Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 07:53:43
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
dogma wrote: jasper76 wrote:
1. She married Bill Clinton.
2. She stayed married to Bill Clinton.
3. She is still married to Bill Clinton.
Bill Hilary Clinton, 2016!
Yep, only the man matters. Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton never did anything before she acquired the surname "Clinton".
v
I can see how what I said might be construed as sexist, but I really don't think it is.
Whemby is correct. Hilary Clinton does not really have too many astounding credentials. To wit, I challenge you to name 3 major accomplishments she has made that lend toward her credibility as a Presidential hopeful, beyond just being elected or appointed. And don't look anything up either, just tell us what you know of off-hand.
However, Bill Clinton is just loaded with accomplishments, as well as mistakes, many of which he has admitted to (most recently that his "tough on crime" policies led to way, way too many people in prison, which is no small thing for someone to fess up to). Anyone above 35 knows that the country has not seen such prosperous times as it did during the Clinton administration. Even Republican partisans are largely agreed on this. I am very comfortable with Hilary Clinton as President, because Bill Clinton as First Lady would be far more effective than GW Bush or Obama have been as POTUS.
And to flex some "I am not sexist" muscles, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren without question if she were running against Hilary Roddam Clinton in 2016, or if you could transport her back in time and run her against Bill Clinton.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/06/05 07:59:30
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 08:25:16
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
jasper76 wrote:
Whemby is correct. Hilary Clinton does not really have too many astounding credentials. To wit, I challenge you to name 3 major accomplishments she has made that lend toward her credibility as a Presidential hopeful, beyond just being elected or appointed. And don't look anything up either, just tell us what you know of off-hand.
I already answered that question, and you're digging your sexist hole even deeper.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 08:34:34
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
Here was your answer to Whembley's question:
Are you implying that earning a prestigious job title is not an accomplishment, or something which that person did? If so, that seems awfully close to riffing off the argument conservatives claim Obama made in the "You din't build that" speech.
If you think that gaining a prestigious job title qualifies you to be President of the United States, you're welcome to that opinion. I'd prefer actual accomplishments, not just successful job applications.
And if I'm sexist for anything I have said, so be it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/05 08:35:30
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 09:00:59
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
sebster wrote:
On Perry’s thing about taking credit, it’s really a load of crap. For starters, you can’t pick single states out of the national figures and pretend they’re their own thing. There’s still a Federal govt above you, that collects more taxes from your state and more on your people than you do.
Isn't Texas one of those states that gets more in Federal aid than they give in taxes?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 09:11:13
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
skyth wrote: sebster wrote:
On Perry’s thing about taking credit, it’s really a load of crap. For starters, you can’t pick single states out of the national figures and pretend they’re their own thing. There’s still a Federal govt above you, that collects more taxes from your state and more on your people than you do.
Isn't Texas one of those states that gets more in Federal aid than they give in taxes?
Wallethub has them rated as #24. Texas is more dependent on the federal government than most states in the union, but only by 2 states.
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/06/05 09:17:55
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 09:21:18
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
jasper76 wrote:
If you think that gaining a prestigious job title qualifies you to be President of the United States, you're welcome to that opinion.
I know for a fact that earning a prestigious job title is one of the main ways politicians sell themselves to voters.
jasper76 wrote:
I'd prefer actual accomplishments, not just successful job applications.
What did Warren accomplish, per your definition?
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 09:26:51
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
dogma wrote: jasper76 wrote:
If you think that gaining a prestigious job title qualifies you to be President of the United States, you're welcome to that opinion.
I know for a fact that earning a prestigious job title is one of the main ways politicians sell themselves to voters.
jasper76 wrote:
I'd prefer actual accomplishments, not just successful job applications.
What did Warren accomplish, per your definition?
Meaningful Credit Card reform. That;s more than Hilary has done, anyway.
TBH, I am not so much impressed by Elizabeth Warren's accomplishments as I am with her sheer intelligence coupled with the vision she creates of how the US should be. She paints a picture of a future I want to live in. Hilary Clinton, by contrast, presents a vision of herself as President, and little else, at this stage in that game at least.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/06/05 09:41:03
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 09:43:03
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
jasper76 wrote:
Meaningful Credit Card reform. That;s more than Hilary has done, anyway.
Warren advocated the CARD act, sure, but she had a lot of help.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 09:56:17
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
dogma wrote: jasper76 wrote:
Meaningful Credit Card reform. That;s more than Hilary has done, anyway.
Warren advocated the CARD act, sure, but she had a lot of help.
