Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anti Incumbent Results

FroMan (111520) writes | more than 3 years ago

User Journal 102

We've been told by the majority of the of the media that there was an anti-incumbent feeling nationwide. Lets look at some numbers.

In the house 43 incumbents lost their seats, 2 of them being Republican and 41 being Democrat. In the senate we also have none of the Republicans in the general election losing their seat compared to 6 of the Democrat seats lost (as of this writing, 2 yet to be determined).

We've been told by the majority of the of the media that there was an anti-incumbent feeling nationwide. Lets look at some numbers.

In the house 43 incumbents lost their seats, 2 of them being Republican and 41 being Democrat. In the senate we also have none of the Republicans in the general election losing their seat compared to 6 of the Democrat seats lost (as of this writing, 2 yet to be determined).

The numbers don't look like an anti-incumbent feeling to me. They look like anti-Democrat.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

8.5% turnover (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34120086)

A little higher than normal, but no all that remarkable. All the power players are still in place. I'll be more impressed when both factions are thrown out. That might make the Party a bit more nervous.. Eh whatever... enjoy reliving the 90s

Re:8.5% turnover (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#34122172)

All the power players are still in place.

Legend:
R - Re-elected
N - Not up for re-election
D - Didn't run
L - Lost re-election

From: http://democrats.senate.gov/leadership/ [senate.gov]

R - Harry Reid
R - Daniel Inouye
N - Dick Durbin
R - Charles Schumer
R*- Patty Murray
D - Byron Dorgan (state went Republican)
N - Debbie Stabenow
N - Jeff Bingaman
L - Blanche Lincoln
R - Barbara Boxer
N - Thomas Carper
N - Bill Nelson
L - Russell Feingold

*Leading in the vote count

(Note: I would count Chris Dodd as a member of the leadership in the Senate, being one of the primary asswipes responsible for the housing crisis. He decided not to run again, but the seat was retained by the Dems.)

From: http://www.historyguy.com/house_democrat_leadership.html [historyguy.com] (and with Rahm Emanuel out of the leadership and Chris Van Hollen in)

R - Nancy Pelosi
R - Steny Hoyer
R - Chris Van Hollen
R - James E. Clyburn
R - John Larson
R - Xavier Becerra
R - Rosa DeLauro
R - George Miller
R - John Lewis
R - G.K. Butterfield
R - Joe Crowley
R - Diana DeGette
R - Ed Pastor
R - Jan Schakowsky
D - John Tanner (district went Republican)
R - Debbie Wassserman Schultz
R - Maxine Waters

(Note: I would count Bawney Fwank as a member of the leadership in the House, being one of the primary asswipes responsible for the housing crisis. He was re-elected.)

So, taking the D's as L's, since those seats were lost to the GOP:

Senate: 3 of the pretty much lower-half members of the party leadership team out of 13 are gone, or the upper 77% of the Dem party leadership in the Senate is still intact. (Or looked at another way, 3 defeats out of 8 being up, for a 63% retention rate (of the more high-ranking/responsible/culpable leaders) for this term.)

House: 1 of the lower-level members of the party leadership team out of 17 is gone, or the upper 94% of the Dem party leadership in the House is still intact.

The numbers don't look very strongly anti-Democrat to me. Basically all the power players are indeed still in place.

(I didn't compile a list for incumbency on the GOP side.) (And WTF is it with every news site insisting on a damn Flash-based election results display, esp. with its current, well-publicized security bugs? I just am not enabling Flash. Browser plug-ins for rendering auxiliary web content must die. What's wrong with good ole image maps, and textual election results hardly require outside code execution. Arg. Web devs are forgetting even the most basic of our tools. </soapbox>)

Re:8.5% turnover (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34124478)

When you look at the map, it does appear a bit lopsided. Means nothing. It's just a coin toss. And it's always the same coin every time. There is only one coin. Pick yer side for what it's worth.. The guy will still come up to you say, "Pay me", no matter which way it goes.

You're not kidding about that Flash shit... It's as bad as Slashdot's javacrap, or what ever the hell they're running these days. Oh well, if there ever was any question as to where your bandwidth is going, it should have been answered by now.

Re:8.5% turnover (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34122630)

enjoy reliving the 90s

No, this ain't the 90s. In the 90s we had a center-left president and a right-wing legislature. Now we have a right-wing president and a right-wing legislature. This is the (worst of) the 80s coming back again.

Re:8.5% turnover (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34123738)

There is nothing right wing about Obama. He's further left than McGovern, and is about as far left as Chairman Mao.

Re:8.5% turnover (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34125638)

Ahh, you're such a cute little coward, in trying to refute the truth with nonsense. Too bad you're too ashamed of that trolling to even put a login name behind it; hence many people won't even see it.

But perhaps that was the point?

Re:8.5% turnover (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34123836)

Oh c'mon... There was nothing "left" about Clinton.. He was bailing out Wall Street and signing death warrants also. The asshole expanded the death penalty, signed the defense of marriage act, DMCA, etc. He also tried to dramatically increase his spy powers with clipper chips and export restrictions. He did manage to keep his wars in the background, but there he was, bombing Iraq and Europe, and afghanistan, too, no?. Not too many people were complaining then. Why not? Because it wasn't Bush? And then the economy tanked at the end of his term too. He was just like the rest. Even Obama has thrown more bones to the civil rights crowd. Which, notably, is completely off the radar now. No talk whatsoever during the campaign. Nothing. The differences amongst these people is so microscopic, and yet all of you try to make make them galactic in nature.

Nothing to add (0, Troll)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34124428)

I see people actually trying to make the case that Obama and Clinton are right-wing, and I have to laugh and go about my merry way.

Well, I have one thing to add: Bill Dog makes a point, though I don't agree fully with his conclusion: this was not a fully anti-Dem year, but it was a vote against full Dem control, and also in part a correction of the shift from 2006/2008.

But, I think it would have been a much bigger shift had the GOP not screwed up so big on fiscal matters in the last decade, AND if the GOP had fielded better candidates in Delaware and Nevada and so on. So here's the point: if the GOP actually acts conservatively over the next two years (proving themselves to rightfully skeptical voters), and if they get a good candidate at the top of the ticket (increasing turnout for the rest of the ticket), and if they learn how to work with the conservative base to field good conservative candidates (instead of making it a race between a moderate establishment candidate and untested conservative candidate) ... then this is just the beginning, and the GOP sweeps the legislature in 2012, and maybe wins the Presidency too.

But if they fail to act conservatively now, they won't get that chance. And if they do win in 2012, and THEN blow it, they won't get another chance, and people like me will look to start a new conservative party.

OK, I lied, I had a bit to add.

Re:Nothing to add (2, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34125788)

Obama and Clinton are right-wing

Indeed, Obama is a right-wing president. He kept many of the economic and war advisers that his right-wing predecessor hired on.

In order for you to make a case against that statement, you can't just brush it off. You need to actually point to legislation that Obama has signed that Bush would not have signed. And you will have a very hard time doing that.

OK, I lied

You could do yourself a favor by doing that less often.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34126582)

He's saying Bush is a lefty also. And Nixon, hoo boy, he was downright radical!

Pudge is a McKinley type. You know. Let business run wild, start war on false pretenses, ignore civil rights law, etc, etc. And they had an early version of FOX news back then. Hearst made Murdoch look like a poser. The comparisons to today(well, nine years ago) are uncanny. Remember the Maine! (never forget) Ah, those were the days. When people knew their place and kept their heads down, eyes forward, and their mouths shut.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34126964)

Pudge is a McKinley type

I rather doubt it. After all, McKinley did fight for the union in the US Civil war. Now that is downright treasonous by modern conservative standards; a good federalist would always fight for more independence from the centralized government!

And of course on top of that, as governor of Ohio McKinley sent food and supplies to underpaid miners - that is circumventing the always benevolent intentions of the invisible hand of the free market!

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128886)

Now that is downright treasonous by modern conservative standards; a good federalist would always fight for more independence from the centralized government!

Wow, you're stupid. How can you not realize that the LEADER of the federalists was also the strongest voice for the importance of a strong -- by their standards, though not ours today -- central government?

Try reading a book, or something.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131550)

How can you not realize that the LEADER of the federalists was also the strongest voice for the importance of a strong -- by their standards, though not ours today -- central government?

Where exactly do you think you're going with that? I was only alluding to the fact that conservatives of your type often like to quote the federalist papers.

Try reading a book, or something.

Your hatred has gotten the better of you, yet again.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130084)

It's pretty easy to find some good in anybody. Hell, Pablo Escobar built schools and hospitals with some of his drug money. Hardly changes my opinion of him.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34135168)

It's pretty easy to find some good in anybody. Hell, Pablo Escobar built schools and hospitals with some of his drug money. Hardly changes my opinion of him

I'm really not looking for "good" versus "evil", rather I was looking at some of the historical acts from McKinley that are distinctly non-conservative. For that matter, one of his last requests was that the crowd not murder the man who shot him. Would you really expect that of any current conservative? Hell, the conservatives in Texas recently sped up the process for execution for crimes committed with credible witnesses...

Re:Nothing to add (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34139136)

Well, I can't say Mckinley would pass pudge's "True Scotsman" test. But he seems at least as "conservative" an any republican from the 60s onward.. I will grant those facts you mention, but to me, they're a bit anecdotal, not really part of the big picture of what he represented in general.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34159444)

Hell, the conservatives in Texas recently sped up the process for execution for crimes committed with white witnesses...

FTFY

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128858)

Pudge is a McKinley type. You know. Let business run wild

Except, of course, no. I want business to be free to act as it pleases, yes, but not to violate anyone's rights, to cause them harm.

start war on false pretenses

Yeah, um, you have zero evidence supporting this assertion. Why must you lie? In fact, I stated publicly I didn't believe that Iraq had an active WMD program, before the invasion. Nothing in my reasons for invading Iraq was false.

ignore civil rights law

Yeah, now you're just flat-out making things up. You have no evidence, ever, of me supporting any such thing.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129198)

I want business to be free to act as it pleases, yes, but not to violate anyone's rights, to cause them harm.

Sounds awfully "progressive" to me. Better watch out. You "conservative" purity is becoming suspect.

Why must you lie?

Me? lie? Perish the thought! All "reasoning" and "evidence" presented for invading Iraq was false. And you forgot Afghanistan... same applies there also. If you support any aspect of these wars, except the resistance to it and invaders, my statement holds up very well.

...You have no evidence, ever, of me supporting any such thing.

Your silence on the matter is sufficient.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129360)

Sounds awfully "progressive" to me.

No, it doesn't. Quote the opposite: progressives want to force corporations to do what THEY think is in the best interests of everyone else, not merely restrain them from causing harm. The libertarian, free-market, view is to merely restrain them from causing harm.

Of course, some of this is in the definition of "harm." Progressives think that hurting someone's feelings, or doing so well that competitive businesses fail, is causing "harm." They are silly.

All "reasoning" and "evidence" presented for invading Iraq was false.

Incorrect. FACT: Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire agreement of 1991 and following. FACT: Iraq refused to fully comply with the latest resolution. FACT: the UN promised, and Iraq agreed, that the UN would use force if Iraq ultimately didn't comply. FACT: the U.S., as a signatory to those agreements and a party to the conflict of 1991, and an ally of several nations that Iraq posed a constant threat to, had a sovereign right to use force, in absence of Iraqi compliance, when the UN broke its promise to do so.

This is the legal justification, and it's unassailable. The moral justification, to me, is that Iraq, if left unchecked, would continue to be a massive destabilizing force in the region that would eventually contribute to a regional conflict that might even have become a World War. Any horrors that have come from our invasion pale in comparison to what I think was likely to happen if we left Hussein in power.

You can say you disagree with that, but as it is a prediction that can no longer be demonstrated to be true or false, you cannot say it is false.

And you forgot Afghanistan... same applies there also.

You're a moron. The evidence there is simple: the people who attacked us lived there, and we wanted to get them, and the Afghanistan government wouldn't allow us. What more is needed than that?

If you support any aspect of these wars, except the resistance to it and invaders, my statement holds up very well.

Obviously, no.

Your silence on the matter is sufficient.

Obviously, no. I know that progressives like to make up their own rules, but if you cannot come up with a SINGLE EXAMPLE of a civil rights law I've supported ignoring, then you're proven to be a liar.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129952)

BAH! Redundant argument. And you're just as full of it now as you were then. Go back and relive it if you want. Come up with something truthful if you want to get anywhere, I don't want truthy.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130918)

BAH! Redundant argument. And you're just as full of it now as you were then.

Shrug. You can't demonstrate a single part of it to be false, despite your claim. Especially since all of it but the prediction is demonstrated fact, and the prediction cannot be demonstrated as false or fact.

Come up with something truthful if you want to get anywhere

You know, when I lay out unassailable facts, and then you complain that I didn't, it only exposes you as a moron.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140734)

Bleh... boring... You need some fresh material.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34159448)

You have to admit that the work he did on the eliza-pudge slashbot is much more entertaining than the work he did on the website itself.

Re:Nothing to add (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34128550)

You need to actually point to legislation that Obama has signed that Bush would not have signed.

Stimulus, ObamaCare, Wall Street "Reform", installing Tax Cheat Timmy Geithner as Treasury Secretary... and the list goes on and on.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128844)

You're a pretty lousy troll, putting forth this little effort, but I'll play along anyways.

You need to actually point to legislation that Obama has signed that Bush would not have signed.

Stimulus

Bush was all in favor of massive spending. You can't, after all, start two wars without spending tons of money.

ObamaCare

There is no such thing as ObamaCare, no matter how much you may want to claim otherwise.

But if you are instead referring to the health insurance company bailout package, you know that Bush would have signed it. The package gives huge amounts of guaranteed revenue to some of the largest and most morally bankrupt businesses in this country. This is exactly the crowd that Bush liked to most pal around with.

A real liberal, on the other hand, would have actually reformed the health care system and done something to stop the for-profit insurance companies from continuing to run the game and screw over millions.

Wall Street "Reform"

Which didn't reform shit; after giving billions to wall street to correct their massive fuckup? Again, exactly what Bush would have done.

installing Tax Cheat Timmy Geithner as Treasury Secretary

First of all, that isn't legislation. Second, the notion of "tax cheat" is an overstatement that implies malicious intent that you cannot prove.

