposed to the rulings that struck down bans on interracial marriages?
Please clarify.

In any case, you say that it ignores it, others would say they interpret in context, and your interpretation would ignore the people's rights (e.g., the 9th Amendment), etc.

See, here's what I don't get -- why it's a problem for any of the sovereign states of our union to have different laws on some issues to which the Constitution reserves them power
But my point is that you say that the Constitution reserves them power in the case of abortion, apparently interracial marriages, etc.

Do they have reserved powers in the case of tattoos, piercings, sodomy laws, working conditions, minimum wages, burkas, etc.?

Clearly, the Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to the matter. Who decides, then?

Yes I can. Which begs the question -- if you knew they weren't going to be sound analogies, why offer them?
If you had replied to my point in the context in which I made it, the question should not have arisen.

Of course, I was not claiming that the analogies were bad, or that they were good.

Clearly, the cases are similar in some respects, and different in others (as is the case with all analogies). Again, different people will make different judgments on which ones are more relevant. I was pointing out that fact, which is relevant to the point I'm making: just as someone might consider a case of murder of a teenager similar to the killing of a microscopic embryo in a sense that they consider morally relevant, others find the cases not similar in a morally relevant manner, whereas they could find the similarities between one or some the cases I mentioned and abortion to be relevant in a moral sense.

These again largely take the issue raised in Roe and look at it in a vacuum. There really isn't anyone out there who thinks Roe should be overturned that would liken a pregnancy to a tattoo, or an organ donation.
Those really *are* examples of violations that affect only the individual's body.

The point is that so is abortion, according to those who oppose allowing states to decide on the matter.

You said that pro-choice people are looking at the issue in a vacuum if they say "if you don't like abortions, don't have one", because to the anti-abortion camp, abortion is murder. I'm pointing out that the same happens to your arguments, in light of the views of others.

Also, here, even though the Constitution says nothing explicitly, you interpret it as implicitly banning states from legislating in the manner I described.

So, you too interpret the Constitution in a context - context that includes of course your own moral views.

Well, others hold that a ban on abortion is such a violation as well (or, at least, one in which no one else has a legitimate interest).

And, by the way, clearly those issues do not only affect an individual's body. Number of children has demographic consequences (ask the Chinese), clothing is not optional (and what the population wears also has social effects; gang members can use certain tattoos, etc).

It's just that if a state passed laws like those, the SC would strike them down, on account of their interpretation of the Constitution, despite the lack of an explicit text on the matter. And, in those cases, it seems you would agree with that. Well, others agree in the case of abortion too.

For the pro-life movement, the mother's individual rights do not stand in a vacuum, they stand next to, and must be balanced against, the rights of her unborn child. For our purposes here, I don't ask you to agree with that reading, but simply to recognize that this perspective shapes every legal and moral argument of the pro-life movement.
Yes, I'm obviously aware of that.

Now, I'm not asking you to agree with the views of the pro-choice camp, but simply to recognize that they do not see it that way, so when you say you do not understand " why it's a problem for any of the sovereign states of our union to have different laws on some issues to which the Constitution reserves them power" you're looking at their position in a vacuum, since they do not believe that the Constitution reserves them that right any more than you believe that the Constitution reserves states the right to impose a one-child China-like policy, or a ban on piercings, etc.

And here's the other point that came to mind. The examples you raise of organ donation, or tattoos, already sound pretty clearly in 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment law. Not "penumbral", court-made rights as in Roe, but textual rights -- "to be secure in their persons... against unreasonable... seizure.
But then, those clauses aren't explicit about those cases, either.

You're saying that such seizures would be unreasonable - I'd agree, but the point is that there is no explicit constitutional text against it.

By the way, there'd be no actual seizure in the case of the tattoos, but a punishment for having them; the same would go for a policy limiting reproduction if it's not enforced by abortions but prison term, etc., sodomy laws banning from anal intercourse to masturbation, and many other cases. I do not know how many of those you would let states enforce, but clearly not all of them.

Also, the Fourteen Amendment isn't the only one that can be invoked in a case involving abortion. Someone might be against overturning Roe, but basing the case on other arguments (or other arguments too).

And, really, they were right. The 9th and 10th Amendments have almost no legal weight anymore, people think their rights come *from* the government, and that the Bill of Rights are the only limits on the power of federal government.

Whoopi Goldberg said something that I found ridiculous when John and Cindy McCain appeared on "The View". She asked him if his intention to appoint originalist justices meant she should worry about "being a slave". There it is in a nutshell. Ms. Goldberg had no concept of the Constitution as anything other than judge-made law. The truth is, it's the 13th Amendment which assures her she won't be a slave -- an amendment proposed in Congress and ratified by state legislatures. It wasn't a right bestowed on her by the Supreme Court.

But the Constitution says nothing about lots of issues - I provided some examples, but one can come up with many more of course.

Constitutions don't consider all cases explicitly; Courts (and others) interpret them.

Regarding the 9th Amendment, it states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Pro-choicers can claim that the right to have an abortion is one such right - of course, anti-abortion activists can deny it, and they can go back and forth forever. :eviltail:

tangent

14-09-08, 12:26 PM

Because they haven't jumped *off* the cliff yet, they're just staring over the edge curiously. And, for that matter, who says there aren't? Victimization by the state is what happens when socialism becomes the rule of law, but where it is already the rule of culture, there are plenty of other ways to be victimized and bullied. The "youth" riots in France, the cartoon riots, and such incidents are examples of the other kind of body count that socialist tendencies create for a society.