I was watching her do interviews about the very reforms that were enacted by CARD at least 2 years before the legislation was even proposed. Sure she had help. Who doesn't? But she was the champion of those reforms well before the name "Elizabeth Warren" was nationally recognized.
Why are we arguing over Elizabeth Warren again? She's not even running for President.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/06/05 10:01:16
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 11:36:47
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
jasper76 wrote:
Why are we arguing over Elizabeth Warren again? She's not even running for President.
You seem to believe she accomplished more than Hillary Clinton.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 11:44:39
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
dogma wrote: jasper76 wrote:
1. She married Bill Clinton.
2. She stayed married to Bill Clinton.
3. She is still married to Bill Clinton.
Bill Hilary Clinton, 2016!
Yep, only the man matters. Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton never did anything before she acquired the surname "Clinton".
Is this before or after she took money from Tyson while Bill was governor of Arkansas?
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 12:06:45
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
dogma wrote: jasper76 wrote:
Why are we arguing over Elizabeth Warren again? She's not even running for President.
You seem to believe she accomplished more than Hillary Clinton.
Yes, I do. Safeguarding the titles of "First Lady of Arkansas", "First Lady of the United States", "Senator of New York" and "Secretary of State" don't really qualify as accomplishments in my opinion. I've known plenty of useless people with fancy positions and fancy titles in my life. Show me more. Please list the concrete things she has done to improve the lives of Americans. Believe me, I'm all ears. I thought about Whembley's question (with whom I disagree with almost everything politically), and I even took the time to look it up online to try to find a decent rebuttal, and even with a bit of research, I could find nothing remarkable at all.
|
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2015/06/05 12:15:29
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 13:15:04
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
jasper76 wrote:I've known plenty of useless people with fancy positions and fancy titles in my life.
Me too, but I would bet the useless people we've known didn't tend to accumulate fancy titles and positions.
jasper76 wrote:
Please list the concrete things she has done to improve the lives of Americans.
She was a major figure in the passage of SCHIP, she pushed for women's issues to be recognized, pushed for recovery funding in the wake of 9/11, and she supported health benefits for veterans. All of these are things she has done, or tried to do, in large part because the lives of Americans would be improved as a result.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 13:21:57
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
dogma wrote: jasper76 wrote:I've known plenty of useless people with fancy positions and fancy titles in my life.
Me too, but I would bet the useless people we've known didn't tend to accumulate fancy titles and positions.
jasper76 wrote:
Please list the concrete things she has done to improve the lives of Americans.
She was a major figure in the passage of SCHIP, she pushed for women's issues to be recognized, pushed for recovery funding in the wake of 9/11, and she supported health benefits for veterans. All of these are things she has done, or tried to do, in large part because the lives of Americans would be improved as a result.
I'll have to look up SCHIP. But come on dude...who doesn't push for women's issues to be recognized? Who didn't push for 9/11 recovery funding? Who doesn't support health benefits for veterans? What has she actually achieved?
It's easy to run Hilary against the religious sociopaths on the right-right-wing, but the things you've listed are things any John or Jane Doe in Congress might have done.
I will look up SCHIP, but for the other things, talk is cheap. Show me accomplishments, not just support of mainstream causes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OK, I've read enough already to know that SCHIP is something legit she can run on. Especially since it was a bipartisan effort with an entrenched Republican.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/05 13:26:15
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 15:17:28
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
jasper76 wrote:But come on dude...who doesn't push for women's issues to be recognized?
Lots of politicians who want to appeal to US conservatives.
jasper76 wrote:
Who didn't push for 9/11 recovery funding? Who doesn't support health benefits for veterans? What has she actually achieved?
You're making it seem more, and more like your standard for Hillary's achievements is anything Hillary can't be characterized as having achieved.
jasper76 wrote:
It's easy to run Hilary against the religious sociopaths on the right-right-wing, but the things you've listed are things any John or Jane Doe in Congress might have done.
A John Doe, perhaps.
jasper76 wrote:
OK, I've read enough already to know that SCHIP is something legit she can run on. Especially since it was a bipartisan effort with an entrenched Republican.
So it is evidence of bipartisanship, something which she can run on.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 16:25:04
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/05 16:30:15
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 16:26:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
@dogma: The old religious guard is dead, its last major gasp was spent on Santorum's failed run at the GOP nomination in 2012.
The general populous just isn't bothered with "Pro-Life" issues anymore, nor are they bothered with "Sanctity of Marriage" or whatever phrase is put on these private matters these days.
The segment of the population that is bothered with these issued is either dying or in a marginalized, bleating, beaten pack of those desperates still clinging on to whatever morale legitimacy they might have claimed before the Christian pedophilia scandals.