However, more significantly, Geithner rose in prominence under Bush's economic team. He is a protege of many of Bush's closest economic advisers.

and the list goes on and on.

The list of things that Obama has done that are identical to what Bush either did or would have done? Indeed it does. I'm still waiting for you or any other conservative to produce an example of something Obama has signed into law that Bush would not sign.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129426)

But if you are instead referring to the health insurance company bailout package, you know that Bush would have signed it.

False. He never would have signed it.

A real liberal, on the other hand, would have actually reformed the health care system and done something to stop the for-profit insurance companies from continuing to run the game and screw over millions.

That is exactly what Obama did. This is, in his mind, only the first phase. Now that government, under this law, controls WHAT health insurance services you can buy, HOW MUCH you pay, WHO is REQUIRED to buy, and so much more ... the rest is going to fall into place. The health insurance exchange will be a running joke: with all these controls, most of the insurance services will just be clones of each other, and the government will come back later and add the public option, and then the public option eventually will take over from the other insurers, which won't be able to compete with the subsidized public option.

This is the necessary first step to single payer, and you don't get much more liberal than that.

And there's no way Bush would have signed on to it.

You can make the case for Bush agreeing to some parts of it, but as a whole, there's no way.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34135414)

But if you are instead referring to the health insurance company bailout package, you know that Bush would have signed it.

False. He never would have signed it.

You are quite simply utterly wrong on that statement. This is exactly the kind of legislation that Bush would have signed and called "reform", because all it does is further empower big businesses. This could have just as well been written (by republicans) four years prior when the republicans had all the control, and Bush would have happily signed it; afterwards conservatives would have sung praises of it being a "sweeping victory".

A real liberal, on the other hand, would have actually reformed the health care system and done something to stop the for-profit insurance companies from continuing to run the game and screw over millions.

That is exactly what Obama did

Wrong. Go back and read that statement that you just replied to. There was no reform in this bill, nothing that stops the for-profit insurance companies from continuing to run the game and screw over millions.

This is, in his mind, only the first phase

If he had future plans, why didn't he pass them immediately?

Now that government, under this law, controls WHAT health insurance services you can buy

That is simply a lie, and you know that. Every plan that is currently offered is still available. No plan is automatically disqualified and you are allowed to keep any plan you currently have. The government is absolutely and categorically not dictating what health insurance services you can buy.

You really don't do yourself any favors when you start off with a bald-faced lie, but I'll play along with you anyways.

HOW MUCH you pay

Also a lie. The government does not set prices. The insurance companies still do that. If the government was setting prices, than the claims of premiums going up would be a lie - you can't have them both.

WHO is REQUIRED to buy

That is the closest to reality you have come in your entire post, and perhaps all year.

However, that is just one reason why Bush would have signed it. This bill gives more power - by way of guaranteed customers - to the insurance industry. It doesn't do shit to control or reform them.

and so much more

You had one thing right, and two outright lies. Would your "so much more" have been just more lies?

the rest is going to fall into place

The rest of what?

The health insurance exchange will be a running joke: with all these controls, most of the insurance services will just be clones of each other

What controls? The same shit that is currently offered will continue to be offered. People who have insurance that they like will continue to buy the same insurance they already have. It doesn't change anything, no matter how much you might claim otherwise.

and the government will come back later and add the public option, and then the public option eventually will take over from the other insurers, which won't be able to compete with the subsidized public option.

I could be kind, and call that paranoid speculation. But really, you know that in the current political environment that simply won't happen. A public option can't just materialize out of the will of the president, there is no way to make that happen. And with the republicans controlling the house, and having enough votes in the senate to block pretty well anything they don't like, there is no way it will come out of the legislature. So really, you are outright lying again when you claim that a public option will come out and "take over".

This is the necessary first step to single payer, and you don't get much more liberal than that.

No. Single payer could have been written into that bill. Some early versions had it, but dropped it in the name of - I know this word is hard to grasp in a conservative vocabulary - compromise. And now, single payer simply won't happen. It can't happen without the house voting on it, and we already know they won't vote in favor of it. Single payer will not happen under this Obama term, period.

And there's no way Bush would have signed on to it.

I've already told you exactly why Bush would have signed it. You responded with paranoia and outright FUD. If you examine the bill realistically, rather than through partisan hatred, you would realize that indeed Bush would have signed this because it was indeed a very conservative bill. All traces of liberalism were dropped from it to get some conservative support - which never came. The democrats pretty well rolled over for the republicans on the matter when they had a window of opportunity to make some change, and now we have this; a conservative bill that was masquerading under the moniker of "reform".

So in summary, you gave us three outright lies in your reply, and numerous dubious points of partisan speculation. In other words, you are not making much of a case at all for your claim of the current president being some radical liberal.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34142742)

But if you are instead referring to the health insurance company bailout package, you know that Bush would have signed it.

False. He never would have signed it.

You are quite simply utterly wrong on that statement. This is exactly the kind of legislation that Bush would have signed

False. He never would have signed the blatantly unconstitutional individual mandate (not that Bush didn't sign any unconstitutional bills into law, like McCain-Feingold, No Child Left Behind, and so on). He also never would have signed such massive mandates and taxes and restrictions on business.

I can, for the sake of argument, accept that he might support a giveaway to the insurance companies such as this. But the bill is MUCH more than that, and it is too much for Bush to have even possibly considered signing. Your case wants us to take that part of the bill in isolation, but that's not how bills work. No line item veto, you know.

A real liberal, on the other hand, would have actually reformed the health care system and done something to stop the for-profit insurance companies from continuing to run the game and screw over millions.

That is exactly what Obama did

Wrong. Go back and read that statement that you just replied to. There was no reform in this bill, nothing that stops the for-profit insurance companies from continuing to run the game and screw over millions.

No, it is reform that stops for-profit companies. Bad reform, sure, but reform. It restricts how much they can charge; restricts what services they can offer; requires services they MUST offer; it basically puts every major decision the companies make under the thumb of the federal government.

Thanks to Obama and the Dems, no longer will it be those companies screwing us over ... it will be the federal government screwing us over.

If he had future plans, why didn't he pass them immediately?

Because it was not possible. There is NO WAY single payer would have passed. They only barely passed what they got, and they would've had more defectors if it was single-payer.

Now that government, under this law, controls WHAT health insurance services you can buy

That is simply a lie, and you know that.

BullSHIT.

Every plan that is currently offered is still available. No plan is automatically disqualified and you are allowed to keep any plan you currently have.

Every plan that is currently offered will still be available, UNLESS the companies modify the plans -- which happens all the time -- in which case they will need to comply with the new rules ... and only for a few years, at which point ALL plans will need to comply with the new rules. So some companies will freeze some plans for a few years, but it won't matter after that.

The government is absolutely and categorically not dictating what health insurance services you can buy.

BullSHIT. They are penalizing you for getting too much health insurance. What else would you call it? That's like saying, "they aren't dictating that you can't commit murder ... you just have to go to jail if you do."

HOW MUCH you pay

Also a lie. The government does not set prices.

BullSHIT. The government can arbitrarily sets premium rates ... it won't be for every policy, but any whose premium they deem is "unreasonable."

If the government was setting prices, than the claims of premiums going up would be a lie

Ummmm. Since when has government price controls kept prices down? Please.

The rest of what?

Single payer.

What controls?

Price, service, and participation. For example, a plan that currently offers a lower rate because it only works for a certain local doctor network will be illegal (after the grandfathering period expires) because the bill requires all plans to have access to sizable doctor networks. There is going to be a drastically increased homogenization of available plans.

I could be kind, and call that paranoid speculation.

Shrug. The architect of Obama's public option actually laid out precisely this plan, and many people in Congress, including Barney Frank, also said that they were pushing for this. No one can take you seriously when you accuse me of paranoia for thinking that our officials mean what they say.

But really, you know that in the current political environment that simply won't happen.

Yes, thankfully, we got a little bit of sanity back on Tuesday. How much, who knows? But certainly enough to prevent single payer, for now.

However, I never said that it WOULD happen, only that it was the plan of Obama and many of his colleagues. If you thought I was predicting, you misunderstood: I was speaking in the context of Obama's plan.

No. Single payer could have been written into that bill.

It would have failed.

Some early versions had it, but dropped it in the name of - I know this word is hard to grasp in a conservative vocabulary - compromise.

Right. It would have failed. So they dropped it.

I've already told you exactly why Bush would have signed it.

Yes, but you've given not a single reason for anyone to believe that Bush would have caused this harm to Boeing and many other companies, and taken away the right to choose to not have health insurance. You've only given reason why he might help health insurance companies, but the bill does far more than that, and you've done nothing to advance your theory in regards to those other items.

it was indeed a very conservative bill

Actually, no: there was NOTHING about that bill that was conservative. Not a single line. Giving a handout to corporations is not, and has never been, conservative. That some people think Bush is conservative is sad, but doesn't actually redefine conservatism.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34144988)

But if you are instead referring to the health insurance company bailout package, you know that Bush would have signed it.

False. He never would have signed it.

You are quite simply utterly wrong on that statement. This is exactly the kind of legislation that Bush would have signed

False. He never would have signed the blatantly unconstitutional individual mandate

The constitutionality of it is open to discussion. However, we are talking whether or not Bush would have signed it.

not that Bush didn't sign any unconstitutional bills into law

Well I'm glad we are in agreement that Bush was not one to allow constitutionality to stand in his way when deciding whether or not to sign a bill into law.

He also never would have signed such massive mandates ... on businesses

What mandates on businesses are you referring to? For insurance companies, it is business as usual, with the added bonus of guaranteed new customers.

taxes and restrictions on business

Wrong on both counts. This neither raises business taxes nor does it restrict how businesses do their work. Businesses are still not required to offer insurance to employees who work less than 40.0 hours per week if they so choose. And insurance companies still get to run the game as they like.

A real liberal, on the other hand, would have actually reformed the health care system and done something to stop the for-profit insurance companies from continuing to run the game and screw over millions.

That is exactly what Obama did

Wrong. Go back and read that statement that you just replied to. There was no reform in this bill, nothing that stops the for-profit insurance companies from continuing to run the game and screw over millions.

No, it is reform that stops for-profit companies

What the hell are you talking about? It doesn't stop anything. I don't know how one would go about doing an action that "stops for-profit companies", or what the hell you think that statement even means. It's bad enough that you are resorting to repeated lying, now you are just making shit up for whatever reason.

It restricts how much they can charge

That is nothing short of an outright lie. We'll count that as Pudge's first lie in this message.

restricts what services they can offer

That is also a lie. This is Pudge's second lie in this message (and second in one sentence).

requires services they MUST offer

Also a lie. That is Pudge's third lie in this message (and in this sentence).

it basically puts every major decision the companies make under the thumb of the federal government.

Wow, you went for one massive lie to summarize your feelings towards the matter. That is nothing short of Pudge's fourth lie in the message - you followed up three consecutive lies with one sweeping generalization that has no basis in reality. I'm waiting for you to start next on death panels...

Thanks to Obama and the Dems, no longer will it be those companies screwing us over ... it will be the federal government screwing us over.

Care to explain how that would happen, being as they didn't actually do any of the four things you just accused them of?

There is NO WAY single payer would have passed.

So then why do you believe that they will try to pass it now, when they have fewer members of their own party in congress?

Every plan that is currently offered will still be available

That might be your first factual statement in this entire discussion, congratulations! Unfortunately one factual statement is not nearly enough to negate you repeated lying.

and only for a few years, at which point ALL plans will need to comply with the new rules. So some companies will freeze some plans for a few years, but it won't matter after that

Do you have a source for that? No, of course you don't. Just like so many of the other outright lies that you are spewing here, you expect people to believe it just because you said it.

The government is absolutely and categorically not dictating what health insurance services you can buy.

BullSHIT. They are penalizing you for getting too much health insurance.

You really need to stop lying, you aren't very good at it. There is no such penalty for "getting too much health insurance". I'd ask you for a source for that wild-assed speculation but we both know you won't provide one; partially because you wouldn't provide one even if one did exist but more so because none actually does.

The government can arbitrarily sets premium rates ... it won't be for every policy, but any whose premium they deem is "unreasonable."

That might be a frightening concept for insurance companies to face ... if only such a power was granted to the government. No such power was, however - you're just lying yet again.

If the government was setting prices, than the claims of premiums going up would be a lie

Ummmm. Since when has government price controls kept prices down? Please.

So you are saying then that the government is going to use powers that it did not grant itself to raise prices so insurance companies can make more money? What kind of price control would that be?

And of course that is ignoring the obvious fact that in our current system, where the insurance companies are free to set prices and (allegedly) compete on price, the prices have only continued to rise (along with health insurance company CEO salaries).

I could be kind, and call that paranoid speculation.

Shrug. The architect of Obama's public option actually laid out precisely this plan

Do you have a name for this architect? What state does he or she serve in congress? Oh, this person isn't an elected representative? Gee, I wonder why this person's plan didn't go anywhere...

and many people in Congress, including Barney Frank, also said that they were pushing for this. No one can take you seriously when you accuse me of paranoia for thinking that our officials mean what they say.

There are also congresspeople who have pushed for putting Ronald Reagan on Mount Rushmore. That doesn't mean that every republican in congress wants to make that job one.

But really, you know that in the current political environment that simply won't happen.

Yes, thankfully, we got a little bit of sanity back on Tuesday. How much, who knows? But certainly enough to prevent single payer, for now.

This must be some strange new meaning of "sanity" that I am not familiar with.

However, I never said that it WOULD happen, only that it was the plan of Obama and many of his colleagues. If you thought I was predicting, you misunderstood: I was speaking in the context of Obama's plan.

No, you very explicitly stated [slashdot.org] :

the government will come back later and add the public option

You should at least try not to lie about what you have said.

Some early versions had it, but dropped it in the name of - I know this word is hard to grasp in a conservative vocabulary - compromise.

Right. It would have failed. So they dropped it.

They managed to get it through with zero republicans accepting any compromises that were written in - including compromises that were written by republicans. Hence it passed with only democratic votes; they could have quite likely pulled the same support for it with a public option had they offered it.

