US Politics Mega-thread - Page 156

On March 09 2013 12:52 oneofthem wrote:
i honestly am very interested in how obama will explain his stance on the drone thing after this presidency is over.

On March 09 2013 13:41 Roe wrote:

Well, Clinton reversed his position on NAFTA after his presidency. Obama could do something similar.

On March 09 2013 17:53 paralleluniverse wrote:
Wow, Cantor and Boehner attack Obama and WoW.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/08/gops_war_on_video_games/

On March 10 2013 02:15 ziggurat wrote:

Saying that a trade deal was a bad call is a lot easier than saying "I guess I shouldn't have murdered all those people. My bad."

On March 10 2013 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:


Any Republicans around here want to elaborate on how this doesn't show how out of touch with reality Boehner is? How does this not hurt his credibility?

On March 09 2013 17:53 paralleluniverse wrote:
Wow, Cantor and Boehner attack Obama and WoW.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/08/gops_war_on_video_games/

Every once in a while, an opportunity arises to do the right thing, the common sense thing.

Right now, US Attorney General Eric Holder has such an opportunity. He is "reviewing" the federal government's options for dealing with the nettlesome fact that two US states have now enacted laws legalizing and regulating the personal use of marijuana.

Faced with a similar problem with those several states that have legalized medical marijuana use, Holder and the US attorneys in those states have essentially declared war on cannabis dispensers. They have gone so far as to deploy the heavy hand of the federal government to threaten landlords with seizure of property used for dispensaries operating in accordance with state and local laws. And all this is occurring despite President Obama having suggested the government has better things to do with its limited resources than prosecute medical marijuana businesses and users.

Now, Attorney General Holder – and ultimately, his boss, the president – have to come to grips with the reality of two states whose voters have decided that modern-day Prohibition should end. Interestingly, President Obama carried both Washington and Colorado on the same ballot on which the marijuana legalization measures appeared. That shouldn't matter, but …

As the attorney general maneuvers through this problem, it is important to remember why it is, in fact, a problem. Unlike the failed and ultimately rejected prohibition of alcohol in the last century, allowing states to permit the legal use of marijuana does not involve violating or repealing a constitutional amendment. The federal government has a problem simply because marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 substance under the Controlled Substances Act – the same law that lets the government decide that one painkiller requires a prescription and another doesn't.

That simple classification, and the myriad state laws that have resulted from it, have turned millions of Americans into criminals and empowered murderous cartels – in the same way that Prohibition empowered Al Capone and an entire generation of organized crime. Voters in Washington and Colorado looked at those realities, and quite reasonably decided that the questionable benefits of treating marijuana use as a crime do not justify the considerable and unmistakable costs.

Those voters didn't stage a coup. They didn't defy the US Constitution. And they didn't incite a rebellion. Rather, they just made a perfectly rational policy decision.

On March 09 2013 07:09 Souma wrote:
Gay marriage is pretty close, but abortion isn't. Support for gay rights is a really recent phenomenon (not too long ago a majority of people disapproved of gay marriage), so the country is definitely moving left in that aspect.

'Pro-choice' and 'pro-life' are loaded terms. If you look at the percentage of people who support abortion to be legal in all circumstances/under certain circumstances, you'd see that a significant majority approve of abortion at least some times. Not even close.

To add, the term 'fiscal conservatism' is a load of crock. Most people care about how money is spent moreso than how much we spend. Of course no one wants waste, that's a given. Even the most liberal person doesn't want waste.

On March 10 2013 13:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:

that could be taken both ways though. a significant majority do not approve of abortion in all circumstances. overwhelmingly, they oppose "abortion on demand."

On March 10 2013 13:17 Sermokala wrote:
abortion is all about how you phrase the question and control the debate. Democrats making it about "womens right to murder a baby if they want to" sounds a lot less politically sexy then just saying "womens rights". Democrats have always taken a bullet on the whole feminist branch of the democratic party and republicans have in the past been able to win over a lot of women voters by being anti feminist and pro choice.

On March 09 2013 13:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:


I seriously doubt this.

Yes, Democrats are far more diverse, but the thing is that they usually come to a general agreement on most issues. The problem for Republicans is that it's pretty much two different parties that agree on one or two issues that have combined so they have the numbers to challenge Democrats.