Social Conservatives have consigned themselves to general irrelavancy amongst the population,
Hopefully one day we will get a no-nuts, no-magic, no-cards-attached fiscal conservative winning the GOP primary so we can regain a 2 party system debating actual issues, not manufactured ones.
Like:
How the frack do we remove our interests from the perperual warzone that is the religious epicenter of the western world?
How the frack do we transform our entire energy system off of oil?
How the frack do we help to curb our planet from becoming Venus?
How the frack do we become a society where millions of people don't end up in prison, living off the public teat?
These are the types of questions our Senate, House, and Presidential hopefuls should be debating. Not whether we offer the poorest of our citizens basic healthcare, or whether a fetus is a human, or a human, is a fetus, or Charles Darwin was the Devil incarnate from the Pits of Hell.
|
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2015/06/05 16:44:49
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 18:03:07
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
That they don't debate those issues isn't because anyone is or isn't religious. The US political establishment doesn't want to debate how to move away from fossil fuels, how to end global warming or anything else you care to mention because they already agree with the current state of affairs. They have nothing to debate. The fundamental economic policy is unchallenged.
Keeping global warming to manageable levels would require a massive overhaul not just of how the global economic and industrial system works but why it works. We have ended up where we are now as a logical conclusion to private, for-profit industry and we aren't going anywhere else unless we change that. Neither conservatives nor liberals are interested in doing anything of the sort.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 18:10:43
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
jasper76 wrote:
Social Conservatives have consigned themselves to general irrelavancy amongst the population,
Hopefully one day we will get a no-nuts, no-magic, no-cards-attached fiscal conservative winning the GOP primary so we can regain a 2 party system debating actual issues, not manufactured ones.
Like:
How the frack do we remove our interests from the perperual warzone that is the religious epicenter of the western world?
How the frack do we transform our entire energy system off of oil?
How the frack do we help to curb our planet from becoming Venus?
How the frack do we become a society where millions of people don't end up in prison, living off the public teat?
These are the types of questions our Senate, House, and Presidential hopefuls should be debating. Not whether we offer the poorest of our citizens basic healthcare, or whether a fetus is a human, or a human, is a fetus, or Charles Darwin was the Devil incarnate from the Pits of Hell.
Actually, I wouldnt say that Social Conservatives have consigned themselves to irrelevancy. I personally know a couple who describe themselves as conservative, but are pro-gay marriage and generally are more accepting of certain planks.... Because their argument isn't one of biblical conservatism or religiously based conservatism. That example of SSM, their argument for it, is that children who are raised in 2 parent households do better than single parent households. To them, the "Traditional American family" is 2 parents, 2.5 kids, white picket fence and a dog. It isn't a 1 man +1 woman marriage, 2.5 kids, etc. view.
And I would posit that you wouldn't have to look very hard to find that sort of conservatism around the country.
How do we reduce oil consumption? Nuclear power... to paraphrase Palin: React baby react!!
How do we not become Venus? Shoot a ton of sulfur into the air! woo!!! (OK, maybe not seriously) This one is a bit more of a pickle, because I think it is tied in part to consumption of oil as well as the still rampant deforestation of some areas of the globe.
How do we keep people out of prison, or living on public assistance? Ask Bernie Sanders, he seems to have a few ideas in that regard. I think that, instead of arguing whether teaching a certain subject in school is moral based on christianity, I think we should be arguing whether it's moral for people like the Koch brothers, or the Walton family to be thriving and swimming in money due to business practices that cost the government more money than they actually put in, while the very people they employ are the ones on the public assistance.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 19:07:12
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Rosebuddy wrote:That they don't debate those issues isn't because anyone is or isn't religious. The US political establishment doesn't want to debate how to move away from fossil fuels, how to end global warming or anything else you care to mention because they already agree with the current state of affairs. They have nothing to debate. The fundamental economic policy is unchallenged.
Keeping global warming to manageable levels would require a massive overhaul not just of how the global economic and industrial system works but why it works. We have ended up where we are now as a logical conclusion to private, for-profit industry and we aren't going anywhere else unless we change that. Neither conservatives nor liberals are interested in doing anything of the sort.
It's not that dude... it's the fact that our elected officials are nothing more than Nascar Drivers beholden to their sponsors.
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 19:13:49
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
Ensis Ferrae wrote: jasper76 wrote:
Social Conservatives have consigned themselves to general irrelavancy amongst the population,
Hopefully one day we will get a no-nuts, no-magic, no-cards-attached fiscal conservative winning the GOP primary so we can regain a 2 party system debating actual issues, not manufactured ones.