Instead they rolled over and played dead for the republicans.

caused this harm to Boeing and many other companies

Exactly what harm are you referring to that is caused to the companies?

but the bill does far more than that

Although not nearly as much as you allege. You really need to try to only argue based on facts, because your lies won't get you very far.

it was indeed a very conservative bill

Actually, no: there was NOTHING about that bill that was conservative

If you want to offer up a different definition of "conservative", we can discuss it. However in the context of politics in the US in the current year, "conservative" is taken to be analogous to "republican" just as "liberal" is taken to be analogous to "democrat". Just as I will happily point out that plenty of democrats are not very liberal, the label is still used in that way nonetheless.

But if you really insist on being that pedantic we could instead say that Obama signed a "republican" health care bill into law.

That some people think Bush is conservative is sad, but doesn't actually redefine conservatism.

Bush actually called himself a conservative while he was president. Whether he had the definition wrong, or if the definition has changed since then, doesn't particularly matter. Either way, Bush is in the public eye considered to be an example of a conservative president.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34154418)

The constitutionality of it is open to discussion.

No, it's really not. The ONLY WAY to say the individual mandate is not unconstitutional is to either be ignorant of the plain text of the Constitution, or to lie, or -- worst of all -- to believe that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, but only how society over the years has come to interpret it (which is a hatred of the rule of law, that we see in Justice Breyer et al).

However, we are talking whether or not Bush would have signed it.

I'm not. Not anymore, not until someone provides some evidence that Bush would have signed onto the unconstitutional individual mandate.

taxes and restrictions on business

Wrong on both counts. This neither raises business taxes nor does it restrict how businesses do their work.

Wrong on both counts. If "too much" insurance is provided, they are taxed. And they are restricted on what sorts of plans they can offer.

What the hell are you talking about? It doesn't stop anything. I don't know how one would go about doing an action that "stops for-profit companies"

Went over this. Price controls, service mandates, etc. A government-controlled homogenization of the "market." Seriously, you need to educate yourself.

It restricts how much they can charge

That is nothing short of an outright lie. ... That is also a lie. ... Also a lie.

Ummmm. I already proved it was true, in my last comment: government sets the boundaries of premiums for similar plans, under this bill. And government says that if you give too much coverage, you get penalized: that is a restriction on what you can offer. And -- most obviously -- of COURSE there are required services that MUST be offered: else the "individual mandate" would be meaningless! Someone could just pay $1 to get a one aspirin a year if they get a headache, call it insurance, and satisfy the mandate: no, there are significant service requirements for insurance to qualify.

It's astonishiing that you take the centerpiece idea of the law -- that there are certain services everyone is required to have -- and call it a lie when I mention it.

Seriously, you can't read the bill, you can't read my comments. I am done with you on this topic until you figure it out. I can't take the time to teach you everything, especially things that are so simple.

That some people think Bush is conservative is sad, but doesn't actually redefine conservatism.

Bush actually called himself a conservative while he was president.

Don't care.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34158544)

Pudge you're only making yourself look more uninformed with each reply. I point out where you are wrong, it has been demonstrated multiple times where you are wrong, and all you do is (wrongly!) claim that your assertions are somehow based in reality.

However, we are talking whether or not Bush would have signed it.

I'm not. Not anymore, not until someone provides some evidence that Bush would have signed onto the unconstitutional individual mandate.

You have already admitted that Bush signed unconstitutional bills while president, so your assertion of this being unconstitutional - whether or not it actually is - is therefore not a valid argument against Bush signing it. Being as the bill was essentially written to appease the republicans - instead of including measures that the democrats actually wanted - it could have just as well been written by republicans (at which point Bush would have easily signed it).

taxes and restrictions on business

Wrong on both counts. This neither raises business taxes nor does it restrict how businesses do their work.

Wrong on both counts. If "too much" insurance is provided, they are taxed. And they are restricted on what sorts of plans they can offer.

Now if only you could actually point to a place where the bill actually says that. Being as I have asked you multiple times to back up your wild assertions with actual facts, and you have repeatedly not done so, I won't expect you to do so here either. So I will just point out that you are lying yet again.

What the hell are you talking about? It doesn't stop anything. I don't know how one would go about doing an action that "stops for-profit companies"

Went over this

Perhaps in some conversation that I was not part of, but you have never provided a source for any of your wild assertions on:

Price controls

service mandates

etc

A government-controlled homogenization of the "market."

So those are at least three more lies from you.

Seriously, you need to educate yourself.

Being as you continue to insist that items that are not in the bill are somehow magically included, I highly recommend you actually read what is in it, rather than making shit up.

Because at this point, as you have repeatedly not provided sources for any of your assertions, it is just as reasonable to say that you are making them up. After all, anyone familiar with the actual contents of the bill knows that none of the shit you claim to be there is actually in the bill.

It restricts how much they can charge

That is nothing short of an outright lie. ... That is also a lie. ... Also a lie.

Ummmm. I already proved it was true

That statement is another outright lie. You have not proven anything. You have continued to voice your opinion, which no matter how highly you think of yourself is not the same as the truth. You have repeatedly not provided any backup information to your assertions. You haven't proven anything, and I don't expect you to change that.

Frankly right now if I told you to pull your head out of your ass you would probably respond by saying that the concept of an ass is really a liberal conspiracy to take away your guns.

government sets the boundaries of premiums for similar plans, under this bill

Except that they don't. I have asked you to back up this assertion and you have not done so, because you cannot do so. The bill does not do this, no matter how much you may want to be able to claim that it does.

And government says that if you give too much coverage, you get penalized

Except that they don't. I have asked you to back up this assertion and you have not done so, because you cannot do so. The bill does not do this, no matter how much you may want to be able to claim that it does.

Seriously, you can't read the bill

You have shown conclusively that you either have not read the bill, or you read it and then quickly substituted in your own assumptions in defiance of the contents of the actual bill. You have no ground from which to stand to try to tell anytone else that they have or have not read the bill, considering you continue to insert measures into it that simply are not there.

you can't read my comments

I have read your comments. I have pointed out your lies and asked you to provide sources for your assertions - which you have not done.

I am done with you on this topic until you figure it out.

If you find it so frustrating to have me point out where you are lying, then a good suggestion would be to stop lying.

I can't take the time to teach you everything, especially things that are so simple.

You have taught me that you don't know what you are talking about on the health care bill. I have plenty of problems with it, as I have stated already. However, your problems with it are largely imagined; you really need to read the actual bill before you go around parading as an expert on its contents. You only make yourself look like a foolish partisan hack when you insist that measures that are not there were somehow magically inserted with invisible ink after it was signed into law.

That some people think Bush is conservative is sad, but doesn't actually redefine conservatism.

Bush actually called himself a conservative while he was president.

Don't care.

So then how does your definition of conservative work that specifically excludes Bush?

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34159576)

Pudge you're only making yourself look more uninformed with each reply.

... says the guy who doesn't understand the centerpiece of the bill: the mandate. So why should I care what YOU think I look like?

Now if only you could actually point to a place where the bill actually says that.

Honestly? And you think I look uninformed?

Look, until you can admit that the inclusion in EVERY insurance plan of MANY services is MANDATED -- which is the centerpiece of the bill -- why would I bother quoting you anything at all?

It's the whole damned point. I am required to have insurance, and the insurance I am required to have is to be defined as having certain services required, else the mandate is meaningless. How you don't get this is beyond me, but it explains a lot.

Everything I've said is true, but seriously, pearls before swine. EVERYONE knows that services are mandated, yet you call it a lie, even though it's the whole damned point. You clearly know nothing about the bill.

So then how does your definition of conservative work that specifically excludes Bush?

Already explained.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34160350)

that the inclusion in EVERY insurance plan of MANY services is MANDATED -- which is the centerpiece of the bill

Now we get to the meat of where you are wrong. Naturally, from your hyper-conservative world where democrats can do only evil and republicans can do only good, you cannot see anything of merit in this bill. Indeed, you ignore the intentions of the bill and focus on conservative conspiracy theories that revolve around half-truths connected to it.

If you had a nonpartisan bone or neuron left in your body, you would know that what you just said about "the centerpiece of the bill" is complete and utter nonsense. The bill isn't about controlling people, it is about reducing the cost of the most basic health insurance (for people with no current coverage) and allowing people to keep plans that they like (for people who do have coverage). It is not about dictating to insurance companies what they can charge, or telling people what services they have to have.

Unfortunately, in the end, the politicians who wrote the bill were more concerned about two things that should not have been important - campaign contributions they were receiving from insurance companies, and outright lies from conservative windbags like yourself - than they were about actually reforming the very broken health insurance system we have now. Because of this we ended up just giving the insurance companies more power than they ever could have hoped for, while not doing anything of merit to help the consumer.

Which is why in any given poll, amongst the people who are opposed to the bill as written, anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 of those opposed are opposed to it because it didn't go far enough.

EVERYONE knows that services are mandated, yet you call it a lie, even though it's the whole damned point.

If that were true it should be trivially easy for you to find that statement in the bill. Yet you have not done so, and continue to refuse to do so. In the end, you never will find such a statement in the bill because none is there.

In other words, you really need to stop lying.

You clearly know nothing about the bill.

You have shown a clear lack of any desire to actually understand the bill beyond the conservative FUD that is repeatedly spread about it.

Re:Nothing to add (0, Flamebait)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128812)

Indeed, Obama is a right-wing president.

Stop, you're making me giggle!

In order for you to make a case against that statement, you can't just brush it off.

Correct. However, I assert that I have no need to make a case against that statement. To people who have half a brain, it's self-evidently false; to everyone else, proving the case wouldn't convince them.

You need to actually point to legislation that Obama has signed that Bush would not have signed. And you will have a very hard time doing that.

The health insurance act. Yeah, that was soooooooo hard.

Also, Bush wasn't very right-wing. Medicare expansion, bailouts, NCLB, stimulus, etc.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131498)

In order for you to make a case against that statement, you can't just brush it off.

Correct. However, I assert that I have no need to make a case against that statement. To people who have half a brain, it's self-evidently false; to everyone else, proving the case wouldn't convince them.

You're still just brushing it off; you're just being more arrogant about it now.

You need to actually point to legislation that Obama has signed that Bush would not have signed. And you will have a very hard time doing that.

The health insurance act. Yeah, that was soooooooo hard.

Except that the health insurance act was a conservative bill. Everything that resembled liberalism was removed from the bill to try to gain some support from the conservatives, who then opposed it just because they didn't directly write and propose it. Long before it went to a vote the public option was dropped and it became another massive corporate hand-out. In the end, the bill was just another one that greatly empowered big businesses.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132178)

To people who have half a brain, it's self-evidently false; to everyone else, proving the case wouldn't convince them.

Precisely the nature of your "unassailable facts" about Afghanistan and Iraq, and your general demeanor. This is why I need make no effort to demonstrate anything to you. My descriptions of you are entirely self evident, needing no embellishment, or further explanation.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34142772)

Precisely the nature of your "unassailable facts" about Afghanistan and Iraq, and your general demeanor.

Dude. He said Obama is right-wing. The guy who is engaging in the most massive expansion of government power, control, and spending **in history**, and he says the guy is "right-wing." It's just stupid.

As to the stuff on Afghanistan and Iraq, shrug. If you could bring up any facts against my primary documents, you would. But it's hard to argue against primary documents, isn't it?

Re:Nothing to add (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34143988)

He's protecting business interests over the interests of the country and its society. He is a right wing authoritarian. A submissive, passive one in front of the camera, yes. But still right wing. If Obama is left wing only because wants a big government, then all you bible thumpers who want to use our tax money to impose your version of Shia law on the rest of us, continue to subsidize big business, engage in military aggression to protect overseas "investments" while leaving the country itself to rot, are a bunch of damn communists! You're trying to take all our money and send it overseas to your little tax havens. And now, like Mao and Stalin you caused a famine... of dollars for American citizens at home.

Strong authority, by it's very nature is always right wing and conservative (to conserve that authority). Only in some countries in Europe (maybe Australia and Canada also) will you find anything less extreme right than the rest of the world.

The documents are forgeries, with false information.. Your deity is more provable. But like you yourself said, proving it to you would make no difference. Can't even get you to question what's put on display now. Bet you would be jumping up and down all over the place if Obama has started these wars, demanding massive truckloads of documents. Hell, you people pushed for more documentation and stronger action over Clinton's blowjob than over this catastrophe. Yep, regular, typical partisan hacks are what you are.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34154354)

He is a right wing authoritarian.

Simply categorizing Bush does not go ANY distance toward backing up your case that he would vote for a a first-ever mandate on all people in the nation to purchase a certain product.

If Obama is left wing only because wants a big government ...

That is the simplest accurate definition of left wing, yes.

... then all you bible thumpers who want to use our tax money to impose your version of Shia law on the rest of us ...

You're a liar. I want no such thing. On the contrary, I oppose all imposition of purely religious restrictions on anyone. I am against anti-gay laws, for example (though I also oppose gay marriage, because I oppose government involving itself in marriage, which is a social/religious institution, and I therefore favor government not recognizing ANY marriage).

... continue to subsidize big business ...

You're a liar. I want no such thing. On the contrary, I want to end business subsidies.

... engage in military aggression to protect overseas "investments" while leaving the country itself to rot ...

I do think we have some legitimate interests for our military overseas, such as protecting our allies. And I recognize the fact that the federal government has no legal authority to engage in most types of domestic spending. And?

... are a bunch of damn communists!

Well, your first two were lies, and your third was a misinterpretation of the facts. Shrug.

You're trying to take all our money and send it overseas to your little tax havens.

You're a liar. I try no such thing. In fact, while I oppose income tax, I also oppose sheltering income from the income tax. We have a tax, we should pay it, whether I like the tax or not. Slashdot's CEO the other day came out and said that the rich should pay more in taxes, and I took him to mean that they should actually pay something close to their tax rate, and I agree with that. We shouldn't be increasing the rate, we should be enforcing it. I am all about enforcing the law ...

And now, like Mao and Stalin you caused a famine... of dollars for American citizens at home.

