The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-13-2012, 05:45 AM   #586
Griff
still says videotape
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
There is a mix of good and bad in that article. Friedman is desirous of active government, which isn't really conservative. Active "conservatism" is what W gave us with Friedman's full support. I'd rather not see that again. He is right about not being married to hard positions. Those things have won them elections though, so it'll be difficult to shake. My view is that a moderate libertarianism would be workable and good for the country. Don't be afraid to eliminate programs that don't work, don't trash the safety net, and don't create new bureaucracies without very good reason. Do make sure the rules are fair and incentivize savings and work.
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Griff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2012, 08:50 AM   #587
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
Friedman is not the only pundit going down that road.
Paul Krugman discusses each of the candidates in his editorial and concludes with:

NY Times
By PAUL KRUGMAN
February 12, 2012

Severe Conservative Syndrome
Quote:
How did American conservatism end up so detached from,
indeed at odds with, facts and rationality? For it was not always thus.
After all, that health reform Mr. Romney wants us to forget
followed a blueprint originally laid out at the Heritage Foundation !

My short answer is that the long-running con game of economic
conservatives and the wealthy supporters they serve finally went bad.
For decades the G.O.P. has won elections by appealing to social and racial divisions,
only to turn after each victory to deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy

— a process that reached its epitome when George W. Bush won re-election
by posing as America’s defender against gay married terrorists,
then announced that he had a mandate to privatize Social Security.
Over time, however, this strategy created a base that really believed in all the hokum
— and now the party elite has lost control.
And besides all that:

Quote:
Mitt Romney has a gift for words — self-destructive words.
On Friday he did it again, telling the Conservative Political Action Conference
that he was a “severely conservative governor.”
Talking heads are substituting their own cliche for Mitt's
"severely conservative, such as: disabled, depressed, ill, limited and injured.

The one I liked best was "severely mistaken"
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 02:39 PM   #588
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
This voice from the mid-70's startled me... but it rings true.

The Boston Globe

By Tom Keane
February 25, 2012

A McGovern moment?
Quote:
A general election disaster could give the GOP reason to rethink its message

THE BATTLE for the soul of the Republican Party comes to a head in
Michigan and Arizona this Tuesday and on Super Tuesday just a week later.
The moderate home of John McCain, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and even Ronald Reagan
is under a withering assault from Tea Partiers and Bible Belters.
The conservative marauders are not only at the gates, but it looks like they may take over.<snip>

Maybe it would be best if they did.

So let the GOP nominate a Santorum or a Gingrich and get it out of its system.

Let the GOP have, if you will, its George McGovern moment.
And besides all that:
Ibid

2/25/12
Ultrasounds of extremism
Quote:
These days, abortion opponents can’t seem to decide whether
to discourage pre-natal testing because it might lead some women to consider abortion,
as Rick Santorum has suggested on the campaign trail,
or to require it, as the Virginia legislature has sought to do
in order to persuade pregnant women that the fetus has a beating heart.

Both initiatives, in seeking to promote the rights of fetuses, intrude on women’s rights.
One talking head on TV said something like:
Quote:
The GOP is searching for smaller government, small enough to fit in a woman's vagina.

Last edited by Lamplighter; 02-25-2012 at 02:44 PM.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 02:54 PM   #589
Sundae
polaroid of perfection
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 24,185
I went to the hospital with a pregnant woman, because she was bleeding.
She had already decided on a termination.
She had an emergency appointment, but was kept waiting an extra 50 minutes (meh - NHS).

When we went into the room she was asked if she had recently urinated - she hadn't, so was sent off to do so. I guess the scans where you have to have a full bladder comes much later - she was only three weeks.

Now the lady doing the scan (nurse? technician?) did not seem aware that the person concerned had a termination booked in four days, and so spoke hopefully about seeing the foetus.

I told her of the planned termination and although her demeanour did not change towards the patient, she dropped the positive, excitement level down and talked merely about health.

I had an enormous amount of respect for her for that.
The woman I was there with would not have been swayed in her decision (due to individual circumstances) but would have been too embarrassed and proud to say anything, and instead gone along with the role of prospective mother, and died a bit inside otherwise.