Like:
How the frack do we remove our interests from the perperual warzone that is the religious epicenter of the western world?
How the frack do we transform our entire energy system off of oil?
How the frack do we help to curb our planet from becoming Venus?
How the frack do we become a society where millions of people don't end up in prison, living off the public teat?
These are the types of questions our Senate, House, and Presidential hopefuls should be debating. Not whether we offer the poorest of our citizens basic healthcare, or whether a fetus is a human, or a human, is a fetus, or Charles Darwin was the Devil incarnate from the Pits of Hell.
Actually, I wouldnt say that Social Conservatives have consigned themselves to irrelevancy. I personally know a couple who describe themselves as conservative, but are pro-gay marriage and generally are more accepting of certain planks.... Because their argument isn't one of biblical conservatism or religiously based conservatism. That example of SSM, their argument for it, is that children who are raised in 2 parent households do better than single parent households. To them, the "Traditional American family" is 2 parents, 2.5 kids, white picket fence and a dog. It isn't a 1 man +1 woman marriage, 2.5 kids, etc. view.
If there are now social conservatives that are pro-gay marriage, that fact would clearly demonstrate that the old religious guard has ceded the issue to its progressive opponents, which in turn would suggest that its lost its hold on the general American imagination as a source of moral authority, and good riddance if you ask me...they never did anything much to deserve that status except to fleece the credulous, and have certainly done their utmost to prove that they are unfit for such a role in society.
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/06/05 19:29:01
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 19:36:46
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
jasper76 wrote:@dogma: The old religious guard is dead, its last major gasp was spent on Santorum's failed run at the GOP nomination in 2012.
The general populous just isn't bothered with "Pro-Life" issues anymore, nor are they bothered with "Sanctity of Marriage" or whatever phrase is put on these private matters these days.
The segment of the population that is bothered with these issued is either dying or in a marginalized, bleating, beaten pack of those desperates still clinging on to whatever morale legitimacy they might have claimed before the Christian pedophilia scandals.
Social Conservatives have consigned themselves to general irrelavancy amongst the population,
Hopefully one day we will get a no-nuts, no-magic, no-cards-attached fiscal conservative winning the GOP primary so we can regain a 2 party system debating actual issues, not manufactured ones.
I agree and disagree to a certain extent...
“Conservative” in the American political sense tends to mean a vision for government that is more modest in terms of size and scope than the current establishment Republicans and their close relatives, Democrats and lefties. It’s much more in line with the constitutional limits placed on the federal government at the founding.
In other words, the anti- Statist group compared to the opposition.
Like anything else, there's different strains of conservatives, such as the religious right and the Tea Party. I think collectively, over time, the Conservative brands is moving away from single voter issues, towards a more unified smaller government/Individual freedom group.
'Tis why I think there's a movement on SSM.
It's still a bloody mess though, as with any large groups, it'll be like herding cats across the river.
Like:
How the frack do we remove our interests from the perperual warzone that is the religious epicenter of the western world?
If you want to go full isolationist mode, you can. However, in the global economy, you really can't.
How the frack do we transform our entire energy system off of oil?
The kitchen sink method. Oil, drilling technique, fracking, coal, wind, solar, NUKES. All of it. Oh, allow extractions on federal lands and ocean sites.
How the frack do we help to curb our planet from becoming Venus?
O.o no where near Venus dude.
How the frack do we become a society where millions of people don't end up in prison, living off the public teat?
Majoring loaded question.
-Reform criminal justice code
-Reform incarceration institution (no know profit outfits!)
-Social pressure on cavalier welfare distribution
These are the types of questions our Senate, House, and Presidential hopefuls should be debating.
Sure.
Not whether we offer the poorest of our citizens basic healthcare,
Why not? Healthcare is important. The PPACA has jacked up the entire industry.
or whether a fetus is a human, or a human, is a fetus,
O.o Why not? So far, the science is at the point where a 20-week can survive outside of the womb. Conversely, cutting a baby out of a womb in Colorado isn't murder...evidently. These are questions that politicians ought engage the public. or Charles Darwin was the Devil incarnate from the Pits of Hell.
Nah... that's Justin Beiber.
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 19:42:01
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
jasper76 wrote:
If there are now social conservatives that are pro-gay marriage, that fact would clearly demonstrate that the old religious guard has ceded the issue to its progressive opponents, which in turn would suggest that its lost its hold on the general American imagination as a source of moral authority, and good riddance if you ask me...they never did anything much to deserve that status except to fleece the credulous, and have certainly done their utmost to prove that they are unfit for such a role in society.