You're a liar. I've asked MANY Democrats and liberals how the Republicans caused the recession, and NONE of them -- including my own Congressman, Rick Larsen, who is a Democrat, who actually tried to answer the question in writing, after a couple of weeks of having the question in hand, so he had plenty of time to think about it -- can tell me how. And I defy you to do so. You can't.

Strong authority, by it's very nature is always right wing and conservative (to conserve that authority).

Mao and Stalin were on the left, you moron.

The documents are forgeries, with false information..

Um. U.N. Security Council Resolutions, and transcripts of speeches by Hans Blix before the U.N.S.C., are forgeries?

Wow. Tinfoil much?

But like you yourself said, proving it to you would make no difference.

You're a liar. I never said any such thing.

Bet you would be jumping up and down all over the place if Obama has started these wars

Yes, because you're a fool.

Hell, you people pushed for more documentation and stronger action over Clinton's blowjob than over this catastrophe.

You're a liar. I did no such thing. (And in fact, it was liberal fascist Janet Reno who told Ken Starr to investigate that.)

Re:Nothing to add (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34154668)

Simply categorizing Bush...

I was talking about Obama, but thanks for the props :-)

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34155354)

That just shows insane you are. NO ONE except complete nutjobs would consider Obama to be right-wing ANYTHING.

But yes, Obama is an authoritarian. That is what makes him a socialist, instead of just a liberal.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34158558)

Didn't know that the world was so full of nutjobs. Guess that explains the election results...

That just shows insane you are.

Yeah, I know... comes from the realization that a moron's vote counts the same as mine.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34159578)

comes from the realization that a moron's vote counts the same as mine.

Are you saying you voted twice?

Re:Nothing to add (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161036)

That's a good idea. I never thought of that. Is that how you people win elections these days? Looks like more came out of Chicago than just economic theory. Glad to see you all picking up on it. I mean, lest you come up with something more original.

Re:Nothing to add (2, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34159446)

To people who have half a brain, it's self-evidently false; to everyone else, proving the case wouldn't convince them.

If you agree with me, you are awesome; if not, you are a doody-head. That's the kind of reasoned intelligent analysis I've come to expect from you, pudge. Keep up the good work!

Re:Nothing to add (0, Flamebait)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34159590)

If you agree with me, you are awesome; if not, you are a doody-head. That's the kind of reasoned intelligent analysis I've come to expect from you, pudge.

You're a liar: I neither stated nor implied any such thing. I did not define the quality of someone based on whether they agree with me: I stated that only someone without a properly functioning brain COULD POSSIBLY believe that Obama is "right-wing." It's like saying the dogs fly. It's nonsense.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34168700)

If you agree with me, you are awesome; if not, you are a doody-head. That's the kind of reasoned intelligent analysis I've come to expect from you, pudge.

You're a liar: I neither stated nor implied any such thing.

Reading between your lines it's easy to draw these conclusions. Given your inability to read the lines themselves, it's no wonder you cannot read between them.

Re:Nothing to add (0, Flamebait)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34180064)

If you agree with me, you are awesome; if not, you are a doody-head. That's the kind of reasoned intelligent analysis I've come to expect from you, pudge.

You're a liar: I neither stated nor implied any such thing.

Reading between your lines it's easy to draw these conclusions.

So obviously you don't understand enough to justify your reading between the lines. Shrug. Indeed, I have always, consistently, rejected precisely the thing you falsely accused me of. But thank you for admitting your ignorance led you to the incorrect conclusion.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34182304)

Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I'm not listening." Awesome. Your formal and informal debate prowess are amazing. They rank up their with your ability at logic and inductive reasoning. Your ad hominems need a little work, as they lack a certain artistic panache.

Re:Nothing to add (0, Offtopic)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34186374)

Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I'm not listening."

Yes, you do that quite well. You falsely accuse me of something, admit you didn't have the understanding to make the claim in the first place, and when challenged, you (predictably) resort to personal attacks, as though I'm the one who screwed up. Nothing new here.

Re:Nothing to add (2)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34192162)

I had heard that Republicans accuse others of what they themselves actually do, but I've never seen it demonstrated so succinctly as your actions here.

Re:Nothing to add (0, Troll)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193946)

I had heard that Republicans accuse others of what they themselves actually do, but I've never seen it demonstrated so succinctly as your actions here.

"... signifying nothing."

Re:Nothing to add (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194448)

I had heard that Republicans accuse others of what they themselves actually do, but I've never seen it demonstrated so succinctly as your actions here.

"... signifying nothing."

New sig? I like it. Very apropos way to end your posts.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 3 years ago | (#34125932)

But if they fail to act conservatively now, they won't get that chance. And if they do win in 2012, and THEN blow it, they won't get another chance, and people like me will look to start a new conservative party.

I have met many different people who view "Conservative" in very different ways. I'm curious what you want your converservatives to do?

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128942)

But if they fail to act conservatively now, they won't get that chance. And if they do win in 2012, and THEN blow it, they won't get another chance, and people like me will look to start a new conservative party.

I have met many different people who view "Conservative" in very different ways. I'm curious what you want your converservatives to do?

I thought the context was clear, but perhaps not: I mean "small government" and "fiscal" conservative. I would like to include civil-rights conservative, but frankly, that is much less important right now, and it will happen naturally if government is shrunk, much moreso than if they focused on it directly.

While social conservatism is also important, our electoral choices are almost always much closer to our social views than anything else. So in my view, we cannot really push social change on the people unless they are ready for it, AND if the people ARE ready for it, they will elect leaders that reflect those views ... so it's just not something I worry much about. I'd have a hard time supporting a pro-choice candidate, for example, but I'd have a hard time seeing it make much difference unless a significant majority of the government were also pro-life, which won't happen unless a significant majority of the people are.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129764)

and it will happen naturally if government is shrunk, much moreso than if they focused on it directly.

Fuck me, that was one of the excuses they used in the 60s! Also, show your work. "A will happen because we do B" is far below even your pitiful standards.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 3 years ago | (#34141810)

For fucks sake. You have never SEEN a fucking social liberal before have you.

You want to know what the fuck we are like?

Every single fucking evangelical butt fucker would be round up and shot in the head. Every idiot who proposes teaching anything from their holy book as "science" in schools would be shot as a traitor to the nation.

Then we'd properly regulate drugs and legalize gay marriage.

I'd have a hard time supporting a pro-choice candidate

I'd have a hard time seeing why anyone who is anti-choice has a right to live. You want to dictate what others can do with their bodies?

Some fucking religious mother fucker wants to tell people what to do based on THEIR interpetation of THEIR holy book. Some religious mother fucker wants to pass LAWS forcing other people to live according to what some dead fucking white dude said thousands of years ago?

How about all such assholes get up, leave the country, and move their ass to Iran. They will find a bunch of like minded assholes with whom they can wallow together in a pit of ignorance and stupidity.

Now I am not one of those tax and spend liberals, heck no. I believe in fiscal responsibility. So if any of the above mentioned assholes wants the government to pay for their plane ticket I say we save some money and deliver a bullet to their head instead.

There. Now you have met a real liberal. Now please shut up about ANYONE in government being liberal.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34142408)

Every single fucking evangelical butt fucker would be round up and shot in the head. Every idiot who proposes teaching anything from their holy book as "science" in schools would be shot as a traitor to the nation.

OK, so you hate liberty and the rule of law. And?

I'd have a hard time seeing why anyone who is anti-choice has a right to live. You want to dictate what others can do with their bodies?

I have a hard time seeing how your brain works well enough to allow you the ability to type. You don't see the dissonance between a mother killing her own unborn child's body, and accusing me of dictating to others about their body, let alone the dissonance of you wanting to dictate to people what they can think and say and teach.

This is very simple. If you believe in the rights to life and liberty, AND you believe that the government has an obligation to secure those rights, AND you believe the life in the womb has those rights ... then you either have to be pro-life, or you have to be extremely inconsistent and arbitrarily capricious.

So either you don't believe in rights, you don't believe in the gov't obligation to secure our rights (which is THE reason our government exists), or you don't believe a biological human being has rights just because it is too young ... or you're just a dishonest or capricious asshole.

Some fucking religious mother fucker wants to tell people what to do based on THEIR interpetation of THEIR holy book.

So you have no problem with slavery, then? You want to dictate what others can do with their property? ... You do realize that the abolitionist movement was mostly a religious movement, based on THEIR interpretation of THEIR holy book, right? Your complaint has no basis in reason.

Some religious mother fucker wants to pass LAWS forcing other people to live according to what some dead fucking white dude said thousands of years ago?

Again: so you have no problem with slavery, then? Also, epic fail on the "white dude said thousands of years ago" thing. No one "white" wrote the Bible.

How about all such assholes get up, leave the country, and move their ass to Iran. They will find a bunch of like minded assholes with whom they can wallow together in a pit of ignorance and stupidity.

... says the guy who attacks the Bible without knowing anything about it, who doesn't understand abortion or the issues surrounding it but spouts off about them, who wants to engage in Taliban-like executions of people who don't follow his beliefs, who self-admittedly hates liberty ... dude, YOU are the one who is like-minded with those assholes.

There. Now you have met a real liberal. Now please shut up about ANYONE in government being liberal.

You're not a liberal. You're just an irrational moron with a computer.

The bad thing for you is that you suck at this and I am much smarter than you.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 3 years ago | (#34143338)

This is very simple. If you believe in the rights to life and liberty, AND you believe that the government has an obligation to secure those rights, AND you believe the life in the womb has those rights

Don't agree with that last part, but more on that latter.

My primary problem is that the entire social conservative movement is all about removing my liberties.

With state GOPs trying to tell people what they can and cannot do in their bedrooms [nydailynews.com] to the GOP forcing religious based "abstinence only education" down every one's throat. (wait, maybe that is the wrong phrase to use...)

Instead of teenagers learning about the different ways to protect themselves from STDs, information they are going to need throughout their entire life, they just learn that "sex is bad, don't do it until your married." Some programs may throw in some false statistics to make sex outside of marriage seem Extra Super Scary, while others just don't mention anything aside from "don't to it".

Then there is medical science. Outlawing use of discarded stem cells from fertility treatments is just, you know, I really cannot even understand the reasoning there. You have a choice between potentially curing diseases or, quite literally, throwing the cells in the trash.

Back on about abortion, whenever those of us who are pro-choice give a single damn inch (e.g. agreeing that abortions beyond a certain date are may very well fall into the realm of murder) the religious nut jobs try to grab a damn mile and start spouting off shit like "life from the moment of conception" to the even more bat shit insane idea of "anything that prevents fertilization is MURDER!"

This line of crappy reasoning is then used in an attempt to further prop up efforts to deny education of the basic fundamentals of sex and human reproduction!

I have seen ape shit crazy religious fundies go off that the birth control pill is MURDER. That IUDs are MURDER. What their argument boils down to is that anything which keeps women from being pregnant all the time pumping out more fundie babies is "wrong".

You don't even get a guess as to whose liberties are being repressed right there.

who wants to engage in Taliban-like executions of people who don't follow his beliefs,

Too damn many members of the GOP are on record as saying that this country should be run under Christian Values.

If any other religion tried to gain a legislative majority with the explicated stated goal of rewriting our laws so as to be in accord with their holy book, that religious group would be, rightfully so, demonized as traitors to this nation.

It isn't OK when x-stian fundies do it either. Religious fundamentalists are religious fundamentalists, in the end it always comes down to them believing that everyone should live by their particular interpretation of their holy book. Doing so necessitates restricting the freedoms and liberties of others.

A good example of fundies continuing to do their damndest to deny liberties to a category of people whom they dislike is the ongoing effort to ensure that homosexuals cannot marry. From a strictly libertarian POV the federal government shouldn't give a flying hoot who decides to get married (and indeed I have seen some libertarians argue that the federal government shouldn't even acknowledge marriage at all, but would complicate countless bits of paper work! ;) ), but Christian fundies insist on fighting tooth and nail to ensure that homosexuals cannot marry.

With what justification?

The Bible. Pure and simple. Denying others liberties because their interpretation of their holy book says so.

I have a few problems with that. One obvious problem is that fundies are working under the assumption that not only is their interpretation of their holy book is the correct one, but that their holy book is the right holy book!

Strictly going by the numbers Buddhism wins hands down. I don't think that anyone would be too happy if ultra-conservative Buddhists took charge of the nation and outlawed the eating of meat. (Actually legislating strict conservative Buddhism as the Law Of The Land would end up outlawing bug exterminators as well!)

The key difference is that those Buddhists who believe that murdering any multi-cellular animal life is a sin choose to live their lives according to their beliefs, where as Christian fundies want everyone else to have to abide by whatever rules they believe in.

What it boils down to is that an increasingly politically powerful group (Christian fundamentalist evangelicals) want to attain political office with the stated intent of passing laws which would take away liberties and freedoms that I and other citizens currently possess.

Given that context, you expect me not to react violently?

Re:Nothing to add (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34149622)

Instead of reacting violently, it might be better to point out the utter failure of majority rule when people like him are allowed to vote our rights away. The MJ initiatives that failed and the bigoted and racist laws that passed are a perfect case in point. Let them draw first blood before you pull the trigger. After that, go nuts until you have unconditional surrender. Accept nothing less. No more compromise. Show no mercy. Beat them at their own game.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34180836)

This is very simple. If you believe in the rights to life and liberty, AND you believe that the government has an obligation to secure those rights, AND you believe the life in the womb has those rights

Don't agree with that last part, but more on that latter.

That's often the rub, yes. But it is exceedingly difficult for you to make a reasonable case why anyone should agree with you that they don't deserve rights. My case that they do is far easier to make, though -- like yours -- is not provable.

But at least you are not, like many do, asserting that there is not a unique, distinct, human life in the womb. This is undeniably proven by science.

My primary problem is that the entire social conservative movement is all about removing my liberties.

Not all about that, no. That said, yes, significant parts of it are about removing liberty, almost as much as the left. There's simply no doubt that the left is much bigger on removing liberties: the right to property (including your wealth, and what you do with your money and your land and what cars and light bulbs you buy, and so on) is the big one. But the left is also big on squelching free speech, in terms of "hate speech," "fairness doctrine," "campaign finance reform," and so on.