I'm sorry but the idea that just because British society has Socialist values such as nationalised healthcare and education built into it means we are somehow bound to fall down some slippery slope to being a communist dictatorship is simply ludicrous.

Communism is an ultra conservative political system that merely pays lip service to socialism. It is a way for an uelected dictatorship to exersise control over it's populace. Socialism is at it's heart merely an economic system, however at its core it also carries values of equality and social fairness. Most varieties of socialism that operate in this world are based on democracy, liberalism and moderacy.

Of course on the political spectrum there are always extremes from the far left to the far right but suggesting that any country that ebraces socialist values is on the way to communism is like saying that any country that exists on the conservative right is on it's way to nazi-ism. It's just scaremongering.

vampmogs

14-09-08, 01:52 PM

I don't live in the US, but from what I've seen and gathered, I'm going to have to go with Obama.

As a few others have mentioned, I'm really not fond of how McCain's military background is used to rally support behind him. I really don't understand how this is a factor for anyone in determining if he should be president or not, so why it's glorified to no end, I personally do not understand. I find it more off putting than anything, I read ‘Time’ and watch the US news on cable TV over here in Australia and I’ve seen it being referenced numerous times, in one of McCain’s speeches he brought it up, and in one of his letters about where he gets his faith and inspiration from, he brought it up again. It’s hard for me to distinguish wether or not it’s really been such a legitimate huge moment in his life that’s shaped the person he is, or if it’s all just a big publicity stunt. The sceptic in me leans towards the latter. And I find that approach really off-putting and a really bizarre way to sell yourself really. From an outside’s perspective, a lot of the time the US is seen as a really aggressive nation when it comes to the military and over the last few years in particular, it hasn’t done them any favours. To try and sell that part of yourself in your campaign doesn’t provoke a sense of change and fresh begins, it seems like “same old, same old” and as someone who’s looking in, it isn’t very appealing.

I think there needs to be a change, I understand the whole concept of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" but I think it is most certainly is broke and it's time for someone else to give it a go. I haven't seen enough differences between McCain or Bush, and I'm really, really not fond of Bush at all. And I cringed when I saw the action dolls brought out of Patin, which if I remember correctly (I may be wrong) the Republican's were pushing to sell. That seems so silly and idiotic to me. McCain just seems stale and unoriginal and despite Obama's ego and arrogance he's more fresh, more interesting.

In regards to the whole "bias" argument, I'm not even from the US and it irritates me. It irritates me when I hear comments like "Apparently SMG is a closet Republican" as if it's something to be ashamed of, but then I find it aggravating when you get the whole "Everyone's unfair to us because we're republican" thing, it works both ways. There shouldn't be bias but anyone's legitimate arguments about the Republican party, or even more people swinging to the side of the Democrats shouldn't be brushed aside as nothing more than a result of media bias.

As an outsider looking in, admittedly it's more about appearance, it skims the surface but as I'm not American I don't suspect there's any reason why I should be incredibly invested in US politics. And from an outsider’s perspective the Democrats and Obama are far more appealing to me. So yeah, maybe it's all a little superficial but appearences are important, especially from other countries.

And yes, it is quite funny when you hear the US describing Obama as a lefty, because as Nina states, compared to European countries he's a righty. :roll: I suspect it’s similar with the UK and Australia, though not to such an extent, but the US is still incredibly conservative in comparison to the majority of other Europeian countries.

Wolfie Gilmore

14-09-08, 05:15 PM

Have to go to the shops before they shut (or before the socialist government comes and kills me to death for being a capitalist running dog, what with all the shopping) but I just had to comment on a few things (more later).

1) If Obama wins, the US's standing in Europe will improve dramatically - in the UK, for certain. In the minds of UKers it'll be like the West Wing coming true, which will make them very happy (he IS Santos after all...well, Santos was based on him).

2) Any move towards making abortion illegal, whatever the details re states rights/where I could have that abortion, is a move that would make me strongly object to a party - if I was American, the knowledge that the government wanted to make any move towards taking away my rights over my own body would be a terrifying idea.

3) Socialism in the context of a western democracy is radically different from its communist application. As it was pointed out above, the body count in the UK (which is WAY more socialist than Obama's America would be....though still not socialist enough, imo) of people being killed by Gordon Brown's secret police is...well, not exactly high. The ways in which this current government are dangerous are anti-socialist - their stance on criminal justice is not a left wing one, it's far more right wing and draconian.

Heather

14-09-08, 06:22 PM

For me, personally, I view McCain's service in the military as an honorable element in his campaign because he served his country. He protected his country. He went to war, became a POW, and, despite extreme amounts of torture, did not give up any information whatsoever. He risked his life for the United States of America. I think anyone who serves in the military is heroic and should be honored for the time they did simply because it's not something that everyone can go out and do. I know I couldn't. But to be captured and forced to experience extreme amounts of torture and still protect his country? That's pretty damn heroic, to me.

Obama didn't do any of this. He didn't serve and protect his country. He just worked in his community and then went on to be a Senator (and, like KingofCretins mentioned previously, he didn't really do much a job with that title). I have no reason to idolize or respect Obama or view him as a hero because he's done nothing to earn it.

