|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 03 2013 06:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:24 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 06:17 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 06:14 aksfjh wrote:
What a farce of an argument to suggest the need for a prescription for Plan B pills. The wait time for a visit to a doctor in many circumstances would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the drug. The best one can argue for the control of the substance is the same regulations we have on OTC amphetamines (iirc). If, along with the provision of allowing 15 year old's to purchase Plan B, the government required pharmacists to go over the drugs side-effects and dosages, I don't think there would be an issue. But as of this point, the FDA approved dosage recommendations for levenogestrel do not even give numbers for those under the age of 17. This is a problem whether you like it or not. Aspirin labels sometimes do not give numbers for those under the age of 12, yet 11 year olds are not explicitly banned from purchasing aspirin, nor are pharmacists required to go over the side-effects and dosages (despite aspirin being a potentially extremely dangerous blood thinner) to minors or parents planning to give it to minors. This "problem" is selectively manufactured for birth control by religious conservatives. A pharmacist or clerk who sells aspirin to a 12 year old is an idiot, but the fact remains that even aspirin has extensive FDA approved dosage recommendations that are publically available, all the way down to 2 years of age. Aspirin dosagesIn fact, every single OTC drug on the market has a well established and publically available dosage recommendation. Except for Plan B. My concern is that in making this drug available prior to making information crucial to its effective administration available as well is putting the cart before the horse. Keep in mind I'm merely recommending that the FDA do its fucking job rather than saying that Plan B is in any way inherently off limits to 15 year olds.
I agree with your recommendation that the FDA do it's job. I also would add that politicians (regardless of their leaning) should stop interfering with the FDA.
|
On May 03 2013 06:45 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:30 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 06:24 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 06:17 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 06:14 aksfjh wrote:
What a farce of an argument to suggest the need for a prescription for Plan B pills. The wait time for a visit to a doctor in many circumstances would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the drug. The best one can argue for the control of the substance is the same regulations we have on OTC amphetamines (iirc). If, along with the provision of allowing 15 year old's to purchase Plan B, the government required pharmacists to go over the drugs side-effects and dosages, I don't think there would be an issue. But as of this point, the FDA approved dosage recommendations for levenogestrel do not even give numbers for those under the age of 17. This is a problem whether you like it or not. Aspirin labels sometimes do not give numbers for those under the age of 12, yet 11 year olds are not explicitly banned from purchasing aspirin, nor are pharmacists required to go over the side-effects and dosages (despite aspirin being a potentially extremely dangerous blood thinner) to minors or parents planning to give it to minors. This "problem" is selectively manufactured for birth control by religious conservatives. A pharmacist or clerk who sells aspirin to a 12 year old is an idiot, but the fact remains that even aspirin has extensive FDA approved dosage recommendations that are publically available, all the way down to 2 years of age. Aspirin dosagesIn fact, every single OTC drug on the market has a well established and publically available dosage recommendation. Except for Plan B. My concern is that in making this drug available prior to making information crucial to its effective administration available as well is putting the cart before the horse. Keep in mind I'm merely recommending that the FDA do its fucking job rather than saying that Plan B is in any way inherently off limits to 15 year olds. I agree with your recommendation that the FDA do it's job. I also would add that politicians (regardless of their leaning) should stop interfering with the FDA.
Absolutely. The FDA and its relation to monied medical interests via lobbiying and political influence is one of those aspects of US society I have a very hard time defending when prompted by foreigners.
|
On May 03 2013 06:38 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:33 heliusx wrote:On May 03 2013 06:30 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 06:24 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 06:17 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 06:14 aksfjh wrote:
What a farce of an argument to suggest the need for a prescription for Plan B pills. The wait time for a visit to a doctor in many circumstances would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the drug. The best one can argue for the control of the substance is the same regulations we have on OTC amphetamines (iirc). If, along with the provision of allowing 15 year old's to purchase Plan B, the government required pharmacists to go over the drugs side-effects and dosages, I don't think there would be an issue. But as of this point, the FDA approved dosage recommendations for levenogestrel do not even give numbers for those under the age of 17. This is a problem whether you like it or not. Aspirin labels sometimes do not give numbers for those under the age of 12, yet 11 year olds are not explicitly banned from purchasing aspirin, nor are pharmacists required to go over the side-effects and dosages (despite aspirin being a potentially extremely dangerous blood thinner) to minors or parents planning to give it to minors. This "problem" is selectively manufactured for birth control by religious conservatives. A pharmacist or clerk who sells aspirin to a 12 year old is an idiot, but the fact remains that even aspirin has extensive FDA approved dosage recommendations that are publically available, all the way down to 2 years of age. Aspirin dosagesIn fact, every single OTC drug on the market has a well established and publically available dosage recommendation. Except for Plan B. My concern is that in making this drug available prior to making information crucial to its effective administration available as well is putting the cart before the horse. Keep in mind I'm merely recommending that the FDA do its fucking job rather than saying that Plan B is in any way inherently off limits to 15 year olds. Pharmacists should be trained in it's proper use. Problem solved? Since I'm not a medical professional, I can't say with certainty that pharmacists have the wherewithal to appropriately recommend dosages for adolescents, but if we are to assume that they can, I think that solves the problem nicely.