However, you were clearly lumping me in with these "social conservatives," and other than my highly rational opposition to abortion, you have no evidence of this. I am an evangelical who believes homosexuality is sin, and you said I should be "shot in the head," even though I believe there should be no laws restricting homosexuals and their relationships in our society.

And most people would disagree with that (including, perhaps, most of the Texas GOP: I know how platforms work, and they are not always representative).

That said: blame the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court clearly said that if there is a legitimate state interest, Texas can ban sodomy. They SHOULD have ruled that as free people, our government cannot ban private consensual sexual behavior, but instead the Court ruled our government CAN ban sodomy, IF it meets some criteria.

This is why the left scares us conservatives so much: because even when they are not grabbing immediate government control, they really are still laying the groundwork for total government control.

... to the GOP forcing religious based "abstinence only education" down every one's throat.

That never happened. Some schools chose to have such programs, but honestly, so the hell what? How is that any worse than any other kind of sex ed? From where I sit, it's an abomination that schools teach sex ed at all. It's the ultimate hypocrisy that we claim a right of privacy such that the government cannot look into OUR bedrooms, but we cheerlead the government looking into our KIDS' bedrooms. Utterly depraved.

Instead of teenagers learning about the different ways to protect themselves from STDs, information they are going to need throughout their entire life, they just learn that "sex is bad, don't do it until your married."

This is YOUR fault. It's the fault of the left who made this insipid decision that schools should play a role in sex ed.

We live in a democratic society: if you make the decision that government should get involved in some area, you are necessarily accepting that sometimes government will get involved in that are in a way you dislike or disagree with, because the government goes as the people do. The correct option is to not let government get involved in the first place.

Then there is medical science. Outlawing use of discarded stem cells from fertility treatments is just, you know, I really cannot even understand the reasoning there.

I'll explain what most lawmakers understand: if you allow the use of "discarded" cells, you encourage people to create embryos for the purpose of "discarding" them so their cells can be harvested. And now you're creating human life to destroy it. It's a very dangerous road to go down, and people who are not zealots, who really understand the issue -- no matter their view on the issue -- recognize this is a big potential problem.

It's not just about the cells that are going to be thrown away, but the path future cells will take to end up in the same place. This is precisely why Bush cut it off at certain existing lines, so it would not encourage future creation-to-destroy.

Back on about abortion, whenever those of us who are pro-choice give a single damn inch (e.g. agreeing that abortions beyond a certain date are may very well fall into the realm of murder) the religious nut jobs try to grab a damn mile and start spouting off shit like "life from the moment of conception" to the even more bat shit insane idea of "anything that prevents fertilization is MURDER!"

Biologically speaking, life begins -- at the latest -- soon after conception, and before implantation. This isn't "shit," it's scientific fact.

And you don't understand the fertilization issue: the actual problem is that the same methods used to prevent fertilization MAY also prevent implantation (should fertilization occur anyway), thus causing the destruction of a living embryo. So no, it's not really about preventing fertilization, it's about the potential side effects the anti-fertlization treatment can have that can result in the destruction of an embryo.

Far from the reasoning being "crappy," you simply don't understand it.

I have seen ape shit crazy religious fundies go off that the birth control pill is MURDER. That IUDs are MURDER.

Yes, in both cases, those methods can prevent implantation of a living embryo, should fertilization occur (since, as you should know, neither method is 100% at preventing fertilization).

What their argument boils down to is that anything which keeps women from being pregnant all the time pumping out more fundie babies is "wrong".

You're just wrong. It is true that SOME people believe that everyone should have as many babies as they can, but most of them just recognize that a human life could be destroyed, and (duh) think that this is wrong.

Too damn many members of the GOP are on record as saying that this country should be run under Christian Values.

Yes, Fundies like Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc. This, however, does not come CLOSE to implying that they want a theocracy of any sort. For SOME people it does, for MOST people it does not.

If any other religion tried to gain a legislative majority with the explicated stated goal of rewriting our laws so as to be in accord with their holy book, that religious group would be, rightfully so, demonized as traitors to this nation.

Take out the word "any" and it will be more accurate. But you are being simply dishonest -- with us, or with yourself -- when you ascribe a desire to rewrite our nation to follow Christian laws (which are very few!) to someone who speaks of following "Christian values."

A good example of fundies continuing to do their damndest to deny liberties to a category of people whom they dislike is the ongoing effort to ensure that homosexuals cannot marry.

Let's be clear here: this is not actually happening. The effort is to restrict government from officially recognizing those marriages, not from restricting them from getting married. Marriage is a dual institution, religious/social and civil/governmental. It started out purely on the social side, and government recognized the rights and obligations through various forms of law.

I believe, as do most "social conservatives," that it is wrong for government to take that established tradition and modify it by inventing some previously nonexistent right. And if we're going to base this on rights, then we need to do it consistently, which means abolishing ALL restrictions on adult two-person marriages, such as anti-incest laws ... if we don't do that, then we are not really expressing a belief in a right, but just using the law to get what we want for ourselves. So call me crazy, but I don't believe most people really believe in a right of anyone to marry anyone else (assuming adults), as the pro-gay-marriage activists often tell us.

I part company from most religious conservatives when I say that government has no business acknowledging any marriages. We need to allow people to form their own unions as they choose, and government's role is only in enforcing the de facto contracts that are created by such unions.

Christian fundies insist on fighting tooth and nail to ensure that homosexuals cannot marry.

With what justification?

The Bible. Pure and simple.

First, again, no: they are only fighting against government recognition of those unions as "marriage." I know many anti-gay-marriage "fundies" who would not oppose the libertatian "civil unions for all, marriages for none." It's the government sanctioning of "gay marriage" that is the biggest issue, and so what? Government co-opted the word and is changing it on us: why should we not disagree with that?

Also: what was the justification for abolishing slavery? The Bible. Pure and simple. (Yes, really.) There's not a damned thing wrong with me trying to effect policy change (or status quo) based on whatever reasons I want, including the Bible or the Koran.

Denying others liberties because their interpretation of their holy book says so.

Yep. We denied the rights of slaveowners because we believed the Bible said so.

One obvious problem is that fundies are working under the assumption that not only is their interpretation of their holy book is the correct one, but that their holy book is the right holy book!

So what? How is that a problem that has any relevance to this discussion? Newsflash: we live in a damned big country, and lots of people have lots of different views. They believe they are right, you believe you are right. How are you any better?

Strictly going by the numbers Buddhism wins hands down.

Not in this country, of course. But even if they did win in the U.S.: so what?

I don't think that anyone would be too happy if ultra-conservative Buddhists took charge of the nation and outlawed the eating of meat.

If they were a majority, they could try, and I hope the Supreme Court would disregard the insipid notion that any "state interest" has any bearing on whether I can eat meat, and that I simply have a right to do it, dammit.

The key difference is that those Buddhists who believe that murdering any multi-cellular animal life is a sin choose to live their lives according to their beliefs, where as Christian fundies want everyone else to have to abide by whatever rules they believe in.

A minority of "fundies" believe that, yes. I am a fundamentalist, and always have been, and I don't fit into your descriptions. The word "fundamentalist" comes from a book called "The Fundamentals," which was a response in the early 1900s to liberalism of Christian theology. The term does not have any significant implications for public policy, but for theology: so yes, I believe homosexuality is a sin, but no, I don't believe government should restrict it.

What it boils down to is that an increasingly politically powerful group (Christian fundamentalist evangelicals)

Not increasing, no. Decreasing.

.. want to attain political office with the stated intent of passing laws which would take away liberties and freedoms that I and other citizens currently possess.

This is exactly what the left wants to do. Take away my rights to free speech, my rights to buy bottled water, my rights to keep and bear arms, etc. ad nauseam.

Given that context, you expect me not to react violently?

For starters, because that would prove you to be a hypocrite.

Also because you clearly don't really understand your "enemy," but more importantly, because you don't understand society. You will never ever ever find a large society that doesn't have forces trying to control you. No such place can possibly exist. You need to learn to live in such a society, not to kill the people who want to push it in the wrong direction.

This is why our republican system was created, and why us conservatives get so angry when the liberals undermine it, by giving more power to the Congress, by ignoring parts of the Constitution we dislike, etc.

Read Federalist 10 [federali.st] . It talks about how to deal with conflicting interests, and the answer is NOT to destroy liberty as you advocate (reacting violently), but to make government less capable of responding to the people who want to destroy your liberty.

This is the main reason why us conservatives/libertarians want small government: to protect liberty. You can't have abstinence-only sex ed if you don't have sex ed.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 3 years ago | (#34181506)

This is why the left scares us conservatives so much: because even when they are not grabbing immediate government control, they really are still laying the groundwork for total government control.

And now you are grouping all of the "left" together into one cohesive whole. As if those of us fighting for freedom of speech by day are trying to outlaw it by night.

A "liberal" ideology is about ensuring every one's liberties are protected. Just saying "Minimal government intervention, have fun!" does not ensure liberties are protected.

That never happened. Some schools chose to have such programs, but honestly, so the hell what? How is that any worse than any other kind of sex ed?

A good friend of mine's sex education consisted of "don't have sex." Going into her senior year of HS she already had a full sports scholarship lined up for a major college, things were looking good.

Some guy tricked her with a line. I don't know which cliche stupid lie it was, "you can't get pregnant the first time", "you can't get pregnant if we do it like this" or if she just did not realize the possible end result of her actions.

Whatever it was, she wound up pregnant, lost her scholarship, and ended up not being able to attend college.

So in her case, the quality of her school's sex ed program did make a difference in her life.

I have talked to students who, after having come through an abstinence only sex ed program, did not even realize that sex causes pregnancy.

To put it another way, denying basic knowledge of human sexuality in effect easily leads to denying people self determinism. Too many young girls unwillingly become pregnant, I say unwillingly because if they had been educated about human sexuality, they would have made different choices in life.

It directly follows from this that sex education is a goverment responsibility because religious institutions denying sex education to teenagers results in a removing teenagers' choices as to how they want to live their lives.

(an aside: Telling teenagers to "just not have sex", just doesn't work. In a small, very small, percentage of students, this may have the desired effect, but humans are biologically wired to start reproducing around the late teens. Saying "No! Don't do that!" is useless in the extreme. Likewise saying "Jesus says don't do this!" is not one bit more useful, except to create a sense of shame when the act is finally committed)

Lack of education about human sexuality also leads to more unsafe sex practices (e.g. lower use of condoms), a lack of awareness about how STDs are transmitted, and a lack of knowledge of the warning signs of STD infection that should be looked out for. In a relationship where one partner is unfaithful, it the faithful partner deserves to know what obvious physical signs he/she should be looking out for, for the sake of his/her own health if nothing else.

Now the hypocritical bullshit aspect of this that pisses me off the most is the assumption, either unspoken or spoken, that human sexuality is in some way dirty, wrong, or sinful, is actually an affront to God. If we are truly one of His creations, then how the HELL does any preacher justify going off about how "All He created is glorious, oh yah except this part right here, you should all be ashamed of this and that in particular."

Want to create long lasting loving marriages? In-depth discussions about how to sexually please one's partner can certainly help in that regard.

IMHO, the fundamental problem here is that churches are NOT concerned about creating "long lasting loving marriages" so much as they are concerned about keeping everyone living in a state of constant shame. "Lustful thoughts are a sin! Blowjobs are a sin! 2 vibrators, 3 hours, and 10 female orgasms later, most certainly a sin!"

Well ok, they never state that last part, but it is sure as hell implied.

The catholic church perfected this method of social control, it is a shame the protestant churches continue practicing it.

Let's be clear here: this is not actually happening. The effort is to restrict government from officially recognizing those marriages, not from restricting them from getting married.

See, far as I am concerned, marriage is a sheet of Government Paper that make filing out paper work and dealing with legal issues a lot more convenient. It also makes breaking up a lot LESS convenient, but that is another issue entirely. :)

Government acknowledgement of homosexual marriage means filing paperwork in regards to death and taxes becomes easier.

If nothing else, it cuts down on the amount of paperwork the government was to deal with, and that is always a good thing.

Yes, in both cases, those methods can prevent implantation of a living embryo, should fertilization occur (since, as you should know, neither method is 100% at preventing fertilization).

See now you are dealing with "could have beens."

It is also true that conception can happen w/o implantation when giving everything up to nature. Thanks to infertility treatments, finding raw numbers is a PITA, but I have seen some (not the best cited in the world) numbers stating that the odds of everything going to plan are just 20% anyway.

That means, by your logic, that 80% of "potential humans" are murdered.

Ok first off. If an viable embryo falling through IS actually murder, then God is either the largest murderer in history, or just a really really bad engineer.

Take your pick.

Of course one could also say that it is God's Will that those 80% were not born. In which case it could equally be God's Will that a woman chooses to use birth control. Since no form of BC is 100%, it is not as if God still cannot have a hand in things.

There is a problem with your line of thinking that every embryo is sacred. If it is taken to its logical conclusion, and if a drug is developed that increases the chance of implantation, then your belief structure would require all women to take it, or else be charged with murder.

Also: what was the justification for abolishing slavery? The Bible. Pure and simple. (Yes, really.) There's not a damned thing wrong with me trying to effect policy change (or status quo) based on whatever reasons I want, including the Bible or the Koran.

I have a problem with any attempt to restrict liberties, no matter from what source it stems.

Yep. We denied the rights of slaveowners because we believed the Bible said so.

It is true that a majority of members of abolitionism movements were driven by religious beliefs. It is also true that a lot of slave owners used biblical quotes to support their right to own slaves.

The primary problem with slavery is that it denies a certain group of people liberty. Once one accepts that people with different skin colors are human, the law demands that they are given full rights. Unfortunately a bunch of people who had serious economic motive to deny this truth refused to believe it (no surprise there), as they profited greatly from denying liberties to a selected group.

Religion doesn't enter into it either way. Science however does. Science states unequivocally that people of all different ethnicities are equally human.

The law says they all are to be treated equally.

Again, it needed an amendment because some people refused to acknowledge the fundamental humanity of those they kept enslaved.

This is exactly what the left wants to do. Take away my rights to free speech, my rights to buy bottled water, my rights to keep and bear arms, etc. ad nauseam
.