At least Hilary managed to make her marriage work despite a national scandal concerning cigars and dresses...

Wolfie Gilmore

14-09-08, 07:08 PM

I live in a country where woman can have an abortion, gay people can marry and people can ask for euthanasia. Those things are for me the most normal things in the world. And I think that those rights are rights everyone should have. I'm aware that the democrats probably won't go that far ... it's always more than what the republicans will do.

We don't have euthanasia, so that isn't a right that I'm used to, but agree re the other issues. If the democrats won't go as far as I'd like them to...at least I feel they are likely to move things in roughly the right direction. Though of course they could be a bunch of muppets or cowards who won't do any of those things - each administration is different, and you never really know until they're in power. New Labour, war in Iraq aside, hasn't been as bad as I feared.

We are less nationalistic, we won't vote for somebody because he was in the army, we also are less buzy with religion. It's our culture, and I'm part of that I guess.

Ditto - military service and "loving your country" has a different meaning here. A lot of that is tied into the bad press that nationalism got during the 70s and 80s with the National Front. I see a guy with a skinhead and an England flag, and I think of racism. It's a kneejerk reaction, of course, but that's the imagery that's at work still.

So it's a very different ballgame in the US, where racism and nationalism didn't have that same connection - especially that visual connection to the flag.

I also don't want Palin as president if McCain gets cancer again or something and dies--some people say she's great because she's so honest and whatnot. Well fine--I personally like Huckabee as a person, and think he's also a great, honest guy--I heard that he promoted a Democrat within his administration for example on merit, which shows some good. Do I want him as president? Hell no--because I don't like his policies, even if I like him personally.

Yes - although personality is important, if someone's policies are a turn-off, then however much you'd like to have a pint with them, you don't want them passing any laws. I think Palin seems quite a laugh - but in the same way Boris Johnson does. Fun personality, someone I'd like to see on telly... but not someone who I'd want in charge.

I want Tina Fey for VP!

I feel like that's as much a sacrilege to marriage (marrying in a hurry at such a young age only b/c of a baby--not because they want to at the moment) as the religious right believe gay marriage to be....

Anyone who thinks gay marriage will somehow taint "normal" marriage...well, I think the words Britney and Spears spring to mind. :)

You have to keep in mind that our country as a whole is a LOT more conservative than many others, as has been noted, so you can't necessarily blame the Democrats for not being able to follow through on all their desires on the social front.

I think I said this in another thread, but I agree - you can't blame a party for being sluggish about change if the country they're working for doesn't want said change. The change needs to come partly from the people - you can't just impose laws people don't want and expect to get away with it.

I think you mean "communism"--socialism isn't quite the same thing, as seen by numerous European countries. (Unless you mean a body count in say, Denmark?)

I'd like somebody to tell me, with a straight face, when in US history we have been well-liked and celebrated by the man on the street in even countries that are close allies.[quote]

I wasn't old enough at the time to really be aware of public feeling for Clinton, but in retrospect at least, people think he's ok. Though that is by comparison to Bush, obv.

In terms of close allies in the UK, Obama would definitely make people think America is more progressive - even if he doesn't actually change much.It might only be a symbolic change, but it would mean something. There's a great fear of the religious right in the UK, so any power that was taken away from them would be a big PR plus.

But, that's just the people in general - what the UK "bloke on the street" thinks of America probably won't have any impact on how our government actually behaves towards the US, so, it's not really a consideration I imagine.

[quote]
No, I meant socialism -- "communism" is what happens when a state tries to impose socialism in spite of the fact that there are always people who don't *want* to belong to the state. It's a false distinction promoted *by* socialists to distance themselves from the atrocities that are *guaranteed* when socialist authoritarianism begins.

A degree of authoritarianism is something I'm prepared to live with for the sake of a better society. But the degree is important, as is the area in which that authoritarianism happens. - taxation that not everyone wants, I'm cool with that. Draconian laws such as detention without trial...not so much. What I want for my country - and would hope others would want in theirs - are certain socialist measures that mean the weak are protected and injustices of extreme wealth next to extreme poverty are, if not prevented, then steered away from as much as is practical (eg I realise that very high taxation on the very rich is counter productive because they'll just nip off to some tax haven country and not pay anything, sneaky buggers).

The idea that the UK or other european countries are socialist is mistaken though. We have certain public services, but we're not exactly short of rich bastards who are keeping their money Anya style. :D

It was only illegal in 33 states when Roe was passed

33 is an "only" that is unacceptable to me - one state would be too much. In a secular state, abortion shouldn't be classed as murder, so it should be up to the individual, not any kind of government, to say what happens to her (as it is always her) body.

KingofCretins

14-09-08, 07:19 PM

The point is that so is abortion, according to those who oppose allowing states to decide on the matter.

I get the issue as defined by pro-choicers. But the key difference is that the pro-life movement can point to the 10th Amendment and say "follow the Constitution" in this instance, where the pro-choice movement must cover up the 10th Amendment and say "ignore the Constitution".

You have not mentioned one single political issue with which I'd be uncomfortable with different states having their own policy.

And, the very point of the Constitution -- if it really *is* something that rightfully should be imposed federally, there shouldn't be any problem getting an amendment passed.