Licensed pharmacists have (or are supposed to have) the knowledge (and in some states the legal ability) to recommend dosages for pretty much any medication out there. Mostly this applies to modifications or instructions regarding hypertension/hyperlipidemia/diabetes/antibiotics but with drugs like Plan B that are dosed in one way and one way only they're also qualified to counsel.
Plan B has been given since ~2004 to children <17. It's not as though the FDA can force people to do a study in people <17 (that would be compelling pharmaceutical manufacturers), by leaving the insert as-is they're doing as much of their jobs as they can.
|
Opponent's reactions back in the day of the ruling (New York District Judge orders all restrictions removed) that started the ball rolling, and continues with legal battles:
"There is a real danger that Plan B may be given to young girls, under coercion or without their consent. The involvement of parents and medical professionals act as a safeguard for these young girls. However, today's ruling removes these common-sense protections," Anna Higgins, director of the organization's Center for Human Dignity, said in a statement. (Family Research Council)
"A 12-year-old girl in a New York City school cannot be given an aspirin by her teacher, even if she has a fever. The same girl cannot buy a large soda during lunchtime because Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decreed that it is not good for her. But she can be given a pill, unbeknownst to her parents, that could arguably abort her baby," he said in a statement.
Bill Donahue, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
CNN Health
It's a hairy topic. I heard a planned parenthood spokesperson defending the decision in view of children who's parents are not involved in their lives, or are a negative influence. For those parents that are, and a fifteen year old that's still growing up, this is a scary topic. Their daughter can experience a traumatic situation, make a hasty decision with perhaps her boyfriend's pressuring, and the parents will be left with the emotional results having heard nothing up until that point.
The federal case is still in the appeals process as far as I can tell, so we'll find out if this will be extended to 12 years olds/childbearing age, as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement. I see again the very ironic protection for young people taking aspirin, and not for a girl making a potentially life-changing decision.
|
I'd take anything the FRC and Bill Donahue say with a grain of salt, or not at all. Donahue is nothing short of a fascist anyways.
|
On May 03 2013 09:50 Danglars wrote:Opponent's reactions back in the day of the ruling (New York District Judge orders all restrictions removed) that started the ball rolling, and continues with legal battles: Show nested quote +"There is a real danger that Plan B may be given to young girls, under coercion or without their consent. The involvement of parents and medical professionals act as a safeguard for these young girls. However, today's ruling removes these common-sense protections," Anna Higgins, director of the organization's Center for Human Dignity, said in a statement. (Family Research Council) Show nested quote +"A 12-year-old girl in a New York City school cannot be given an aspirin by her teacher, even if she has a fever. The same girl cannot buy a large soda during lunchtime because Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decreed that it is not good for her. But she can be given a pill, unbeknownst to her parents, that could arguably abort her baby," he said in a statement. Bill Donahue, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights CNN HealthIt's a hairy topic. I heard a planned parenthood spokesperson defending the decision in view of children who's parents are not involved in their lives, or are a negative influence. For those parents that are, and a fifteen year old that's still growing up, this is a scary topic. Their daughter can experience a traumatic situation, make a hasty decision with perhaps her boyfriend's pressuring, and the parents will be left with the emotional results having heard nothing up until that point.The federal case is still in the appeals process as far as I can tell, so we'll find out if this will be extended to 12 years olds/childbearing age, as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement. I see again the very ironic protection for young people taking aspirin, and not for a girl making a potentially life-changing decision.
To be honest I would not want any 15-16 year old girls having babies, because the average person is in "training" till the age of 21-22 and having a kid stops/slows down that training. Sure I'm pressuring and that is bad; furthermore, I understand that pressure from the other side "no abortions ever" is bad too. But frankly the radical life style change a child brings is something I don't think 15-16 should have.
What is the "traumatic experience" in the second text? Do you want a adolescent to keep a child after being raped or coerced into sex? Not to mention in the Bill Donahue text see uses the word Baby when first it's Foetus, call it what it is, and not some word that evoke a parental instinct. Calling a group of 1-4 cells with 46 chromosones a baby is calling my bone marrow a child.
And to touch the first article, guess what people giving people drugs is a crime, and they can go to jail for it. The same is true as attacking a pregnant mother a few months later. And where are we removing medical profesinnals, they can still talk to the pharmasist or get help from public hotlines about issues (there are some in Canada, atleast a nurse hotline that I've used once not related to pregnancy; because NPF was man (short story reference)).
What is wrong with empowering people with choices about their body when their body is developped for the task (this weird phrase is because alcohol at a young age affects the body, and should only be comsumed when older when the body is more resilient (word of mouth fact have not factually checked that statement)).
|
On May 03 2013 06:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
2016 will be the year of the Woman no matter what the outcome. Clinton's poll numbers are insane. They are approaching FDR territory.
Can someone explain to me why? I mean I have yet to really see anything come from her other then she has a vagina and she's in office... She got into office piggy backing on the last name clinton and all I've seen is a few pictures of her walking around Bosnia waving her hand.
I think this sums up my opinion fully but I will add that I am biased in favour of Hitchens (note the Hitch-22 reference) so if someone can put in another perspective that'd be great
excerpt:
"Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/01/the_case_against_hillary_clinton.html
|
I see there being 2 main issues about the morning after pill that people should remember.
The first is that by removing all restrictions, you make it easier to purchase (duh) but lots of people will feel bad about asking for it if it is behind the counter. If you had to ask a clerk for condoms or deodorant, you may not end up buying them even if you need them. The same thing can happen with Plan B, even women who are over 18 may not get it if they have to specifically ask for it.