The main problem is our voting system. Whether it's in 20 years or 200, eventually it'll change, and it'll actually be a system that is conducive to more than two parties. Then, we'll finally see parties that aren't just hodgepodges of various ideas that can vaguely agree so that they can have enough numbers to gain seats in Congress.

On March 10 2013 13:55 Souma wrote:


Uhm, pretty sure pro-choice is not about having "abortion on demand," whereas pro-life is about limiting abortion as much as possible (Republican platform wanted to limit it in all cases).

On March 10 2013 19:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:

on the other hand, it's pretty obvious, (if we're being honest), that the Democrat party, and the "pro-choice" movement as a whole (as opposed to people who just classify themselves as pro-choice) is about, basically, abortion on demand. ie, abortion for whatever reason without almost any restrictions. as such, it would be wrong for either side to claim the largest portion (the middle ground of acceptable under certain circumstances) as their own. sure the Republicans (and more to the point: the right wing) are concerned with no abortions whatsoever excluding immediate danger to the mother's health, but at the same time, by the same token, the left wing is concerned with abortion for whatever reason at almost any time. a neutral cannot be claimed to be a participant and more than anything, the largest portion of America is, on this issue, neutral to a certain degree.

sure the "pro-choice" umbrella is wider, but that is simply a matter of expedience. making one feel obliged to land on one side over the other has always been the name of the game in love and war.

at the end of the day, calling the debate finished is not only inaccurate, it's displaying a severe lack of perception.

On March 10 2013 19:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:

on the other hand, it's pretty obvious, (if we're being honest), that the Democrat party, and the "pro-choice" movement as a whole (as opposed to people who just classify themselves as pro-choice) is about, basically, abortion on demand. ie, abortion for whatever reason without almost any restrictions. as such, it would be wrong for either side to claim the largest portion (the middle ground of acceptable under certain circumstances) as their own. sure the Republicans (and more to the point: the right wing) are concerned with no abortions whatsoever excluding immediate danger to the mother's health, but at the same time, by the same token, the left wing is concerned with abortion for whatever reason at almost any time. a neutral cannot be claimed to be a participant and more than anything, the largest portion of America is, on this issue, neutral to a certain degree.

sure the "pro-choice" umbrella is wider, but that is simply a matter of expedience. making one feel obliged to land on one side over the other has always been the name of the game in love and war.

at the end of the day, calling the debate finished is not only inaccurate, it's displaying a severe lack of perception.

On March 11 2013 06:03 BlueBird. wrote:


I think your perception is wrong actually, it's not "pretty obvious" to me at least, and I'm being as honest as I can.., and I would re look at the situation. I don't think democrats are for unrestricted abortion at any point in a pregnancy.

Most "pro-choicers" that I know, are for un-restricted(this means absolutely no bullshit like looking at images of the fetus, etc) abortions up to a certain time in the pregnancy, I won't go in to exact time frame since I am not a professional in the field, after that time, abortion must be for a medical reason, (physical or psychological).

Anyways, this right is supported by the judicial interpretation of Roe V. Wade, and protected by the federal government, so until you can pass a constitutional amendment, I don't really care what you have to say about it, but I will go ahead and work against any kinds of methods that people come up to try to restrict abortions anyways, scare tactics, financial stuff, etc.

On March 11 2013 06:42 radiatoren wrote:

The timeframe for choosing is contentious though. It is now possible to determine if a fetus is going to become a boy or a girl before the 3 months that limits it today. There is actually not much reason to fight for increasing abortion past the existing timeframe. Therefore "pro-life" has an advantage.
That both endpoints pro-ife and pro-choice is insanity should be obvious for scientific reasons. However, when it comes to shifting the line for abortion, the pendulum is swinging towards setting stricter guidelines than the existing. Roe v. Wade should be pretty logical for what it was about, but it only seems to deal with aged knowledge on the subject. Viability is still not relevant with the 3 month limit being legal. It seems to lack some of the more philosophical dilemmas: Is it ok to choose to get an abortion on grounds like gender or genetical markers when it is before the 3 month limit? Since both are in the fetal state of development technologically, so to speak, it is a relevant question to ask and now more than ever. If only the two sides would battle their extremists and get a discussion on those subjects going instead of emotional blackmail of the pregnant and harmful general bans I could support pro life on this issue.