Perhaps seeing a foetal heartbeat would be an excellent means to prevent a termination. But let's face it, if you are evil, selfish and depraved enough to terminate, you might just spawn a child twisted and unloved enough to be a burden on the taxpayer.

Of course every life counts. Goodness me, only a monster would murder an unborn child.
Whereas only a pinko commie would want to educate the damn drain on money once it's been squeezed out. Let the 16 year old harlot rhome school it!
It could end up being President after all.

ETA
Sorry. Crossness.
Sundae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 04:52 PM   #590
Clodfobble
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundae
The woman I was there with would not have been swayed in her decision (due to individual circumstances) but would have been too embarrassed and proud to say anything, and instead gone along with the role of prospective mother, and died a bit inside otherwise.
Heh... interesting choice of phrase, there. [/going to hell]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundae
Perhaps seeing a foetal heartbeat would be an excellent means to prevent a termination.
It does convince a fair few to change their minds. Each person can never predict how they'll feel until they're living it. Long ago I got into a heated argument with a friend, because some doctor had written an editorial at the time saying that all female patients should be given basic education on prenatal health and encouraged to take a prenatal vitamin every day, even if they had no intention of ever having children. Because healthier eggs means less chance of birth defects, just in case one happened to meet a rogue sperm even against its creator's wishes.

She was full of righteous anger about how she "shouldn't be defined by her ability to procreate," and that it was "typical patriarchal condescension to assume that a woman who found herself accidentally pregnant would suddenly be changing her mind," as if we're all "controlled by uterine hormones and aren't capable of rational thought."

I didn't bother telling her that yes, I think all of us are controlled by chemical processes far more than we'd like to believe; I just stuck with the insistence that when 50% of the births in this country are unplanned, obviously someone out there is changing their minds. Three years ago, that same friend got accidentally pregnant, and they decided to keep it. I asked her if she remembered our conversation from back in college, and she laughed and said, "Yeah, but this is different now." Uh huh. Sure it is. (Would have been even more ironic if her kid were born with a birth defect, but he wasn't.)


But I do agree that it's a rather abhorrent position, to claim that it is that important to make sure every gamete grows to term, yet cut off any type of support to those children as soon as they've drawn breath.
Clodfobble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 02:27 AM   #591
Sundae
polaroid of perfection
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 24,185
Yeah, I was on my high horse last night.
I support the right of every woman to choose for herself.
I'm conflicted over the rights of the father, so best not to go there!

Not having children I can't imagine the immediate bond after a baby is born, and how an unplanned pregnancy can become a source of love and joy. I think in terms of unwanted. This is obviously not always the case. I was unplanned, as was my neice.

A complete aside, but what you wrote reminded me, Clod.
I had a friend at school who had racist parents. Openly, old-school racists who thought the Blacks and the Pakis were ruining this country. My friend said she would never even date a black man, not because she was racist but because it wouldn't be fair. Why? Because if you start dating you might get serious. If you got serious you would get married and then have a child (this was the 80s - we still thought in that order).

As far as she was concerned there was nothing crueller than having a mixed race/ dual heritage child. They would be neither black nor white and could never fit in anywhere. That really shocked me.

Fast forward 15 years and she was in an intense relationship with a music producer. Black. I reminded her of the conversation and she flat out denied it. Puzzled, I pushed a bit and she got extermely defensive. I backed off. Okay. I thought she'd shrug it off like your friend, admit her views had changed.
Sundae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 06:47 AM   #592
richlevy
King Of Wishful Thinking
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Posts: 6,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundae View Post
Of course every life counts. Goodness me, only a monster would murder an unborn child.
Whereas only a pinko commie would want to educate the damn drain on money once it's been squeezed out. Let the 16 year old harlot rhome school it!
It could end up being President after all.

ETA
Sorry. Crossness.
Remind me never to get you pissed. But seriously, you are correct. Santorum is a staunch anti-abortionist, although his wife's life may have been saved by a terminated pregnancy. He is against government involvement in schooling, promoting home-schooling, although he requested 'cyber-schooling' for his children.

There is a bit of hypocrisy in many Conservatives arguments about government scope and cost - more of an 'I got mine, but none for you' mentality.