The second thing is that there is no evidence that it causes abortions. There was come confusion when it came out, but now there is clear evidence that it delays ovulation (releasing of an egg) so that the pregnancy never happens. It does not work if an egg has already been released.
|
I thought it prevented the egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus...
|
WASHINGTON -- Mary Landrieu should've been the tip-off. The Louisiana Democrat is well known for having a fine-tuned political antenna, but the senator's recent vote in favor of expanding background checks for gun purchasing surprised some observers.
A few weeks later, Landrieu's calculation appears to have been the correct one -- opponents of background checks are tanking in polls, while backers are surging.
A new survey from Public Policy Polling shows that voters are more likely to vote to reelect Landrieu and Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), two red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2014. Hagan also voted in favor of expanding background checks. Forty-four percent of likely voters are more likely to vote for Landrieu, while 26 percent are less likely. In North Carolina, 52 percent of voters are more likely to vote for Hagan, while 26 percent are less likely.
The poll had the reverse effect for the senators' Republican counterparts up for reelection in 2016, both of whom voted against the amendment sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). Fifty percent of North Carolinians are less likely to vote for Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), while just 27 percent are more likely. Forty percent of voters in Louisiana are less likely to vote for Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), while 25 percent are more likely.
Burr also declined to attend a dinner this week with family members of shooting victims, citing a busy schedule.
Source
|
On May 03 2013 11:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Mary Landrieu should've been the tip-off. The Louisiana Democrat is well known for having a fine-tuned political antenna, but the senator's recent vote in favor of expanding background checks for gun purchasing surprised some observers.
A few weeks later, Landrieu's calculation appears to have been the correct one -- opponents of background checks are tanking in polls, while backers are surging.
A new survey from Public Policy Polling shows that voters are more likely to vote to reelect Landrieu and Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), two red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2014. Hagan also voted in favor of expanding background checks. Forty-four percent of likely voters are more likely to vote for Landrieu, while 26 percent are less likely. In North Carolina, 52 percent of voters are more likely to vote for Hagan, while 26 percent are less likely.
The poll had the reverse effect for the senators' Republican counterparts up for reelection in 2016, both of whom voted against the amendment sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). Fifty percent of North Carolinians are less likely to vote for Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), while just 27 percent are more likely. Forty percent of voters in Louisiana are less likely to vote for Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), while 25 percent are more likely.
Burr also declined to attend a dinner this week with family members of shooting victims, citing a busy schedule. Source
I wonder if that was a trend before the vote though...
|
On May 03 2013 10:54 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
2016 will be the year of the Woman no matter what the outcome. Clinton's poll numbers are insane. They are approaching FDR territory. Can someone explain to me why? I mean I have yet to really see anything come from her other then she has a vagina and she's in office... She got into office piggy backing on the last name clinton and all I've seen is a few pictures of her walking around Bosnia waving her hand. I think this sums up my opinion fully but I will add that I am biased in favour of Hitchens (note the Hitch-22 reference) so if someone can put in another perspective that'd be great excerpt: Show nested quote +"Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/01/the_case_against_hillary_clinton.html
Republicans are still for the most part out in the desert still on the electoral front, with Hilary's strength in minorities and women obviously. Hillary is only going to be stronger in the north no matter really who gets the nod for the republicans, the east coast states have been collapsing in support for the republicans with how many democrats have been immigrating south.
the youth vote will take a hit with obama gone but it's just as good electorally for Hillary as it was for obama basically, not to mention obama will be campaigning with her as well.
The sick joke out of all of this is that with how gerrymandered all of congress is nothing is going to change. Republicans literaly can't lose the house until the next census even while democats run wild with the judiciary executive and the senate.
|
On May 03 2013 11:57 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 10:54 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 03 2013 06:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
2016 will be the year of the Woman no matter what the outcome. Clinton's poll numbers are insane. They are approaching FDR territory. Can someone explain to me why? I mean I have yet to really see anything come from her other then she has a vagina and she's in office... She got into office piggy backing on the last name clinton and all I've seen is a few pictures of her walking around Bosnia waving her hand. I think this sums up my opinion fully but I will add that I am biased in favour of Hitchens (note the Hitch-22 reference) so if someone can put in another perspective that'd be great excerpt: "Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/01/the_case_against_hillary_clinton.html Republicans are still for the most part out in the desert still on the electoral front, with Hilary's strength in minorities and women obviously. Hillary is only going to be stronger in the north no matter really who gets the nod for the republicans, the east coast states have been collapsing in support for the republicans with how many democrats have been immigrating south. the youth vote will take a hit with obama gone but it's just as good electorally for Hillary as it was for obama basically, not to mention obama will be campaigning with her as well. The sick joke out of all of this is that with how gerrymandered all of congress is nothing is going to change. Republicans literaly can't lose the house until the next census even while democats run wild with the judiciary executive and the senate.
This wasn't quite my point at all... It was that, while I'd take Hilary over a Mitt Romney any day of the weak, there must be more qualified individuals than "the woman". I've made it clear in other threads that I'm a big fan of Margret Thatcher so by no means is this "women shouldn't be in office" and I thought Obama was the clear cut victor in both elections because of his policies and not because he's black but I fear the "first black" president happened and people boomed so now the Democrats are like "let's cash in on the first woman!" even though she lacks any major qualifications... She slandered Obama into oblivion in her campaign as well as trashed his policies including foreign only to fall into line and immediately agree like it's her plan, she botched the embassy attack and she has no real experience outside of ... being a woman and marrying a previous president?