I'm sorry but the idea that just because British society has Socialist values such as nationalised healthcare and education built into it means we are somehow bound to fall down some slippery slope to being a communist dictatorship is simply ludicrous.

Communism is an ultra conservative political system that merely pays lip service to socialism. It is a way for an uelected dictatorship to exersise control over it's populace. Socialism is at it's heart merely an economic system, however at its core it also carries values of equality and social fairness. Most varieties of socialism that operate in this world are based on democracy, liberalism and moderacy.

The mere fact that Michael Moore is all over Cuba's jock should be proof enough on its own that communism is the farthest thing from a "conservative" form of government. Really, I'd heard the myth that "fascism" is a conservative form of government before (it's not) but never heard the argument made for communism.

Communism/socialism (synonymous even in the mind of their founder, Karl Marx) rely on state ownership and control of the means of production. Fascism is premised on state control of the privately owned means of production. In both cases, state power is drawn from state control of the economy. This is the *opposite* of American conservatism, which is premised on capitalism and the free market, rejecting both state ownership and state control of the means of production. Political philosophies such as socialism are never "merely" economic, because the philosophy itself relies on political power to *control* the economy.

Of course on the political spectrum there are always extremes from the far left to the far right but suggesting that any country that ebraces socialist values is on the way to communism is like saying that any country that exists on the conservative right is on it's way to nazi-ism. It's just scaremongering.

Well, I addressed the conservatism/fascism myth already, but I don't see how you can claim "scare-mongering". Venezuela was a democracy that "embraced socialist values" for a long time. And they just voted themselves into an authoritarian socialist dictatorship where Hugo Chavez has nationalized both the media and the energy industry. Isn't that exactly what I described?

1) If Obama wins, the US's standing in Europe will improve dramatically - in the UK, for certain. In the minds of UKers it'll be like the West Wing coming true, which will make them very happy (he IS Santos after all...well, Santos was based on him).

2) Any move towards making abortion illegal, whatever the details re states rights/where I could have that abortion, is a move that would make me strongly object to a party - if I was American, the knowledge that the government wanted to make any move towards taking away my rights over my own body would be a terrifying idea.

3) Socialism in the context of a western democracy is radically different from its communist application. As it was pointed out above, the body count in the UK (which is WAY more socialist than Obama's America would be....though still not socialist enough, imo) of people being killed by Gordon Brown's secret police is...well, not exactly high. The ways in which this current government are dangerous are anti-socialist - their stance on criminal justice is not a left wing one, it's far more right wing and draconian.

1) This just isn't a consideration to me in casting my vote. Like I said, we're never liked in any substantial way anyway, despite providing 25% of the UN's budget and almost all of its infrastructure, it's a body that exists almost entirely to blame us for stuff.

2) I'm finished with smashmorshion on this forum again -- nobody has ever in the history of the internet, I think, moved off their point.

3) What's with this "communism is conservative" stuff? How long has that urban myth been out there? Castro, Kim Jong Il, Kruschev, Lenin... Marx? "Conservatives"? On Opposite Day, yes :) Capitalists and Communists are polar opposites in both politics and economy.

He went to war, became a POW, and, despite extreme amounts of torture, did not give up any information whatsoever.

A recent Obama attack ad went after McCain's age, basically, talking about how he "doesn't email".

Well, Sen. Obama, I'm sorry nobody mentioned this to you, but Sen. McCain is not physically capable of keyboarding for himself. Oops?

LRae12

14-09-08, 07:59 PM

In which cases should states be allowed to decide?

Interracial marriages?
Tattoos?
Piercings?
Burkas?
Same-gender marriage?
Same-gender sexual intercourse?
Sodomy laws?
Minimum wages?
Work conditions standards ?

Yet, a similar case could be made in regard to tattoos or interracial marriage - which most people in some states wanted to ban, and which ban had been accepted for a very long time, without many people showing outrage at the constitutional violation.

Yes, I know the mainstream right-wing of today (it wasn't so in the past) claims the US Constitution prohibits bans on interracial marriage but not on abortion. Others disagree, and the question is who gets to appoint more Justices of their liking :D (I mean, Justices who are of course correct on the matter ;)...according to the one picking them :eviltail: )

But you miss the point. In any of those other instances there is nothing being HARMED. Whether you believe human rights begin at conception or birth, there is no doubt that an unborn baby, or as the left like to de-humanize it -- embryo, is a living organism. Look at how NASA marveled over a few cells found on Mars as proof of life. Yet we can look at a sonogram and see a moving being and say it's not alive? Please. Inter-racial marriages and tatoos don't even belong in the same category.

someone might consider a case of murder of a teenager similar to the killing of a microscopic embryo

Again, microscopic? At six-eight weeks duration, when most women are just finding out that they are pregnant, an unborn child all ready has a heartbeat and the average size of the fetus is a few centimeters. So not microscopic (like the Mars findings of "life"). Sadly most abortions are not committed at even that early stage of development, but more in the 3-4 month stage. Would you like to see my sonogram pictures of my children at 4 months duration? There can be no arguement for 'microscopic'.

tangent

14-09-08, 09:01 PM

The mere fact that Michael Moore is all over Cuba's jock should be proof enough on its own that communism is the farthest thing from a "conservative" form of government. Really, I'd heard the myth that "fascism" is a conservative form of government before (it's not) but never heard the argument made for communism.