I personally think like you, that the religious "old guard" has lost power in general. They do remain however, as the most vocal of conservative groups, and probably more vocal than some progressive groups as well.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 19:50:42
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
whembly wrote:
O.o Why not? So far, the science is at the point where a 20-week can survive outside of the womb. Conversely, cutting a baby out of a womb in Colorado isn't murder...evidently.
I'll examine and respond to all of your responses if I feel a need, but this one got me.
I am an atheist, and I do not have a doubt in my mind that when a male human zygote fertilizes a female human zygote, a new human being is formed.
So there you go.
But to enforce that pregnancy to term on women by fiat, with no respect whatsoever for their wish to carry the child to term, is a gross form of immorality that borders on slavery. The religious right would be best served by focusing their efforts on infliuencing their own members to carry pregnancies to term, or to take adoptions, if that is a value they hold, but to attempt to be the controller of that decision for the rest of the populous is at best disgusting.
|
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2015/06/05 19:56:37
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 20:00:54
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
No worries, I don't want get bogged down into that incident as my overall point was that THESE topics are important for political-critters to engage with their voters.
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 20:01:28
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
whembly wrote:Rosebuddy wrote:That they don't debate those issues isn't because anyone is or isn't religious. The US political establishment doesn't want to debate how to move away from fossil fuels, how to end global warming or anything else you care to mention because they already agree with the current state of affairs. They have nothing to debate. The fundamental economic policy is unchallenged.
Keeping global warming to manageable levels would require a massive overhaul not just of how the global economic and industrial system works but why it works. We have ended up where we are now as a logical conclusion to private, for-profit industry and we aren't going anywhere else unless we change that. Neither conservatives nor liberals are interested in doing anything of the sort.
It's not that dude... it's the fact that our elected officials are nothing more than Nascar Drivers beholden to their sponsors.
Which happens because the few have the resources to purchase and manipulate politics and law, which happens because they have the ability to concentrate vast amounts of wealth from the work of the many, which happens because they have ownership of resource extraction and the means of production, which happens because they have enforcers to maintain this right, which... etc etc.
Thinking you just have to replace the politicians themselves is like trying to cut off the tip of the iceberg.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 20:02:28
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Rosebuddy wrote: whembly wrote:Rosebuddy wrote:That they don't debate those issues isn't because anyone is or isn't religious. The US political establishment doesn't want to debate how to move away from fossil fuels, how to end global warming or anything else you care to mention because they already agree with the current state of affairs. They have nothing to debate. The fundamental economic policy is unchallenged.
Keeping global warming to manageable levels would require a massive overhaul not just of how the global economic and industrial system works but why it works. We have ended up where we are now as a logical conclusion to private, for-profit industry and we aren't going anywhere else unless we change that. Neither conservatives nor liberals are interested in doing anything of the sort.
It's not that dude... it's the fact that our elected officials are nothing more than Nascar Drivers beholden to their sponsors.
Which happens because the few have the resources to purchase and manipulate politics and law, which happens because they have the ability to concentrate vast amounts of wealth from the work of the many, which happens because they have ownership of resource extraction and the means of production, which happens because they have enforcers to maintain this right, which... etc etc.
Thinking you just have to replace the politicians themselves is like trying to cut off the tip of the iceberg.
How would you address that then?
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 20:59:31
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
jasper76 wrote:@dogma: The old religious guard is dead, its last major gasp was spent on Santorum's failed run at the GOP nomination in 2012.
Oh, it is most assuredly alive and kicking. It has lost some power at the Presidential level, but it is still quite strong below that. Strong enough that the GOP has to at least pay it lip service, but religiosity isn't really the only issue here.
jasper76 wrote:
The general populous just isn't bothered with "Pro-Life" issues anymore...
Actually the pro-life position has quite a bit of traction, as it is one the easier socially conservative issues to argue for without ever mentioning religion. And an issue I know that otherwise strident Liberals often feel conflicted about, which is to say nothing of the small, but important, group of voting undecideds.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 21:05:55
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Radical restructuring of society to instead use an economic system that is egalitarian. That is, to put it mildly, easier said than done. The current situation is going to break sooner or later, though, and can't provide a solution to the problems it creates. We have precious few other options.
If full communism happened overnight because someone finally found the lamp with the Lenidjinn in it we'd still be quite busy managing the ecological fall-out our industry has so far created.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/05 21:06:30
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/05 21:07:10
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I personally think like you, that the religious "old guard" has lost power in general. They do remain however, as the most vocal of conservative groups, and probably more vocal than some progressive groups as well.
Regardless of characterization, religious groups tend to be very easy to mobilize due to a common narrative and existential network.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
|