Like I said, someone has to clarify what I'm missing.
As for democrats/republicans I would imagine that the Democrats will win the next few elections... The Republican party is to divided between neo-con religious advocates and the real republicans vying for small government etc that it'll never go anywhere until it gets rid of Mitt Romney's and Sarah Palin's and paves a path for Chris Christie'esque people who, in my mind, are good examples of real Republicans. (say what you will about his personality and his passive aggressive tendencies, at least he is willing to get his hands dirty as well as cooperate with the other party and he seems 'for the people' and not 'for everything that benefits me' but that's my take on him)
So yeah, kinda back on Hilary, I don't want a "first woman president" ... Equality means that should mean nothing, she should stand on her own merits and if she deserves it then get in but frankly it's disgusting how often I hear "first female president" like that means anything at all. Someones qualifications of being the President happens to now be the vaginal canal it would seem or at least it makes you on the upper odds of getting it.
|
On May 03 2013 12:31 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 11:57 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 10:54 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 03 2013 06:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
2016 will be the year of the Woman no matter what the outcome. Clinton's poll numbers are insane. They are approaching FDR territory. Can someone explain to me why? I mean I have yet to really see anything come from her other then she has a vagina and she's in office... She got into office piggy backing on the last name clinton and all I've seen is a few pictures of her walking around Bosnia waving her hand. I think this sums up my opinion fully but I will add that I am biased in favour of Hitchens (note the Hitch-22 reference) so if someone can put in another perspective that'd be great excerpt: "Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/01/the_case_against_hillary_clinton.html Republicans are still for the most part out in the desert still on the electoral front, with Hilary's strength in minorities and women obviously. Hillary is only going to be stronger in the north no matter really who gets the nod for the republicans, the east coast states have been collapsing in support for the republicans with how many democrats have been immigrating south. the youth vote will take a hit with obama gone but it's just as good electorally for Hillary as it was for obama basically, not to mention obama will be campaigning with her as well. The sick joke out of all of this is that with how gerrymandered all of congress is nothing is going to change. Republicans literaly can't lose the house until the next census even while democats run wild with the judiciary executive and the senate. This wasn't quite my point at all... It was that, while I'd take Hilary over a Mitt Romney any day of the weak, there must be more qualified individuals than "the woman". I've made it clear in other threads that I'm a big fan of Margret Thatcher so by no means is this "women shouldn't be in office" and I thought Obama was the clear cut victor in both elections because of his policies and not because he's black but I fear the "first black" president happened and people boomed so now the Democrats are like "let's cash in on the first woman!" even though she lacks any major qualifications... She slandered Obama into oblivion in her campaign as well as trashed his policies including foreign only to fall into line and immediately agree like it's her plan, she botched the embassy attack and she has no real experience outside of ... being a woman and marrying a previous president? Like I said, someone has to clarify what I'm missing. As for democrats/republicans I would imagine that the Democrats will win the next few elections... The Republican party is to divided between neo-con religious advocates and the real republicans vying for small government etc that it'll never go anywhere until it gets rid of Mitt Romney's and Sarah Palin's and paves a path for Chris Christie'esque people who, in my mind, are good examples of real Republicans. (say what you will about his personality and his passive aggressive tendencies, at least he is willing to get his hands dirty as well as cooperate with the other party and he seems 'for the people' and not 'for everything that benefits me' but that's my take on him) So yeah, kinda back on Hilary, I don't want a "first woman president" ... Equality means that should mean nothing, she should stand on her own merits and if she deserves it then get in but frankly it's disgusting how often I hear "first female president" like that means anything at all to someones qualifications of being the President happens to now be the vaginal canal.
She was a senator.......
|
On May 03 2013 12:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 12:31 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 03 2013 11:57 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 10:54 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 03 2013 06:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
2016 will be the year of the Woman no matter what the outcome. Clinton's poll numbers are insane. They are approaching FDR territory. Can someone explain to me why? I mean I have yet to really see anything come from her other then she has a vagina and she's in office... She got into office piggy backing on the last name clinton and all I've seen is a few pictures of her walking around Bosnia waving her hand. I think this sums up my opinion fully but I will add that I am biased in favour of Hitchens (note the Hitch-22 reference) so if someone can put in another perspective that'd be great excerpt: "Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/01/the_case_against_hillary_clinton.html Republicans are still for the most part out in the desert still on the electoral front, with Hilary's strength in minorities and women obviously. Hillary is only going to be stronger in the north no matter really who gets the nod for the republicans, the east coast states have been collapsing in support for the republicans with how many democrats have been immigrating south. the youth vote will take a hit with obama gone but it's just as good electorally for Hillary as it was for obama basically, not to mention obama will be campaigning with her as well. The sick joke out of all of this is that with how gerrymandered all of congress is nothing is going to change. Republicans literaly can't lose the house until the next census even while democats run wild with the judiciary executive and the senate. This wasn't quite my point at all... It was that, while I'd take Hilary over a Mitt Romney any day of the weak, there must be more qualified individuals than "the woman". I've made it clear in other threads that I'm a big fan of Margret Thatcher so by no means is this "women shouldn't be in office" and I thought Obama was the clear cut victor in both elections because of his policies and not because he's black but I fear the "first black" president happened and people boomed so now the Democrats are like "let's cash in on the first woman!" even though she lacks any major qualifications... She slandered Obama into oblivion in her campaign as well as trashed his policies including foreign only to fall into line and immediately agree like it's her plan, she botched the embassy attack and she has no real experience outside of ... being a woman and marrying a previous president? Like I said, someone has to clarify what I'm missing. As for democrats/republicans I would imagine that the Democrats will win the next few elections... The Republican party is to divided between neo-con religious advocates and the real republicans vying for small government etc that it'll never go anywhere until it gets rid of Mitt Romney's and Sarah Palin's and paves a path for Chris Christie'esque people who, in my mind, are good examples of real Republicans. (say what you will about his personality and his passive aggressive tendencies, at least he is willing to get his hands dirty as well as cooperate with the other party and he seems 'for the people' and not 'for everything that benefits me' but that's my take on him) So yeah, kinda back on Hilary, I don't want a "first woman president" ... Equality means that should mean nothing, she should stand on her own merits and if she deserves it then get in but frankly it's disgusting how often I hear "first female president" like that means anything at all to someones qualifications of being the President happens to now be the vaginal canal. She was a senator.......