Really?

I think you are confusing "the left" with various special interest groups. PETA and Earth First are as much a part of the left as Westboro Baptist Church is part of the right. (Albeit PETA has much hotter spokes-models)

A lot of politicians running under the "save the children!" band wagon do try to pass some pretty inane laws (ban violent video games! Keep guns away from kids!) but those dipsticks are on both sides of the aisle, and thankfully the Supreme Court tends to knock such stupidity off of the legislative books. Shame it takes so much tax paper money to fight it through all the courts though.

This is why our republican system was created, and why us conservatives get so angry when the liberals undermine it, by giving more power to the Congress, by ignoring parts of the Constitution we dislike, etc.

Except when they are giving more powers to the judicial branch. Or the executive branch.

If given leave to, bureaucracies expand their power and influence. That goes being political divisions and more comes down some people's basic instinct to try to increase the amount of power they wield.

Neither a democrat nor a republican congress has managed to restrain itself fiscally for very long. And I don't see very many (any) legislators from either party going around looking for laws that they can simplify and streamline.

Both parties do seem to enjoy passing new bills though, making the government even bigger. Blaming it on either the left or the right is nonsensical.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34186308)

And now you are grouping all of the "left" together into one cohesive whole.

False. I am generalizing, not grouping. That said:

As if those of us fighting for freedom of speech by day are trying to outlaw it by night.

Yes, though you may not understand you're doing it. That is precisely what the left (generalizing, again) is doing by being outraged at the Citizens United ruling, which did one, simple, thing: it said the government is restricting the speech of citizens by enacting speech-based restrictions on how those citizens spend their money ... and that this is obviously unconstitutional.

You can say all day and night how much you love free speech, but when you defend the power of government to restrict my speech based on the content of my speech -- especially when that speech is political -- you're assaulting free speech.

(And no, the point of Citizens United was not that "corporations are people," but that corporations are comprised OF people, and that -- as the First Amendment clearly says, with the explicit mention of the right of petition -- people have a right to come together to speak as a group, not just individually. And that is in essence all a corporation is, for these purposes: a group of people.)

(And neither does Citizens United say that "money is speech." It says, instead, that if the point of a restriction on money is TO restrict speech, then that is a de facto restriction on speech. This is obvious: if I say you can hang out on the street all you want, but that if you start giving a political speech you can't do it on the street, this is not a restriction on being on the street, but on political speech. That's precisely what the law did, and it's a clear affront to the freedom of speech.)

A "liberal" ideology is about ensuring every one's liberties are protected.

Then we're calling the left the wrong thing, because that is not the ideology of the left. On the contrary, the dominant principle of the left is that our liberties take a backseat to their plans for society, whether they be environmental, economic, social, etc.

Just saying "Minimal government intervention, have fun!" does not ensure liberties are protected.

You are misstating the conservative ideology, which is, "the reason government exists is to secure liberty," (which is straight out of the Declaration of Independence), "and it should do little, if anything, else besides." Libertarian-conservatives believe in a strong law enforcement and justice system that is geared precisely toward securing rights.

A good friend of mine's sex education consisted of "don't have sex."

Right. But no one forced it on the school. The school chose it.

Some guy tricked her with a line.

So? What does that have to do with sex ed? That's PARENTING. If you're relying on schools to make sure your daughters know how to deal with sex-crazed dudes in college, or to know how the hell babies are made, then you're a fucking moron.

So in her case, the quality of her school's sex ed program did make a difference in her life.

That's absolute and utter bullshit.

I have talked to students who, after having come through an abstinence only sex ed program, did not even realize that sex causes pregnancy.

... which is OBVIOUSLY the fault of the PARENTS, period, full stop, end of story.

... denying basic knowledge of human sexuality ...

... has NEVER HAPPENED in a school. Ever. This is provably true because schools are not the only, or primary, method of teaching children about how life works. Schools cannot "deny" information about sex anymore than they can "deny" information about World of Warcraft.

It directly follows from this that sex education is a goverment responsibility because religious institutions denying sex education to teenagers results in a removing teenagers' choices as to how they want to live their lives.

If parents did not exist, you'd have a point. Since they do, you have absolutely no point whatsoever. You could make the same case justifying ANYTHING as a government responsibility. Government needs to teach about God, because otherwise kids won't be able to make their own choices later on. It's idiotic reasoning.

(an aside: Telling teenagers to "just not have sex", just doesn't work. In a small, very small, percentage of students, this may have the desired effect, but humans are biologically wired to start reproducing around the late teens.

Shrug. I waited until marriage. And no, I wasn't told, "just don't have sex," I was told -- with explanation -- that waiting was better than not waiting. And it was true.

Now the hypocritical bullshit aspect of this that pisses me off the most is the assumption, either unspoken or spoken, that human sexuality is in some way dirty, wrong, or sinful, is actually an affront to God.

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. People ARE saying that sex outside of marriage is wrong and sinful, and you may disagree, but so what?

Want to create long lasting loving marriages? In-depth discussions about how to sexually please one's partner can certainly help in that regard.

And this has not one fucking thing to do with schools.

See, far as I am concerned, marriage is a sheet of Government Paper that make filing out paper work and dealing with legal issues a lot more convenient. It also makes breaking up a lot LESS convenient, but that is another issue entirely. :)

Well, you're wrong. I mean, that might be what it is TO YOU, but it is not what it is in society. Marriage is two things: a social/religious union, and a government contract. But since we call them the same thing, it is necessarily the case that people will get upset when you change the latter, because it implies changes to the former.

This is how people work. It doesn't matter if you think it makes no sense, especially when the solution is so simple: change the name of the government contract to something other than "marriage."

See now you are dealing with "could have beens."

Incorrect.

It is also true that conception can happen w/o implantation when giving everything up to nature.

And? This is irrelevant, of course. There's a huge difference between us taking a specific action that results in implantation failing, and that failure happening naturally. Infants can die "naturally," and we can drop them on their heads resulting in their death. We try to avoid the latter, even if we know we cannot avoid the former. Is this not obvious?

That means, by your logic, that 80% of "potential humans" are murdered.

Bullshit. Are you that dumb, really? Murder is the taking of specific action that knowingly results in the death of a human. Something that happens due to nothing I've done cannot possibly be murder, by unniversal definition.

Ok first off. If an viable embryo falling through IS actually murder, then God is either the largest murderer in history, or just a really really bad engineer.

I won't get into theology with you right now, but no, that actually misunderstands the Christian view of creation (which is understandable, since you don't even understand the much simpler Christian view of sexuality).

Of course one could also say that it is God's Will that those 80% were not born. In which case it could equally be God's Will that a woman chooses to use birth control.

I can't help but be bored when you try to morally equate actions we choose, with things that just happen beyond our choice or control.

There is a problem with your line of thinking that every embryo is sacred.

If so, you've utterly failed to demonstrate it. And no, it's not every embryo, it's every HUMAN LIFE. That includes you and I. And yet, many humans die every day, many of them well before they reach a ripe old age.

If it is taken to its logical conclusion, and if a drug is developed that increases the chance of implantation, then your belief structure would require all women to take it, or else be charged with murder.

No, that is not a logical conclusion at all. Inaction is not the same as action, and not all inactions are equal, as they can be based on various reasons. For example, maybe the drug has the side effect of making the woman violently ill, thus causing additional risk to the pregnancy, even though it increases the chance of implantation. Or maybe she rationally believes that she should understand a drug before she takes it, and she doesn't really understand it, or is unconvinced by the evidence presented to her.

Or maybe she believes that she should leave the implantation in God's hands. And yes, someone who takes birth control could believe the same thing, which is why no one I know wants to outlaw contraception of any kind. You are sitting here criticizing a choice people make for themselves, remember, not something anyone is pushing on anyone else.

I have a problem with any attempt to restrict liberties, no matter from what source it stems.

So stop referring to the source, then. It weakens your position.

It is true that a majority of members of abolitionism movements were driven by religious beliefs. It is also true that a lot of slave owners used biblical quotes to support their right to own slaves.

And?

The primary problem with slavery is that it denies a certain group of people liberty.

Which is also the primary problem with abortion.

Once one accepts that people with different skin colors are human, the law demands that they are given full rights.

Exactly. And once one accepts that unborn human lives are human, the law demands that they are given full rights.

Religion doesn't enter into it either way. Science however does. Science states unequivocally that people of all different ethnicities are equally human.

And science states unequivocally that that unborn human lives are equally human.

Really?

Yes.

I think you are confusing "the left" with various special interest groups.

No. Again, I've already discussed taking away the rights to free speech, and I could detail more examples, like "hate speech" and "fairness doctrine" laws backed by most Democrats in D.C. In various large cities, bottled water has been banned or regulated.

And do I even need to provide evidence of guns being banned, when we just had two major cities sued over it in the last few years? Indeed, a majority of the Democrats in D.C. want to bring back the "Assault Weapons Ban," and Obama's version of it would have gone much further than the original (which is no surprise, since he supported the unconstitutional gun bans in D.C. and Chicago).

These are not "special interest groups" -- although their views are backed by those groups -- they are the longtime leaders of the Democratic Party, at all government levels.

Except when they are giving more powers to the judicial branch. Or the executive branch.

No, that's a fallacy. In fact, it is the left that has wanted to give more power to both. There was no greater expansion of executive or judicial power than under FDR. And most of the supposed expansions of executive power under Bush were not expansions at all, but were just Democrats making shit up, like the "executive order" nonsense.

Executive orders never had any force of law outside the executive branch, which has always been the case. An executive order is nothing more or less than the executive telling his employees what to do, which the President -- according to the first line of Article II of the Constitution -- has always had the full authority to do. There was no expansion of executive authority here.

As to the judicial branch, I don't even know what you're referring to: if anything, the conservatives have tried to restrain the judicial branch, by trying to pass legislation to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts (which is explicitly allowed by the Constitution). If you mean court decisions you disagree with, then I fail to see how that is an expansion of power: it's always been under the power of the Court to decide in ways people disagree with. In fact, it's a requirement of every decision.

Neither a democrat nor a republican congress has managed to restrain itself fiscally for very long.

... which is the main reason why conservatives have been so angry at the Republicans for so long. It's the main reason why the Democrats won so big in 2006 and 2008. And if the Republican screw up again, it's going to be the main reason why some of us leave the GOP permanently.

And I don't see very many (any) legislators from either party going around looking for laws that they can simplify and streamline.

Then you aren't paying attention. If nothing else, you should be aware of Ron Paul. But there's also Coburn, Ryan, and a bunch of other conservatives who have long pushed for such things.

I readily concede -- hell, I downright assert it -- that the GOP as a whole has not done this. We're hoping this time they do.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215306)

Yes, though you may not understand you're doing it. That is precisely what the left (generalizing, again) is doing by being outraged at the Citizens United ruling, which did one, simple, thing: it said the government is restricting the speech of citizens by enacting speech-based restrictions on how those citizens spend their money ... and that this is obviously unconstitutional.

I think the outrage here was due to the media doing a piss poor job on reporting the case more than anything else. Then again, 99% of public outrage (on both sides of the political spectrum) is caused by B.S. media fear mongering.

I saw a single good quote that changed a lot of my views on special interest groups.

"Everyone is part of a some special interest group. What is an evil special interest group to one person, is someone's livelihood."

Not sure where I saw it at, but always something I try to keep in mind.

Likewise, corporations are groupings of people. Issues come up though that multinational corporations do not necessarily have the best interest of America at heart, and as such may support candidates that will enact policies which are good for them but bad for America as a whole. That situation is more problematic and is one where there might be reason to limit corporate free speech. Letting a corporation which has, say for instance, a majority of their shares owned by Chinese investors, run political adverts becomes a bit worrisome.

Then we're calling the left the wrong thing, because that is not the ideology of the left. On the contrary, the dominant principle of the left is that our liberties take a backseat to their plans for society, whether they be environmental, economic, social, etc.

I think we are both inappropriately mixing and matching left/right liberal/conservative.

I do not agree with a lot of what democrat politicians do. I do happen to like what the elected politicians from my state do, but I'll note that a democrat from WA is very different than a democrat from CA. (We'd freak the hell out if our politicians tried to do 1/2 the crap the cali politicians get away with)

One thing that (some) conservatives and liberals disagree over though is exactly what constitutes a liberty. Liberals such as myself believe in ideas such as that everyone has the right to breath air that does not make them sick. From an economists perspective this is a Tragedy of the Commons scenario, where allowing unrestricted pollution by treating the atmosphere as a public commons ends up trashing the commons and infringing on others' liberties.

This can be extended to the ban on bottled water. Now IMHO bottled water is stupid, (at least where I live it is, we have some of the best tap water in the nation), but there is a proper economic solution here.

The generalized problem is that of goods of which the usage of places an extra economic burden on society. The (liberal + leftist) solution is separate tax on that good and have 100% of the revenue from that tax go to relieving the imposed economic burden.

Indeed Washington state recently imposed a sales tax on bottled water sold in a sealed container.

Those who refill containers are not subject to this tax. Although I doubt the money is going specifically to clean up efforts in regards to the extra burden placed upon waste management systems due to bottled water, the idea is still a sound one. In this case the idea is to treat bottled water as a luxury item (of which it is) the usage of which places an economic burden on society (which is does) and to impose a tax to try to discourage its use (which I doubt paying an extra 1 cent on a 75 cent bottle really does :P ).

Indeed there is an empty bottled water container sitting next to be right now. I regularly refill it from the tap when I head out. :)

Outlawing bottled water is just stupid, and I hope such laws are challenged and court and overturned (though I am not familiar with any reason as to why they would be, they should be!)

(Another solution is to punching anyone in the face who is too lazy to recycle their plastic bottles...)

Right. But no one forced it on the school. The school chose it.

Pressure from religious fundamentalist groups doesn't count? Protesters, barrages of letters, harassment campaigns, is there much choice left after that?

... which is OBVIOUSLY the fault of the PARENTS, period, full stop, end of story.

{snip} ... has NEVER HAPPENED in a school. Ever. This is provably true because schools are not the only, or primary, method of teaching children about how life works. Schools cannot "deny" information about sex anymore than they can "deny" information about World of Warcraft.