Michael Moore to one side for the moment, Communism is definitely a conservative political system. It's people are not free to vote, not free to express themselves and are open to persecution by the controlling regime. Things are as they are and shall not change, shall not be questioned and are sancrosanct. This is designed to protect and conserve the status quo and so is archly conservative to my mind. The same thing happened under the Nazi's although for a different ideology.

Communism/socialism (synonymous even in the mind of their founder, Karl Marx) rely on state ownership and control of the means of production. Fascism is premised on state control of the privately owned means of production. In both cases, state power is drawn from state control of the economy. This is the *opposite* of American conservatism, which is premised on capitalism and the free market, rejecting both state ownership and state control of the means of production. Political philosophies such as socialism are never "merely" economic, because the philosophy itself relies on political power to *control* the economy.

Sadly, Marx's dream of a free people living in harmony with each other and able to do as they wished has been grossly misappropriated by the countries that now run communist dictatorships and have forced communism into something that no longer resembles that dream. He's even famous for saying "I am not a Marxist" his ideas were so badly misused, and that was in his own lifetime. However Socialism is not communism and countries that embrace some socialist ideals within their fabric are not on sone inexorable slide to dictatorship. I agree that America is nothing like facism, but that's the point I was making. Sweeping generalisations that the whole left side of politics will somehow slide to communism is like saying that the whole rightside will slide towards whatever you want to put there. Most people would tend to class the Nazis as fairly right wing.

Well, I addressed the conservatism/fascism myth already, but I don't see how you can claim "scare-mongering". Venezuela was a democracy that "embraced socialist values" for a long time. And they just voted themselves into an authoritarian socialist dictatorship where Hugo Chavez has nationalized both the media and the energy industry. Isn't that exactly what I described?

Chavez is a controversial character alright, and personally I don't like him or his style of government. But he is not representative of the many, many countries around the world that hold a centre left position politcally. Scaremongereing is providing exactly these extreme cases and then pretending that any move to, say higher taxation for those with more money is a first step that must ultimately end in this way; it isn't. The National Health Service, one of the greatest and most profound examples of socialist thinking that this country has ever seen was created in 1946. So far we've managed to avoid communism, dictatorship and still have a fairly liberal society (although it could be more liberal, for me). If we're peeking over the edge of some chasm then we've been there for one hell of a long time.

I'm no political analyst and have never really studied the thing at a university or anything but to me this is how i see the political spectrums.

Left - Right
Liberal -conservative
Socialist - capitalist

I'd be in the left hand side every time.

Wolfie Gilmore

14-09-08, 09:17 PM

Communism/socialism (synonymous even in the mind of their founder, Karl Marx) rely on state ownership and control of the means of production.

But Karl Marx's formulation of socialism is not the kind that is in action in European democracies. We have an incredibly watered down form of socialism, which is more like Captalism Plus Some Socially Conscious Policies When People Can Be Arsed.

1) This just isn't a consideration to me in casting my vote. Like I said, we're never liked in any substantial way anyway, despite providing 25% of the UN's budget and almost all of its infrastructure, it's a body that exists almost entirely to blame us for stuff.

Yes - as I said, I don't think it's something that will be important to US voters. But you did ask if people thought the choice of leader would make any difference to the average person in terms of what they think of the US - which, it would. But I agree that that probably wouldn't be a factor in choosing who to vote for - it's not exactly something that would have a big impact on someone's life, except as a tourist (which is a small proportion of your time, unless you're always on hols!).

2) I'm finished with smashmorshion on this forum again -- nobody has ever in the history of the internet, I think, moved off their point.

Fair enough. :)

3) What's with this "communism is conservative" stuff? How long has that urban myth been out there? Castro, Kim Jong Il, Kruschev, Lenin... Marx? "Conservatives"? On Opposite Day, yes :) Capitalists and Communists are polar opposites in both politics and economy.

Ah, but I wasn't saying that, I said our government is NOT socialist, but more like the Tory party, in terms of criminal justice.

But you miss the point. In any of those other instances there is nothing being HARMED. Whether you believe human rights begin at conception or birth, there is no doubt that an unborn baby, or as the left like to de-humanize it -- embryo, is a living organism. Look at how NASA marveled over a few cells found on Mars as proof of life. Yet we can look at a sonogram and see a moving being and say it's not alive? Please. Inter-racial marriages and tatoos don't even belong in the same category.

What people get excited about and what people consider morally significant are two different things though. Something could be a cool scientific discovery without being something that you want to preserve for its own sake. Life on Mars is something scientists would love to get their teeth into, but they wouldn't consider it to have anything approaching rights, per se.

KingofCretins

14-09-08, 09:23 PM

...Communism is definitely a conservative political system. It's people are not free to vote, not free to express themselves and are open to persecution by the controlling regime. Things are as they are and shall not change, shall not be questioned and are sancrosanct. This is designed to protect and conserve the status quo and so is archly conservative to my mind. The same thing happened under the Nazi's although for a different ideology.

Conservatism (and we're the only people still in the business) is diametrically opposed to the level of state power that socialism/communism demands to function. "Not free to vote"? "Not free to exress themselves"? What do either of these things have to do with conservatism? Conservativism is the movement of "rugged individualism", but unlike it's socialist counterpart, doesn't deverse personal freedom from personal responsibility.