I apologize but I realize this and what is your point? Are all senators viable candidates now for office?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators
This list here?
Sure it makes her a candidate since she piggybacked on her last name but the idea that she just "is in" because people will vote for a woman is disgusting to me as a political advocate and as someone striving for equality among both sexes as well as between hetro/homosexuals. If a gay person decided today was the day to run for office (bad idea I might add with America's archaic view on the world) I wouldn't simply vote for him either way because he's gay... Nor should Hilary be voted in because she's a woman with the last name Clinton, it's policies and past history of events that should matter and I have yet to see anything come from Hilary that strikes me as a leader. I have yet to hear or see a single thing she's touched on her own will that's gone anywhere... She bombed healthcare reform, she bombed foreign policy (name something she's done there?)
I just wish, whenever I heard her name and presidency, I heard more then "woman, senate, sec of defense" and not anything she's done while in those positions of power. I wish I heard a speech she gave that was riveting, a policy she enacted that was daring and paid off, a social change that she enacted that mattered or a single thing with regards to foreign intrigue (which I might add everyone seems to comment on) that is even reputable... I just hear "she has done so much with foreign affairs" and yet I lack a single example on my lips or in my mind from listening to dozens of accounts of this great woman.
|
On May 03 2013 12:36 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 12:34 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 12:31 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 03 2013 11:57 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 10:54 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 03 2013 06:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
2016 will be the year of the Woman no matter what the outcome. Clinton's poll numbers are insane. They are approaching FDR territory. Can someone explain to me why? I mean I have yet to really see anything come from her other then she has a vagina and she's in office... She got into office piggy backing on the last name clinton and all I've seen is a few pictures of her walking around Bosnia waving her hand. I think this sums up my opinion fully but I will add that I am biased in favour of Hitchens (note the Hitch-22 reference) so if someone can put in another perspective that'd be great excerpt: "Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/01/the_case_against_hillary_clinton.html Republicans are still for the most part out in the desert still on the electoral front, with Hilary's strength in minorities and women obviously. Hillary is only going to be stronger in the north no matter really who gets the nod for the republicans, the east coast states have been collapsing in support for the republicans with how many democrats have been immigrating south. the youth vote will take a hit with obama gone but it's just as good electorally for Hillary as it was for obama basically, not to mention obama will be campaigning with her as well. The sick joke out of all of this is that with how gerrymandered all of congress is nothing is going to change. Republicans literaly can't lose the house until the next census even while democats run wild with the judiciary executive and the senate. This wasn't quite my point at all... It was that, while I'd take Hilary over a Mitt Romney any day of the weak, there must be more qualified individuals than "the woman". I've made it clear in other threads that I'm a big fan of Margret Thatcher so by no means is this "women shouldn't be in office" and I thought Obama was the clear cut victor in both elections because of his policies and not because he's black but I fear the "first black" president happened and people boomed so now the Democrats are like "let's cash in on the first woman!" even though she lacks any major qualifications... She slandered Obama into oblivion in her campaign as well as trashed his policies including foreign only to fall into line and immediately agree like it's her plan, she botched the embassy attack and she has no real experience outside of ... being a woman and marrying a previous president? Like I said, someone has to clarify what I'm missing. As for democrats/republicans I would imagine that the Democrats will win the next few elections... The Republican party is to divided between neo-con religious advocates and the real republicans vying for small government etc that it'll never go anywhere until it gets rid of Mitt Romney's and Sarah Palin's and paves a path for Chris Christie'esque people who, in my mind, are good examples of real Republicans. (say what you will about his personality and his passive aggressive tendencies, at least he is willing to get his hands dirty as well as cooperate with the other party and he seems 'for the people' and not 'for everything that benefits me' but that's my take on him) So yeah, kinda back on Hilary, I don't want a "first woman president" ... Equality means that should mean nothing, she should stand on her own merits and if she deserves it then get in but frankly it's disgusting how often I hear "first female president" like that means anything at all to someones qualifications of being the President happens to now be the vaginal canal. She was a senator....... I apologize but I realize this and what is your point? Are all senators viable candidates now for office? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_SenatorsThis list here? Sure it makes her a candidate since she piggybacked on her last name but the idea that she just "is in" because people will vote for a woman is disgusting to me as a political advocate and as someone striving for equality among both sexes as well as between hetro/homosexuals. If a gay person decided today was the day to run for office (bad idea I might add with America's archaic view on the world) I wouldn't simply vote for him either way because he's gay... Nor should Hilary be voted in because she's a woman with the last name Clinton, it's policies and past history of events that should matter and I have yet to see anything come from Hilary that strikes me as a leader. I have yet to hear or see a single thing she's touched on her own will that's gone anywhere... She bombed healthcare reform, she bombed foreign policy (name something she's done there?) I just wish, whenever I heard her name and presidency, I heard more then "woman, senate, sec of defense" and not anything she's done while in those positions of power. I wish I heard a speech she gave that was riveting, a policy she enacted that was daring and paid off, a social change that she enacted that mattered or a single thing with regards to foreign intrigue (which I might add everyone seems to comment on) that is even reputable... I just hear "she has done so much with foreign affairs" and yet I lack a single example on my lips or in my mind from listening to dozens of accounts of this great woman.