As far as abortion is concerned, people forget that there is reason the position is stated as 'pro-choice'. Supporters will just a vigorously defend a woman's right to take a baby to term if the government were to ever attempt to force an abortion, as China is alleged to have done.

In personal circumstances, I have always backed a woman's right to choose. I would support some kind of informed consent, but not from any biased source and certainly not the kind I have seen proposed.

Quote:
Santorum was mired in a residence controversy after stating that he spent only "maybe a month a year" at his Pennsylvania home.[94] Critics pointed out that Santorum himself had once denounced his former opponent U.S. Representative Doug Walgren for living away from his House district.[95] Critics also complained that Pennsylvania taxpayers were paying 80% of the tuition for five of Santorum's children to attend an online "cyber school"–a benefit available only to Pennsylvania residents.[96] After the Penn Hills school district challenged the Santorum's residency and billed Santorum $73,000, he withdrew the children from the cyber school, and suggested they were being used as political pawns by his opponents.[96]
__________________
Exercise your rights and remember your obligations - VOTE!
I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting. -- Barack Hussein Obama

Last edited by richlevy; 02-26-2012 at 06:56 AM.
richlevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 01:18 PM   #593
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
The Oscars are up for grabs tonight,
and "The Artist" is a contender.

Here is the Romney entry

Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 07:21 PM   #594
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
I just noticed this ad on FB ...

Quote:
Pennsylvania Republicans are trying to change the rules of how our votes
will be counted in the 2012 Presidential election. As the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote,
“state Republicans are trying to rig the nation’s antiquated election system to their advantage.”

This is nothing short of an effort to steal the Presidency and disenfranchise the people of Pennsylvania –
and we need your help to fight back.

Instead of awarding Pennsylvania’s electoral votes as a unified state, Republicans want to localize
the electoral votes by Congressional District. This will guarantee that Republicans get
a significant number of electoral votes from Pennsylvania and sacrifice our Commonwealth’s
power as a swing state.

Enough! Use the form to the right to stand with Pennsylvania Democrats against this
historic power grab and assert your right to be counted in Presidential election.
Attached Images
 
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 07:22 PM   #595
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Think this should be done everywhere. Why/why not?

It could potentially get more people to vote.
It would give each vote more weight. It would certainly be a more accurate reflection of "the people"
It'd be a heck of a lot more fun watching the totals on election night.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 01:25 AM   #596
ZenGum
Doctor Wtf
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Badelaide, Baustralia
Posts: 12,861
I've been telling you guys that for years.

Heck, why congressional districts? Put all the votes in a big pile, count em up. Whoever gets the most votes wins.


We'll talk about transferable preference voting some other time.

(snickers... When you're ready for it.)
__________________
Shut up and hug. MoreThanPretty, Nov 5, 2008.
Just because I'm nominally polite, does not make me a pussy. Sundae Girl.
ZenGum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 07:31 AM   #597
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman View Post
It'd be a heck of a lot more fun watching the totals on election night.
Was Florida 2000 fun? A switch from winner takes all to splitting it up will make the elections closer, and more likely to be tied up with legal challenges.

But the will of the people would be more accurately reflected.

I don't know. Maybe the benefits outweigh the problems it would cause. The Republicans, who claim a mandate every time they win an election, would finally have to STFU about the alleged mandates they have.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 11:13 AM   #598
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt View Post
But the will of the people would be more accurately reflected.
Win.
Quote:
Maybe the benefits outweigh the problems it would cause.
Win
Quote:
The Republicans, would finally have to STFU about the alleged mandates they have.
Win.

C'mon, its a win win win. You in?
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 11:22 AM   #599
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
I have a better idea...

On election day, everyone brings a $100 dollar bill,
and puts it into the separate ballot box for the candidate of their choice.

Whoever gets the least $ is the winner.
Everyone else takes their $ and goes home.

Saves lots of time, eliminates the poor from voting, government continues to be run by bureaucrats.

Win, win, win... you in ?
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 11:24 AM   #600
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
States should adopt laws that would move them to proportional representation if all other states had similar laws. Otherwise, all that would happen when one state went proportional is that the remaining winner-take-all states would become even more important.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:08 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.