In post-capitalist socialized welfare states, "individualism" is a hollow concept which means you have free speech, but not the freedom to make your own healthcare choices, or the freedom to associate, but not the freedom to eat transfats. The socialist government, the ageless parent of the ageless, infantilized citizen, takes care of all of that.

Most people would tend to class the Nazis as fairly right wing.

They have been carefully conditioned to think so, but the simple and immutable, non-negotitable fact is that there is no "right wing" without capitalism. A non-capitalist society is as conservative as a square is round.

tangent

14-09-08, 09:42 PM

Conservativism is the movement of "rugged individualism"

Or

Cultural conservativism (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_conservatism)

So in the context of cultural conservatism, parties on both the left and the right are able to be called conservative.

Wolfie Gilmore

14-09-08, 10:04 PM

King - the conservatism tangent is talking about is the resistence to change, a rigidity of thought, a desire to keep things as they are. Though I think it is a bit of a stretch to call Communism conservative in that context. Although it was in the interests of the Party to keep the status quo - and all that lovely power - it's perhaps a bit confusing to relate that kind of status quo keeping to conservatism of the kind that opposes cultural change because "things were nice the way they were" - eg the kind of conservatism that's based on a view that Britain was all lovely in the 50s and we should go back to that please.

Or, in an American context, the kind of moral (as opposed to economic) conservatism that opposes gay marriage.

But conservatism in that sense doesn't have to be in keeping with what a lot of people would think of as right wing ideals - eg you could be an environmentalist and be conservative, eg in the way Tolkien was - being anti industrialist because factories mess up the nice old fashioned countryside. The Tory party in the UK are focusing on this kind of conservatism (which I don't object to, it's one of their nicer qualities). Images of Britain based on nice gentlemen riding around on bicycles (even if someone is following them in a car with all their documents ;).

What I find interesting is that you can be party politically Conservative (ie a Tory) without being small c conservative, at least in economic terms. Thatcher was a radical, imo, at least in many respects (she changed lots of things eg privatising left right and...well, mostly right ;)) not a conservative, yet she was obviously a Conservative.

In post-capitalist socialized welfare states, "individualism" is a hollow concept which means you have free speech, but not the freedom to make your own healthcare choices, or the freedom to associate, but not the freedom to eat transfats. The socialist government, the ageless parent of the ageless, infantilized citizen, takes care of all of that.

I do have the right to make my own healthcare choices. If I want to have private healthcare, I can. The fact that I have the option of free healthcare does not take away my choices to pay for it if I want to! It just provides more options. And someone not being able to afford healthcare doesn't make them into a grown up!

KingofCretins

14-09-08, 10:19 PM

Wolfie, no, you have the right to pay *twice* for healthcare. You already pay taxes for the state run one. It's not "free". The state one is funded at gunpoint by collected taxes.

I think that it's disingenuous to say social conservatism in the US is equivalent to totalitarian dictatorship. Because American conservatives are still bound politically and ethically to both A) capitalism and B) subsidiarity -- federalism -- the notion that the government most competent to act is the most local. Social conservatism in the US has never been nor ever *could* be imposed from Washington. It can't be imposed by judicial fiat. It's a contradiction in terms.

Even opposing gay marriage can't be done in a dictatorial fashion by the most conservative of politicians... because they don't believe in doing it!

They can A) populate the judiciary with judges that won't read it into the Constitution where it is explicitly absent, which means it goes back to the will of the people and their representatives in the states, or they can B) pitch a constitutional amendment that effectively bans gay marriage, which would then have to pass 2/3s of Congress and 3/4s of the state legislatures.

In both instances, the social conservative is still protecting the actual power on the question to the people of the United States -- the opposite of authoritarianism. Antonin Scalia is a practicing Catholic and a conservative. He is unquestionably not someone who believes that, as an ethical issue, gay marriage should be recognized. But the chances that he would, as a Supreme Court justice, ever rule from the bench that it's illegal because he is a judge and he says so are *zero* -- because he's a conservative. He will simply not pretend that the Constitution says what it doesn't for the sake of overriding the will of the people.

You can't get farther away from authoritarianism than that without becoming an anarchist.

Wolfie Gilmore

14-09-08, 10:34 PM

Wolfie, no, you have the right to pay *twice* for healthcare. You already pay taxes for the state run one. It's not "free". The state one is funded at gunpoint by collected taxes.

Good point. :) But that's the nature of taxes - I don't have the choice not to pay taxes for schools, even if I don't have kids. But I'd rather give up that choice for the sake of other people having free education. It's part of doing your bit for society - though of course it's not entirely selfless, as it's putting stuff in the common pot that I can take out later. I don't see that as in any way infantilising. I'd like to see a society in which people voluntarily share their money without government intervention, but I don't think it's all that likely.

I think that it's disingenuous to say social conservatism in the US is equivalent to totalitarian dictatorship.

I wasn't saying they were the same though. Or were you replying to tangent?

Because American conservatives are still bound politically and ethically to both A) capitalism and B) subsidiarity -- federalism -- the notion that the government most competent to act is the most local. Social conservatism in the US has never been nor ever *could* be imposed from Washington. It can't be imposed by judicial fiat. It's a contradiction in terms.

Again, I wasn't saying the two were the same (but perhaps again you were replying to tangent, in which case never mind!).