The pitfalls of the primary system are an altogether separate issue; you will not find a politician in the US that has run for a major, contended office that has not subverted a number of their parties ideals in pursuit of garnering votes. That's unfortunately how the system works.
As to the credentials of former Senator Clinton, she actually did quite a bit as First Lady, and played a role in advocating the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and the Foster Care Independence Act. She also worked alongside John Podesta in the creation of the Center for American Progress, and would go on to spearheaded senatorial support for the Bailouts of 2008. Furthermore, Clinton's actions as Secretary of State during the Arab Spring and related international crises, while hardly definitively positive given the political and still developing nature of their interpretation, are laudable given that one considers the Obama Administrations foreign policy agenda apropos.
There are also a host of other senate votes and other initiatives in which she supported the Democratic agenda through coalition building and the like. Basically, if one is a liberal, then there are a great many aspects of her political career that one can look upon positively. Given that you think Christopher Hitchens has tenable political opinions, I'm not sure why you're so concerned with hearing a defense of a liberal ideology you do not ascribe to, nor can I quite comprehend why you or Hitchens seek to minimize the political significance of women in US politics.
|
On May 03 2013 13:02 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 12:36 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 03 2013 12:34 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 12:31 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 03 2013 11:57 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 10:54 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 03 2013 06:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
2016 will be the year of the Woman no matter what the outcome. Clinton's poll numbers are insane. They are approaching FDR territory. Can someone explain to me why? I mean I have yet to really see anything come from her other then she has a vagina and she's in office... She got into office piggy backing on the last name clinton and all I've seen is a few pictures of her walking around Bosnia waving her hand. I think this sums up my opinion fully but I will add that I am biased in favour of Hitchens (note the Hitch-22 reference) so if someone can put in another perspective that'd be great excerpt: "Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/01/the_case_against_hillary_clinton.html Republicans are still for the most part out in the desert still on the electoral front, with Hilary's strength in minorities and women obviously. Hillary is only going to be stronger in the north no matter really who gets the nod for the republicans, the east coast states have been collapsing in support for the republicans with how many democrats have been immigrating south. the youth vote will take a hit with obama gone but it's just as good electorally for Hillary as it was for obama basically, not to mention obama will be campaigning with her as well. The sick joke out of all of this is that with how gerrymandered all of congress is nothing is going to change. Republicans literaly can't lose the house until the next census even while democats run wild with the judiciary executive and the senate. This wasn't quite my point at all... It was that, while I'd take Hilary over a Mitt Romney any day of the weak, there must be more qualified individuals than "the woman". I've made it clear in other threads that I'm a big fan of Margret Thatcher so by no means is this "women shouldn't be in office" and I thought Obama was the clear cut victor in both elections because of his policies and not because he's black but I fear the "first black" president happened and people boomed so now the Democrats are like "let's cash in on the first woman!" even though she lacks any major qualifications... She slandered Obama into oblivion in her campaign as well as trashed his policies including foreign only to fall into line and immediately agree like it's her plan, she botched the embassy attack and she has no real experience outside of ... being a woman and marrying a previous president? Like I said, someone has to clarify what I'm missing. As for democrats/republicans I would imagine that the Democrats will win the next few elections... The Republican party is to divided between neo-con religious advocates and the real republicans vying for small government etc that it'll never go anywhere until it gets rid of Mitt Romney's and Sarah Palin's and paves a path for Chris Christie'esque people who, in my mind, are good examples of real Republicans. (say what you will about his personality and his passive aggressive tendencies, at least he is willing to get his hands dirty as well as cooperate with the other party and he seems 'for the people' and not 'for everything that benefits me' but that's my take on him) So yeah, kinda back on Hilary, I don't want a "first woman president" ... Equality means that should mean nothing, she should stand on her own merits and if she deserves it then get in but frankly it's disgusting how often I hear "first female president" like that means anything at all to someones qualifications of being the President happens to now be the vaginal canal. She was a senator....... I apologize but I realize this and what is your point? Are all senators viable candidates now for office? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_SenatorsThis list here? Sure it makes her a candidate since she piggybacked on her last name but the idea that she just "is in" because people will vote for a woman is disgusting to me as a political advocate and as someone striving for equality among both sexes as well as between hetro/homosexuals. If a gay person decided today was the day to run for office (bad idea I might add with America's archaic view on the world) I wouldn't simply vote for him either way because he's gay... Nor should Hilary be voted in because she's a woman with the last name Clinton, it's policies and past history of events that should matter and I have yet to see anything come from Hilary that strikes me as a leader. I have yet to hear or see a single thing she's touched on her own will that's gone anywhere... She bombed healthcare reform, she bombed foreign policy (name something she's done there?) I just wish, whenever I heard her name and presidency, I heard more then "woman, senate, sec of defense" and not anything she's done while in those positions of power. I wish I heard a speech she gave that was riveting, a policy she enacted that was daring and paid