Hey guess what! I agree! Parents at fault, definitely!

But there is an underlying social force which created the social dynamics in which the parents felt too "ashamed" or "embarrassed" to talk to their daughter about sex. That social force is religion.

While many mainstream churches do not go out of their way to say that sex is shameful, there is still an underlying assumption or feeling that sex is somehow wrong or embarrassing. Liberals talk about sex as if it is another part of life, in comparison in churches sex is either not brought up at all, or limited to "tell your teenagers not to do this."

The end effect of this is to create a prevailing attitude of shame, embarrassment, or even fear, of sex in society.

And then on top of all of this you have the fact that most parents are not reliable sources of medical information. Failure rates for IUDs vs. BC pills, transmission rates for STDs, and so on, are not exactly bits of information most people are knowledgeable about.

At this point it makes sense so centralize the distribution of knowledge about human sexuality.

The most telling piece of proof that churches are part of spreading a prevailing sense of fear and shame about sex is that they get so upset about what amounts to just one more biology lesson.

Shrug. I waited until marriage. And no, I wasn't told, "just don't have sex," I was told -- with explanation -- that waiting was better than not waiting. And it was true.

You are also not the majority of people. (Indeed no one person is the majority of people! :) )

I actually agree that sex outside of a long term meaningful relationship is shallow, pointless, and likely devolves into being a sin.

I also believe that educating people with KNOWLEDGE as to what their options are is important.

I also think your entire argument that increasing the chance of preventing implantation is equivalent to murder is full of logical holes the size of grape fruits.

Then again I also completely disagree that human life starts from conception. Until there is an actively working brain, no go.

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT

They are not saying it, but it is an implied undertone in a lot of religious messages.

There ARE conservative religious groups with healthy views on sexuality, I am not denying that. I am saying that such groups are in the minority of conservative Christian organizations.

Marriage is two things: a social/religious union, and a government contract. But since we call them the same thing, it is necessarily the case that people will get upset when you change the latter, because it implies changes to the former.

No one is forcing YOUR church to allow gays to marry inside of its walls, and indeed I would oppose any attempts to do so.

In regards to marriage, religion has had a history of ignoring any types of marriages it doesn't like (inter-faith marriages, inter-cultural marriages, etc), and hey, no problem, they can keep on ignoring marriages that they do not want to acknowledge!

No one is saying YOU have to accept homosexual marriages, just that the IRS does.

And? This is irrelevant, of course. There's a huge difference between us taking a specific action that results in implantation failing, and that failure happening naturally. Infants can die "naturally," and we can drop them on their heads resulting in their death. We try to avoid the latter, even if we know we cannot avoid the former. Is this not obvious?

For fucks sake this damn nearly gets into meta-physics.

Lets say an IUD is in place. In such instances there is a nearly 100% chance of implantation not happening. Therefore there was no chance of intercourse resulting in baby 9 months from now.

Without an IUD, there is an 80% chance of implantation failing.

Let us construct a hypothetical scenario where in the couple having sex has 100% pre-knowledge if their sex act will result in fertilization and implantation occurring.

If the couple only has sex at such times as that implantation will NOT occur, they will have in effect duplicated the results of an IUD.

Will they have committed murder by not having sex at such a time as they know that doing so would produce a fetus?

The logical answer would be of course not.

Now lets say that instead of some sort of psychic pre-knowledge the couple has a machine next to their bed which tells them if copulation at any given time will result in a viable fetus.

Again, the couple chooses to only have sex at such times as the act will not result in offspring.

The end result here is the same as that of an IUD. 100% failure rate of implantation. The only difference is in the means.

{snip}

Spent too long on this reply already, browser window needs closing :P

Re:Nothing to add (1)

iamtheantipudge (1091487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34181878)

FYI: It doesn't matter when life "begins". The mother's rights as an adult*, living, breathing human being take full precedence over all else. The fetus, alive or not, is part of the mother until it is born. The government has no right to interfere with the mother's and her family's choice. It is a private matter. Very simple indeed. However, I shall let you all fight over how and which any elective procedures are funded.

*if she is a minor, then the family decides, never the government, unless she is a ward of the state (prison, asylum, foster care, etc.)

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34186358)

FYI: It doesn't matter when life "begins". The mother's rights as an adult*, living, breathing human being take full precedence over all else.

False.

The fetus, alive or not, is part of the mother until it is born.

Why do you hate science? Simply put, that is factually incorrect. The child is a distinct, living, unique, biological organism of genus "homo" and species "sapiens." It is a human life, and not a "part" of someone else, like an arm, leg, or liver.

You are ignoring science to justify your own depravity.

You are making the slaveowner argument, except instead of saying the slave is the property of the slaveowner, you're saying the child is part of the mother. But we've already established since abolition that human lives cannot be subjugated out of their inherent value, no matter what your argument is.

The government has no right to interfere with the mother's and her family's choice.

Yes, it does, when that "choice" is to harm someone else. In fact, our Declaration says, it is not merely the right of government, but its reason for existence.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34204640)

Pudge, you couldn't be more full of shit. Well, maybe you could, but I don't know where you'd put it. You might need to put another addition onto the house..

The government doesn't mess with the internal affairs of another country. It has even less right to meddle with the private affairs of a mother and her family. Regardless of your religious pontifications, not much else can be said that matters at all. Here you are merely attempting to impose your values on other people. That's it, nothing else. It's you being authoritarian.

Your bullshit on slavery is simply comedic. You just have no idea of the events surrounding it. Life is too short for the time it would take to explain it to you, as distorted by your fanaticism your perceptions are. The facts just glance off of you. Or they are like neutrinos passing through you completely unnoticed.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34152570)

The good thing is that Com2Kid appears to be as smart as you wish you were. You didn't understand a single thing he wrote, and it's painfully obvious to everyone but you and your hive-minded friends.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34152560)

OMFG I think I just jizzed myself.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

FroMan (111520) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128138)

Clinton had many Left tendencies, but he also had some practicality to his term. After '94 midterms he compromised with the Republicans.

Obama certainly is Left and will likely continue to push his agenda rather than compromise with the Republicans. And he will likely get support from the majority of the media (which was the real point I was making in this journal) if (hopefully when) the Republican House start using similar tactics that Newt used.

I hope the House doesn't waver when the new reports that the Republicans are trying to shut down the government start coming in. That is exactly what I am hoping for and will help the country most. The new blood probably already knows why they were elected. The old guard establishment of the Republican party however likely will bow to media pressure. We already saw that happen during the gang of 14 with Bush appointments.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129122)

Clinton had many Left tendencies, but he also had some practicality to his term. After '94 midterms he compromised with the Republicans.

I'd say he was on the left, firmly, but was willing to compromise on almost anything.

Obama certainly is Left and will likely continue to push his agenda rather than compromise with the Republicans.

We'll see.

I hope the House doesn't waver when the new reports that the Republicans are trying to shut down the government start coming in. That is exactly what I am hoping for and will help the country most. The new blood probably already knows why they were elected. The old guard establishment of the Republican party however likely will bow to media pressure. We already saw that happen during the gang of 14 with Bush appointments.

I agree with all of that EXCEPT for your criticism of the Gang of 14. I think McCain and Graham etc. did exactly the right thing. I think the case for the legitimacy of the "nuclear option" is very weak, and that not only would the use of it caused damage to the Senate itself, but it also would have caused significant harm to the public perception of the Republicans, who pride themselves on following the rules, but then break them for a blatantly political maneuver in regards to manipulation of something seen by most as apolitical: the judiciary.

Not that the public perception is the most important factor -- following the rules is -- but it is stupid to me to use the nuclear option to get what you want, when we got what we want (except for two judges), with a much less politically harmful method: the Gang of 14. If not for the Gang of 14, we might not have gotten Alito. That alone makes it worth it, IMO.

I would've been right there with McCain and Graham. I hate the filibuster in general, but the rules simply do not allow you to rule the filibuster out of order just because you don't like how it is being used. And I well-understand the argument that the Constitution requires an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees, but I also understand that's complete bullshit: the Constitution is clear that the Senate gets to decide how to go about its own business (which is why Alcee Hastings' impeachment was upheld), which is codified in its rules, and changing the rules requires a majority. You can't say you get to make your own rules when you want to, and then appeal to the Constitution to overrule the rules when you can't change them through the normal process.

I'd vote in a heartbeat to eliminate judicial filibusters by rule change, but not by a change in constitutional interpretation.

That is by far my main reason for supporting McCain and Graham: the rules. However, I do think you may be right that the some or all of the Republicans in the Gang did so primarily for public appearance. I can't speak to their motives.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129590)

And I well-understand the argument that the Constitution requires an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees, but I also understand that's complete bullshit: the Constitution is clear that the Senate gets to decide how to go about its own business

Where's the bullshit? The Senate can make any rule it wants, as long as it's Constitutional. Avoidance of a Constitutional requirement is not Constitutional. McCain and Lindsey are enemies of the Constitution (i.e. Progressives) for validating, with their choice of response, this clear illegality. From a practical POV, the ends were better by them choosing to focus not on the illegality of it but elsewhere, since Leftists don't care about rules and can only be reached by appeals to other things that they might consider important. But I'm not an ends justify the means guy (another Progressive thing). I'd rather lose, than compromise my integrity. I'm a major weakness on your side. If you leave the GOP and start a new Conservative party, better watch out for Conservatives like me, and keep us out.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131000)

Where's the bullshit? The Senate can make any rule it wants, as long as it's Constitutional.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether the rule that judicial nominees can be filibustered is unconstitutional. My argument is that the rule is not unconstitutional. Frist's and the GOP's was that it is unconstitutional. That was their only basis for the "nuclear option": that the rule was unconstitutional (as applied to judicial nominees) and therefore out of order.

Avoidance of a Constitutional requirement is not Constitutional.

Quote for me from the Constitution to prove your case. Go ahead. I defy you.

There's nothing in the Constitution that requires a mere majority to do move a nominee. Nor is a vote for cloture a vote to move a nominee. Nor is there anything in the Constitution that says the Senate cannot make up its own rules along these lines.

The simple fact is that your own argument works against you: yes, the Senate can make any rule it wants, as long as it's not unconstitutional. And you will find no support in the Constitution for asserting that the filibuster is unconstitutional. None whatsoever.

I welcome you to try, though.

Conservatives cease to be conservatives when they don't respect the rule of law and make things up as they go along for their own benefit, or the benefit of their agenda. That is what the "nuclear option" represented.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131548)

>> Avoidance of a Constitutional requirement is not Constitutional.
> Quote for me from the Constitution to prove your case.

It's definitionally so, so it's self-proving. But you can be totally bonkers on this if you want, I suppose.

Yours is like saying show me where in the Ten Commandments it says you must uphold the commandments. If a document says you must do something, then if you don't, it's by definition in violation of that document.

> There's nothing in the Constitution that requires a mere majority to do move a nominee.

Not only is it according to the letter of the Constitution that they're required to give an up or down vote on judicial nominees, it is also obviously according to the spirit of that requirement -- our founders hardly wanted one branch of govt. in a system of checks and balances to be able to drain the power of another thru attrition and thereby ruining the balance.

> And you will find no support in the Constitution for asserting that the filibuster is unconstitutional.

A filibuster is to block voting. Voting is Constitutionally required in this case. Therefore a filibuster in this case is unconstitutional.

> That's not the issue. The issue is whether the rule that judicial nominees can be filibustered is unconstitutional.

Isn't that a bit like saying it's the not fall that's the issue, because technically it's not the fall that kills you?

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34137032)

If a document says you must do something, then if you don't, it's by definition in violation of that document.

Right. So quote for me where the Constitution says they must do something, that is violated by the filibuster. It's not there.

There's nothing in the Constitution that requires a mere majority to do move a nominee.

Not only is it according to the letter of the Constitution that they're required to give an up or down vote on judicial nominees

If the letter of the Constitution mentioned, or even implied, such a requirement, you'd quote it. It's not there.

Voting is Constitutionally required in this case.

Quote the Constitution saying so. I defy you to do it. It's not there.

I know this is an article of faith among many on the right, but it's not based in facts of any sort.

If you think I am being "totally bonkers," all you have to do prove it is to quote the Constitution saying that a vote on judicial nominees is required. Very simple.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140194)

If you think I am being "totally bonkers," all you have to do prove it is to quote the Constitution saying that a vote on judicial nominees is required. Very simple.

I think you're trying to weasel out of the truth on some technicality, but to hopefully give you what you're asking for [wikipedia.org] :

Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

So, Constitutionally, it's the President's job to nominate judges, and it's the Senate's job to give advice on such nominations and to decide whether to consent to them or not. So either branch not performing its duty in this (necessary) process, is unconstitutional. Furthermore, if our founders wanted to stipulate a special threshold of a majority for judicial nominees as they did for treaty ratification, they would have done so.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140740)

I think you're trying to weasel out of the truth on some technicality

And I think you either can't read, or that you're being intentionally obtuse. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say, or imply, a damned thing about the Senate being required to vote.

So, Constitutionally, it's the President's job to nominate judges, and it's the Senate's job to give advice on such nominations and to decide whether to consent to them or not.

Their job, yes. But are they required to take action? Absolutely and obviously not. As chair of the local GOP, any press release from our committee must go through me. But if I send out no press releases, I am not violating any rules.

Read the Constitution again: it does not say "the Senate must say whether or not they consent," it says "the President ... shall appoint" only if that consent is given. The requirement is that appointments cannot happen without consent, NOT that the Senate must say whether or not they consent. If the Senate takes no action, no consent is given, and the appointment doesn't happen. This is absolutely in keeping with the clear language of the Constitution.

(And even if it were a requirement of the Senate to signal whether they consent -- which it obviously is not -- the lack of vote still firmly constitutes such a signal, and thus the requirement is still fulfilled without action.)

Furthermore, if our founders wanted to stipulate a special threshold of a majority for judicial nominees as they did for treaty ratification, they would have done so.

On the contrary: the authors of the Constitution intentionally left such details up to the Senate to determine for themselves, and if they wanted to stipulate that a vote was required, they would have done so.