Michael

14-09-08, 10:34 PM

If you are a communist then, presumably, once a society has become mainly communist you will want to prevent it from changing again i.e. you will want to conserve.

In such a communist society, if you believed in free enterprise individualism then you would be a radical, if a not a revolutionary.

In the Britain of the 1970s Thatcher was a right-wing radical. Her reforms, though bitterly contested, have since been largely accepted by the other political parties. We can can now say that all the main British parties are conservative and differ on means more than ends. In essence each one claims to be able to manage the status quo more efficiently than the others.

Of course the bundle of questions connected to our relationship with the European Union does not quite fit in with this scheme. It has to be considered in a different way.

Whether you are conservative or radical depends on how you see the existing state of society in relation to your own values.

King. In Europe, as distinct from America, the historical party of the Right has little to do with capitalism and everything to do with the maintenance of traditional authority in the form of monarchy , aristocracy, the church, and the Army. The political expression of capitalism has always been called liberalism in Europe. (Whiggism in England for much of the 19th century.)In America you call "liberalism" what we call "social democracy" or even "democratic socialism." Of course nationalism is different again and can be connected with either of the other "isms." The British Tory Party was successful for a long time because it was able to wrap the Union Flag around itself and marry nationalism to Tory values.

Wolfie Gilmore

14-09-08, 11:08 PM

If you are a communist then, presumably, once a society has become mainly communist you will want to prevent it from changing again i.e. you will want to conserve.

In such a communist society, if you believed in free enterprise individualism then you would be a radical, if a not a revolutionary.

Those crazy capitalist kids. :D

Now I'm thinking of Les Mis, the capitalist revolutionary version:

"Do you hear the people sing, singing the song of banker men?
It is a music of a people who know how the dollar links to the yen"

King. In Europe, as distinct from America, the historical party of the Right has little to do with capitalism and everything to do with the maintenance of traditional authority in the form of monarchy , aristocracy, the church, and the Army.

Perhaps the analogy with class would be useful here: conservatism is linked to capitalism, but it is not entirely based on capitalism, just as class and money are linked, but class is not entirely determined by money. You can be poor and posh, just as you can be conservative in a moral sense without being particularly committed to the free market. Though the two things usually do go hand in hand, they don't always. There are people who are socialist who are socially conservative - you could be anti immgration but pro unions, for example.

tangent

14-09-08, 11:18 PM

I wasn't saying they were the same though. Or were you replying to tangent?

If you were King, it wasn't what I was saying either.

Michael

14-09-08, 11:22 PM

Right. In Britain "class" and "money" came together in the Conservative Party in the last part of the 19th century. You could call it the marriage of aristocracy and trade. It was a winning ticket.

EvilVampire

14-09-08, 11:23 PM

I get the issue as defined by pro-choicers. But the key difference is that the pro-life movement can point to the 10th Amendment and say "follow the Constitution" in this instance, where the pro-choice movement must cover up the 10th Amendment and say "ignore the Constitution".

No, the pro-choice movement will point to other parts of the Constitution and interpreting it differently, just as you would in the other examples I presented in order to illustrate the case.

There's no point in repeating my points all over again in zillion-miles long posts, though, so I'll leave it at that and hope that readers didn't only skim through my previous posts.

You have not mentioned one single political issue with which I'd be uncomfortable with different states having their own policy.
Yes, I did mention some. I'm not sure which ones you'd allow states to have, but you made it clear that it would not be all of them.

Still, I'll can present some examples and ask you to identify those you'd allow states to have/do, and your basis for that:

1. A ban on interracial marriage.

2. Criminalize "sodomy", including (as some laws have) a ban on anal intercourse, and a ban on masturbation.

3. A ban on piercings and tattoos (general or limited to some parts of the body where thety're more or less common these days).

4. A ban on marriage.

5. Polygamous marriage alongside monogamous marriage.

6. No minimum wage.

7. No working standards.

8. One child China-like policies. Failure to comply results in prison time.

And, the very point of the Constitution -- if it really *is* something that rightfully should be imposed federally, there shouldn't be any problem getting an amendment passed.

The Constitution can't have every prevision for every case.
Also, amending the Constitution is not necessary when the SC has already interpreted to establish something, and proposing the Amendment might be to play right into the hands of those against said interpretation, especially if there's no sufficient political support to pass it.

But you miss the point. In any of those other instances there is nothing being HARMED. Whether you believe human rights begin at conception or birth, there is no doubt that an unborn baby, or as the left like to de-humanize it -- embryo, is a living organism. Look at how NASA marveled over a few cells found on Mars as proof of life. Yet we can look at a sonogram and see a moving being and say it's not alive? Please. Inter-racial marriages and tatoos don't even belong in the same category.
That depends on your categorization.

I was asking for your criteria for deciding when states can have their own laws. Tattoos do hurt the skin of the person having a tattoo. The same for piercings - and not only the skin is hurt.

Also, cells found on Mars? When?