off, a social change that she enacted that mattered or a single thing with regards to foreign intrigue (which I might add everyone seems to comment on) that is even reputable... I just hear "she has done so much with foreign affairs" and yet I lack a single example on my lips or in my mind from listening to dozens of accounts of this great woman. The pitfalls of the primary system are an altogether separate issue; you will not find a politician in the US that has run for a major, contended office that has not subverted a number of their parties ideals in pursuit of garnering votes. That's unfortunately how the system works. As to the credentials of former Senator Clinton, she actually did quite a bit as First Lady, and played a role in advocating the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and the Foster Care Independence Act. She also worked alongside John Podesta in the creation of the Center for American Progress, and would go on to spearheaded senatorial support for the Bailouts of 2008. Furthermore, Clinton's actions as Secretary of State during the Arab Spring and related international crises, while hardly definitively positive given the political and still developing nature of their interpretation, are laudable given that one considers the Obama Administrations foreign policy agenda apropos. There are also a host of other senate votes and other initiatives in which she supported the Democratic agenda through coalition building and the like. Basically, if one is a liberal, then there are a great many aspects of her political career that one can look upon positively. Given that you think Christopher Hitchens has tenable political opinions, I'm not sure why you're so concerned with hearing a defense of a liberal ideology you do not ascribe to, nor can I quite comprehend why you or Hitchens seek to minimize the political significance of women in US politics.
It's funny, I'm socialist by every bit of my bones, social welfare/free education (and secondary)/universal healthcare etc are all things I applaud so I don't see how I'm to far off a liberals ideology. Also it should be noted that, since you mentioned hitchens, he was a leftist up until the point it came to the Iraq war. He mentioned this in many of his interviews that he agrees with the left on many issues except for the Iraq war and that is where this great divide happened where everyone just placed him as a Republican because he was notched there. If I recall correctly he was very supportive of Obama was insanely critical of the McCain/Palin. This is why many people, including himself, never categorized him(self) as anything and just placed his opinion where he thought it best be it just happened to be most often on the left except for a very touchy issue.
Anywho, yeah I'm more liberal than most so I have no issue following along their principles and that's a lofty list I'll have to delve into but one thing you mentioned that interested me, what do you mean by "laudable" as you speak of the Arab Spring, what did she do there? Now I'm just curious.
|
On May 03 2013 13:10 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:02 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 12:36 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 03 2013 12:34 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 12:31 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 03 2013 11:57 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 10:54 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 03 2013 06:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
2016 will be the year of the Woman no matter what the outcome. Clinton's poll numbers are insane. They are approaching FDR territory. Can someone explain to me why? I mean I have yet to really see anything come from her other then she has a vagina and she's in office... She got into office piggy backing on the last name clinton and all I've seen is a few pictures of her walking around Bosnia waving her hand. I think this sums up my opinion fully but I will add that I am biased in favour of Hitchens (note the Hitch-22 reference) so if someone can put in another perspective that'd be great excerpt: "Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/01/the_case_against_hillary_clinton.html Republicans are still for the most part out in the desert still on the electoral front, with Hilary's strength in minorities and women obviously. Hillary is only going to be stronger in the north no matter really who gets the nod for the republicans, the east coast states have been collapsing in support for the republicans with how many democrats have been immigrating south. the youth vote will take a hit with obama gone but it's just as good electorally for Hillary as it was for obama basically, not to mention obama will be campaigning with her as well. The sick joke out of all of this is that with how gerrymandered all of congress is nothing is going to change. Republicans literaly can't lose the house until the next census even while democats run wild with the judiciary executive and the senate. This wasn't quite my point at all... It was that, while I'd take Hilary over a Mitt Romney any day of the weak, there must be more qualified individuals than "the woman". I've made it clear in other threads that I'm a big fan of Margret Thatcher so by no means is this "women shouldn't be in office" and I thought Obama was the clear cut victor in both elections because of his policies and not because he's black but I fear the "first black" president happened and people boomed so now the Democrats are like "let's cash in on the first woman!" even though she lacks any major qualifications... She slandered Obama into oblivion in her campaign as well as trashed his policies including foreign only to fall into line and immediately agree like it's her plan, she botched the embassy attack and she has no real experience outside of ... being a woman and marrying a previous president? Like I said, someone has to clarify what I'm missing. As for democrats/republicans I would imagine that the Democrats will win the next few elections... The Republican party is to divided between neo-con religious advocates and the real republicans vying for small government etc that it'll never go anywhere until it gets rid of Mitt Romney's and Sarah Palin's and paves a path for Chris Christie'esque people who, in my mind, are good examples of real Republicans. (say what you will about his personality and his passive aggressive tendencies, at least he is willing to get his hands dirty as well as cooperate with the other party and he seems 'for the people' and not 'for everything that benefits me' but that's my take on him) So yeah, kinda back on Hilary, I don't want a "first woman president" ... Equality means that should mean nothing, she should stand on her own merits and if she deserves it then get in but frankly it's disgusting how often I hear "first female president" like that means anything at all to someones qualifications of being the President happens to now be the vaginal canal. She was a senator....... I apologize but I realize this and what is your point? Are all senators viable candidates now for office? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_SenatorsThis list here? Sure it makes her a candidate since she piggybacked on her last name but the idea that she just "is in" because people will vote for a woman is disgusting to me as a political advocate and as someone striving for equality among both sexes as well as between hetro/homosexuals. If a gay person decided today was the day to run for office (bad idea I might add with America's archaic view on the world) I wouldn't simply vote for him either way because he's gay... Nor should Hilary be voted in because she's a woman with the last name Clinton, it's policies and past history of events that should matter and I have yet to see anything come from Hilary that strikes me as a leader. I have yet to hear or see a single thing she's touched on her own will that's gone anywhere... She bombed healthcare reform, she bombed foreign policy (name something she's done there?) I just wish, whenever I heard her name and presidency, I heard more then "woman, senate, sec of defense" and not anything she's done while in those positions of power. I wish I heard a speech she gave that was riveting, a policy she enacted that was daring and paid off, a social change that she enacted that mattered or a single thing with regards to foreign intrigue (which I might add everyone seems to comment on) that is even reputable... I just hear "she has done so much with foreign affairs" and yet I lack a single example on my lips or in my mind from listening to dozens of accounts of this great woman. The pitfalls of the primary system are an altogether separate issue; you will not find a politician in the US that has run for a major, contended office that has not subverted a number of their parties ideals in pursuit of garnering votes. That's unfortunately how the system works. As to the credentials of former Senator Clinton, she actually did quite a bit as First Lady, and played a role in advocating the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and the Foster Care Independence Act. She also worked alongside John Podesta in the creation of the Center for American Progress, and would go on to spearheaded senatorial support for the Bailouts of 2008. Furthermore, Clinton's actions as Secretary of State during the Arab Spring and related international crises, while hardly definitively positive given the political and still developing nature of their interpretation, are laudable given that one considers the Obama Administrations foreign policy agenda apropos. There are also a host of other senate votes and other initiatives in which she supported the Democratic agenda through coalition building and the like. Basically, if one is a liberal, then there are a great many aspects of her political career that one can look upon positively. Given that you think Christopher Hitchens has tenable political opinions, I'm not sure why you're so concerned with hearing a defense of a liberal ideology you do not ascribe to, nor can I quite comprehend why you or Hitchens seek to minimize the political significance of women in US politics. It's funny, I'm socialist by every bit of my bones, social welfare/free education (and secondary)/universal healthcare etc are all things I applaud so I don't see how I'm to far off a liberals ideology. Also it should be noted that, since you mentioned hitchens, he was a leftist up until the point it came to the Iraq war. He mentioned this in many of his interviews that he agrees with the left on many issues except for the Iraq war and that is where this great divide happened where everyone just placed him as a Republican because he was notched there. If I recall correctly he was very supportive of Obama was insanely critical of the McCain/Palin. This is why many people, including himself, never categorized him(self) as anything and just placed his opinion where he thought it best be it just happened to be most often on the left except for a very touchy issue. Anywho, yeah I'm more liberal than most so I have no issue following along their principles and that's a lofty list I'll have to delve into but one thing you mentioned that interested me, what do you mean by "laudable" as you speak of the Arab Spring, what did she do there? Now I'm just curious.
As Secretary of State, Clinton served as the face of the United States on all matters foreign policy. Beyond something as cursory as that, one has to get down into specifically how foreign policy is enacted, and this is by no means a brief undertaking. If you are truly interested in her actions, this wikipedia article does a fairly good job of outlining most of her major structural initiatives, meetings with world leaders, and diplomatic arbitrations.
Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State
|
I would love to see Hillary run, and i will vote for her if she needs my vote. But 2016 is a long way off, I don't know what will happen between now and then, that's quite some time for different players to come forth.
If she has Obamas support that would be quite the bonus.
I think she's electable, but man will some people be pissed off if it comes to that. Ignoring people that don't think a Women can do the job(in 2007 my grandfather told me that ..) I know so many people who claim to "HATE" her, and while I've never got a good explanation, she seems to draw it to her quite a bit, even in liberal areas, I remember the primaries between her and Obama were heated. I hope that's all blown over.
|
On May 03 2013 14:19 BlueBird. wrote:
I would love to see Hillary run, and i will vote for her if she needs my vote. But 2016 is a long way off, I don't know what will happen between now and then, that's quite some time for different players to come forth.
If she has Obamas support that would be quite the bonus.
I think she's electable, but man will some people be pissed off if it comes to that. Ignoring people that don't think a Women can do the job(in 2007 my grandfather told me that ..) I know so many people who claim to "HATE" her, and while I've never got a good explanation, she seems to draw it to her quite a bit, even in liberal areas, I remember the primaries between her and Obama were heated. I hope that's all blown over.
If you don't mind me asking, why would you vote for her? Which policies of hers do you like? I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm just wondering why "progressives" love her so much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