More importantly, though, as already noted, a vote for cloture is not a vote for judicial nominees: they are two different things. So there is no "special threshold of a majority" for judicial nominees in the Senate. Sometimes, depending on the minority, they may use the rules to make it a de facto higher threshold, but not a de jure higher threshold, which is our concern here.

Also, you are singling out "judicial nominees" when the language of the Constitution lumps them together with all other nominees. Not sure why you keep doing this, but Frist etc. did it too, and it's not justified by the plain language of the Constitution. Then again, neither is the claim that a vote is ever required for nominees ...

There really isn't even a serious question about this. If this came before the Supreme Court, they'd agree with me 9-0 every time, no matter the Court's makeup. There is no requirement to advise or consent. It's simply not in the Constitution. This is a restriction on appointments, not a mandate to the Senate.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

FroMan (111520) | more than 3 years ago | (#34134356)

I agree with you on the nuclear option. On the gang of fourteen issue, I would have liked to see the filibuster actually forced. Instead of a threat, I want to see a real filibuster happen. I want to see sleeping bags and hear the phone book read. Instead, because of concern of what it would look like in the media, the gang of fourteen effectively ceded ground.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34142752)

A filibuster WOULD have been fun. :-)

Re:Nothing to add (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129216)

Well let's estimate what would happen for either case then.

Your second paragraph is a safe set of givens. BHO is an idealogue who doesn't care about his job approval ratings with the public, and doesn't really care about getting re-elected. His purpose was to fool people into believing he was someone totally different than what he really was, to get elected for, necessarily, only a single term, to try to install as many socialist big agenda items as he could. He doesn't care about the economy, jobs, the wars, nuclear proliferation, he largely focuses on only a single goal at a time. The first was getting into the White House. Then it's a big govt. program each in turn. He's fully prepared to martyr any future political career for himself, to plant huge far-Left roots deep into the American system. (And then everyone's been onto for a while now what the (MSM-FNC) has been up to for a long while now.)

So:

1) The GOP House holds firm - The MSM will tell the public that BHO and the Dems really tried to get things done for the American people, like create jobs, esp. the morally superior variety known as green jobs, but the GOP stopped them. These last two years everyone had at least the faintest idea that the GOP had no power to ultimately cause anything to happen or not happen. But one chamber held will be enough for the MSM to convincingly spin. In 2012 the GOP would retain a diminished majority, still a Dem senate, and BHO re-elected, as after four years with no change, the public would assume that neither party can fix things.

OR

2) The GOP House caves - Spending and deficits rise with a complicit opposition party, along with the jobs situation not improving, so the the public assumes that they're now basically the same and that neither party can fix things. And leaves the composition of rule pretty much as the same as in the previous choice.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130352)

(I should slightly qualify my characterization of BHO. He does very infrequently take time out from his normal single-minded focus mindset, such as to save (only) union jobs, or go on lavish trips with his family so they can see the world on the taxpayers' dimes. But then he goes back to devoting all his attention on installing one big socialist item at a time, caring little about anything else, including even the environment (like the oil spill in the Gulf).)

Re:Nothing to add (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128526)

But if they fail to act conservatively now, they won't get that chance. And if they do win in 2012, and THEN blow it, they won't get another chance, and people like me will look to start a new conservative party.

Spoken like a true addict.

PROGNOSTICATION: Not only will the Repubs not come anywhere close to even trying any kind of fiscal restraint, you and all the other so-called dissident conservatives will still be chugging their cock in 2013.

Going to be making lots of moneeeeeeeeee....

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129228)

Spoken like a true addict.

Not at all. As usual, you just make things up.

I used to be a registered Libertarian. In 1996 I voted for Harry Browne. I am a Republican for two basic reasons: first, I disagreed with the Libertarians on some important issues (like abortion); and second, Libertarians get nothing done, and Republicans can, and do, and have. So around the turn of the last decade, I switched to GOP and got involved in my Republican Town Committee in Massachusetts, where we worked to get Mitt Romney elected.

But while the GOP gets some good things done, it has also failed to, generally, do the right big things when they've had the chance in the last decade, and has often done precisely the wrong things. Still, I've had no other viable option to get things done. I believe that if the GOP fails this time, there WILL be another viable option. Another party will form. And if it is palatable to me, and has a good chance, I'll work within it, abandoning the GOP.

Hell, if there was a palatable, viable, option against Bush in 2004, I'd have taken it. I was clear on this at the time. But this time I think there actually WILL be options. But until then I'll continue to work to make the GOP a true small-government party.

PROGNOSTICATION ...

Yawn.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129328)

Damnit, I knew I was going to be proven right, but not this quick!

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129458)

Do you even know how to read and write? It doesn't appear so.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34129674)

That's the best you got? If you're not even going to try, don't bother yourself.

Also, kneepads. I forgot to mention that in my original post. They will be very useful.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130792)

Spoken like a true addict.

God really. "Just one more roll of quarters. I know I can get my money back. Then we can go over to the Silver Slipper for a nice buffet"

Re:Nothing to add (1)

FroMan (111520) | more than 3 years ago | (#34134414)

I've been registered Republican since I started voting. Nor am I likely to change that unless another conservative party comes forward. Strategically it allows me to vote in the Republican primaries and help support the more conservative candidate.

However, in the last election cycle I voted for 1 Republican. The rest were Libertarian and US Tax Payers (Michigan Constitution Party) since they represent my views more closely.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

iamtheantipudge (1091487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34136456)

OK, I lied...

Well, of course! You're pudge.. Like in that story about the frog and the scorpion, it's what you do.

Hey! I thought you were "retiring" from Slashdot. Well, I, for one, am glad you stayed. Just wouldn't be the same without ya...

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34142424)

OK, I lied...

Well, of course! You're pudge.. Like in that story about the frog and the scorpion, it's what you do.

One example?

Oh right, you have none.

But ACTUAL lying is what YOU do.

Hey! I thought you were "retiring" from Slashdot.

Yes, because you are foolish.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

iamtheantipudge (1091487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34159404)

One example?

More than one [slashdot.org] , many more [slashdot.org] ...

Next question.

But ACTUAL lying is what YOU do.

See? There's another example right there... It's just too easy with you.

As for your "retirement", I'll have to check later to see if I locally saved your journal on the subject, because I noticed you deleted it. Did you delete it from from your blog, too?

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34159594)

One example?

More than one [slashdot.org] , many more [slashdot.org] ...

You appear to be confused. I asked for examples of me LYING, not examples of me TYPING. You're not very good at this, are you?

As for your "retirement", I'll have to check later to see if I locally saved your journal on the subject, because I noticed you deleted it.

You are -- as usual, as expected -- lying. I deleted no such thing. No such thing ever existed.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

iamtheantipudge (1091487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34170570)

I asked for examples of me LYING, not examples of me TYPING.

Ah, very good. I shall reword it then. You TYPE LIES on Slashdot, and most probably elsewhere. When you type lies, it is safe to conclude that you are lying... As in the (yet another) example below.

You are -- as usual, as expected -- lying.

Oh no no no, I was merely TYPING... But unlike you, I type the truth.

I deleted no such thing. No such thing ever existed.

:-) (Most excellent) Consider yourself very lucky I didn't save the journal itself.. All I have is the place holder where it used to briefly reside [slashdot.org] .. From my messages: New Journal Entry by pudge, "use Perl;" Wednesday August 11, @05:23PM. When you look here [slashdot.org] , you will notice it no longer exists. That would signify to me and probably everyone else that the journal was deleted. So, is that your final answer? In that journal you mentioned leaving Slashdot on the 30th of September. D_R saw it and commented on it in one of his journals. Ah yes, here it is [slashdot.org] , with some very funny comments. Give it a read. So I wasn't the only one. And I have more evidence (not going to look for it now) with a link to your blog containing the same journal. You delete that one, too? So thank you oh so very much for proving me right again. You most definitely are, what you call a... LIAR!

All you have left are lies. You cling to them to prop up your fantasies. So I can't say as I'd blame you for it. It's in your blood. It defines you.

Thank goodness you stayed. I exist only for you. Without you I have no purpose. You validate me. You should consider that a great honor. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. I am forever grateful

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34180256)

You TYPE LIES on Slashdot

And yet, you failed to provide a single example. Shrug.

In that journal you mentioned leaving Slashdot on the 30th of September.

I did leave Slashdot, yes (although it was September 10th). I am no longer employed by Geeknet to work on Slashdot, and am now gainfully employed at Marchex [marchex.com] . However, you wrote: 'Hey! I thought you were "retiring" from Slashdot. Well, I, for one, am glad you stayed."' That necessarily implies I wrote I would no longer be posting on Slashdot, which I did not do.

Feel free to admit your error at any time.

All you have left are lies.

Such as?

Re:Nothing to add (1)

iamtheantipudge (1091487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34181548)

Your ability to misinterpret the written word is incredible. So this is how you convince yourself you're not lying (oops, I mean typing lies), and your opponent is.... You see words that aren't there, and completely ignore the ones that are*, and from there you put your million monkeys on the keyboard... You truly do live a fantasy... Thus you never have to admit you're wrong, or expressing misrepresentations (lies). Now, if you are, as I suspect, an irrational person, then, of course you can be forgiven, as you don't know what you're doing. However, if you actually are acting reasonably or logically, then I would consider your untruths and accusations, and ad hominems to be malicious in nature. Which one is it? Are you nuts? or just a horse's ass? Clearly it's one of the two. Or you're just trolling to bring in those page hits. I will grant your talent for that. Like a stinking pile of poop, you can really draw the flies. Good for you! You are so fun to watch... most of the time. Your rants on local politics are quite dull and largely a waste of disk space. If we want to see that junk, we can always travel to your blog. I don't see any point in cluttering up Slashdot with that garbage. Just put a link in your bio, or sig, and leave it at that.

*And yet, you failed to provide a single example..

Exactly as I said, You choose to not see what is there and make up your own... er *stuff*. The links I provided contain all the examples needed. When you actually read the things you wrote (which are summarily debunked in the responses), you will understand.

Such as?

Your posts and journals.

Okaaaay, it's getting late, so let's review, shall we?

1) I said you deleted the relevant journal (which you, aside from the stupid game you're playing, knew exactly which one)
2) You said no such thing existed
3) I proved that it did
4) Conclusion, you misstated. If intentionally, you lied... and then maliciously (or irrationally) called me a liar.

It's one thing to express untruths pertaining to opinion and speculation, as you regularly do. But this here is a real physical fact, and now you got nailed to the cross over it. However, I am impressed by your tenaciousness in keeping the lie alive. You would make the ideal politician. You got all the bases covered.

Shrug

Have that shoulder checked out...

Re:Nothing to add (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34186340)

Your ability to misinterpret the written word is incredible.

There can be no doubt that you expressed the false notion that I said I would no longer be posting on Slashdot. You can't even provide a single example of a lie I've ever said, yet you keep repeating that I've lied.

1) I said you deleted the relevant journal

Yes, you said that. But no, I did not.

2) You said no such thing existed

I did say that, and it is true.

3) I proved that it did

You're a liar. In fact, I proved that your evidence that such a thing DID exist was false.

4) Conclusion, you misstated.

You're a liar. In fact, I proved that you are the one who "misstated."

Your "logic" goes something like this: I said President Obama said that he wants to kill all white people, and then he deleted the evidence from his web site. You say I am lying. I provide evidence: a quote from Obama's web site saying that he wants everyone to do community service. You say, "but community service is not the same thing as killing white people." I say, "you're lying!"

That's the irrationality you've sunk to here: you claim I said something I never did, and when you provide evidence I said something else, somehow you prove your original claim. (Actually, I guess I am giving you too much credit: that is the irrationality you've RISEN to. As irrational as this is, you're usually much worse.)

(Of course, what's really true is that you're just screwing around, knowing you're full of shit, just trying to mess with me. And I thank you: it gives me something fun to do on the way to work.)

Re:Nothing to add (1)

iamtheantipudge (1091487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34204316)

...you provide evidence I said something else...

Very little ambiguity in the word "leaving". My somewhat more facetious term "retiring" is close enough for everyone but you, and your powers of inference certainly are defective, as you well illustrated. Keep on trying to wriggle loose from that crucifix I put you on so firmly. You are now a proven liar. If anybody has any doubt, this will serve as future, undeniable reference. It was like hearing Colonel Jessup's reply to whether he ordered the code red. "You're goddamn right I did!" Yep, you sure did. You lie like a rug. And it becomes more clear that you just can't help it. Thanks, pudge, for finally ending absolutely all doubt. You have reached nirvana. You may now rest in peace... but please, don't go.. not now, not ever.

That Obama shit was funny. It didn't make any sense, but it was still funny. You seem somewhat obsessed with the man. Sorry, I find him quite forgettable, just another guy sitting in a comfortable chair, even while he remains in the present tense.

All that's left to question is why you deleted the journal so quickly. Kinda like asking, *where's Jimmy Hoffa?*. We'll probably never know.

Some fatherly advice, take it as you please... If you don't want to be taken for a liar, there appears to be no other alternative than for you to exercise your right to remain silent.

Re:Nothing to add (1)

iamtheantipudge (1091487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34170676)

OH! OH! OH! Pudge, you are beautiful [pudge.net] !!! This time I saved it, in case you try to pull any funny business... Anyway this was in that journal you deleted. I could kiss you! You don't have any cold sores, or anything, do you? Don't tell me. I wouldn't believe you anyway ;)

Re:Nothing to add (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34148128)

Hey! I thought you were "retiring" from Slashdot. Well, I, for one, am glad you stayed. Just wouldn't be the same without ya...

Actually, to be fair, someone pointed out that he mentioned on his other blog (slashdot being his first blog, his own site his second) that he would no longer be working for slashdot after some date in 2010. He never specified in there why he would no longer be working for them, just that the end was coming up and he was looking for new employment.

Whether he was retiring, or being laid off, or quitting for some other reason, he never said. I never saw anyone else specify a reason or mechanism either. Although on the other hand we haven't heard for sure that he hasn't stopped working for slashdot, either. All we've really seen is that the little slashdot logo still appears next to his name. His posting frequency has slowed slightly (in the fact that he hasn't violated the rule of no more than 1 post per minute that the rest of us are held to) but that doesn't answer the question on its own either.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?