And the "please" is out of place, since I never suggested an embryo or a fetus are not alive. Sure they are, as are skin cells (and if you're going to say skin cells are part of someone's body, let's say tapeworms and mosquitos are not; but what I'm asking is about your criteria for allowing/not allowing states to have their own laws, not about why you oppose abortion).

someone might consider a case of murder of a teenager similar to the killing of a microscopic embryo
Again, microscopic? At six-eight weeks duration, when most women are just finding out that they are pregnant, an unborn child all ready has a heartbeat and the average size of the fetus is a few centimeters.
That's a quote out of context, and again changes the subject. A full quote would be:

Clearly, the cases are similar in some respects, and different in others (as is the case with all analogies). Again, different people will make different judgments on which ones are more relevant. I was pointing out that fact, which is relevant to the point I'm making: just as someone might consider a case of murder of a teenager similar to the killing of a microscopic embryo in a sense that they consider morally relevant, others find the cases not similar in a morally relevant manner, whereas they could find the similarities between one or some the cases I mentioned and abortion to be relevant in a moral sense.

Your reply does not address what I was saying.

By the way, opposition to abortion by "pro-life" groups almost always includes opposition to abortion at any stage in the pregnancy, usually including emergency contraception, and the killing of frozen embryos of any size.

However, that was not the point.

In post-capitalist socialized welfare states, "individualism" is a hollow concept which means you have free speech, but not the freedom to make your own healthcare choices, or the freedom to associate, but not the freedom to eat transfats. The socialist government, the ageless parent of the ageless, infantilized citizen, takes care of all of that.

And in the US, you (mostly), you can't make choices like euthanasia, or using a variety of drugs without the approval of a doctor, or use some other drugs at all (say, cocaine), etc. The American government takes care of it all, right?

And you're not allowed to marry someone of your gender, or (in the past) another race, and before some court decisions, you weren't even allowed to choose to have sex with consenting adults of your gender in some states.

Funnily, conservatives (social conservatives, who are often but not always economic right wingers as well) supported and/or support some of such restrictions, as they tend to support a ban on abortion. The free, not parent of "infantilized" children government, says so. :D

The point is that different countries/jurisdictions allow different choices.

Using that kind of argument is available to all sides in these rhetorical games (sorry, these deep discussions of principles :eviltail: )...

They have been carefully conditioned to think so, but the simple and immutable, non-negotitable fact is that there is no "right wing" without capitalism. A non-capitalist society is as conservative as a square is round.
No, that depends on what one means by "right wing"; the words - like "left wing", "socialist", etc. - are used by different people to mean different things, and people keep talking past each other.

Still, they may be useful to take a swipe at one's opponent in a debate, :eviltail: or to refer to the people usually identified as such.

Wolfie Gilmore

14-09-08, 11:24 PM

If you were King, it wasn't what I was saying either.

All a muddle! What were you saying about communism again tangent, so we're all on teh same page about what we're arguing about? Was it the idea of cultural conservatism? Because, yes, that's not necessarily a left/right divide (depending on what cultural values you're conserving).

Heather

14-09-08, 11:24 PM

A recent Obama attack ad went after McCain's age, basically, talking about how he "doesn't email".

Well, Sen. Obama, I'm sorry nobody mentioned this to you, but Sen. McCain is not physically capable of keyboarding for himself. Oops?

That is infuriating, to me. Obama's done nothing for this country (at least, nothing substantial that's even worth a second thought) and yet he expects, and sometimes seems to demand that, people to respect him and think that he'd be a great leader? He's done nothing! No proof that he'd fill the role of President any better than your next Senator who SOUNDS great on paper but, in reality, won't know how to do the job right, let alone do what he says he'll fight for.

It's the disrespect for McCain's period of time as a soldier that really upsets me. He is an American hero for what he did and he has every right to promote that truth in his campaign. He's put his life on the line for his country. He's taken brutal torture for his country.

And, again, what has Obama done?

Wolfie Gilmore

14-09-08, 11:40 PM

Right. In Britain "class" and "money" came together in the Conservative Party in the last part of the 19th century. You could call it the marriage of aristocracy and trade. It was a winning ticket.

Yes, exactly - whereas, before then, being "in trade" was seen as a bad thing among the upper classes.... though I'm sure there are still some people who see it that way even now. I've definitely come across people who joke about it in a way that implies they look down on it. Obviously these are crazy people who don't know what century they're living in, but still.

There's no point in repeating my points all over again in zillion-miles long posts, though, so I'll leave it at that and hope that readers didn't only skim through my previous posts.

I've been following, but I don't feel I know enough about the constitution to really join in.

Also, cells found on Mars? When?

Well, never, obviously. But I think perhaps she meant the possibility of cells being discovered on Mars, after water was discovered? As in, it's something people get very excited about. Because it would be awesome. :D

[quote]
Funnily, conservatives (social conservatives, who are often but not always economic right wingers as well) supported and/or support some of such restrictions, as they tend to support a ban on abortion. The free, not parent of "infantilized" children government, says so. :D

I suppose that how we view government intervention will always depend on how we view the things they're intervening about on a moral level. So, if I thought abortion was murder, I wouldn't think that the state was infantilising me by not offering me that choice. But if I thought it wasn't, then taking away that choice would be taking away a valid freedom - the freedom to do what I want with the stuff in my body.

No, that depends on what one means by "right wing"; the words - like "left wing", "socialist", etc. - are used by different people to mean different things, and people keep talking past each other.

Still, they may be useful to take a swipe at one's opponent in a debate, :eviltail: or to refer to the people usually identified as such.

Perhaps we all need to be more careful about defining our terms, especially since we are talking across the atlantic divide?

Or just enjoy the confusion :)