|
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. |
Gay rights advocates in Minnesota believe they’ve locked up enough votes in the state legislature to legalize same sex marriage ahead of a scheduled House vote Thursday.
“Thursday’s vote in the Minnesota House of Representatives will be a historic victory for thousands of same-sex couples and families in our state,” Richard Carlbom, campaign manager for Minnesotans United For All Families, said in a statement Tuesday. “We are confident that the necessary votes to extend the freedom to marry for same-sex couples have been secured and that HF1054 will pass the House floor.”
Minnesota would be the 11th state in the nation to legalize gay marriage should the bill pass the Democrat-controlled House and Senate. Senate leaders say they have the votes needed to pass a bill, according to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and Gov. Mark Dayton (DFL) has already said he would sign it if it reaches his desk.
“We’re still having conversations, but I think we have the votes,” House Speaker Paul Thissen (DFL) told the Pioneer Press. “This hasn’t been something we’ve been twisting peoples’ arms on. It’s about talking to people, hearing from constituents and those undecided legislators ultimately listening to their hearts.”
A spokeswoman for Minnesota For Marriage, the leading opponent of the bill, did not immediately return requests for comment.
Source
|
On May 08 2013 05:50 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 05:32 frogrubdown wrote:On May 08 2013 05:27 corumjhaelen wrote:
I don't really get some of the discussion of the categorical imperative. I haven't read the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, only the Critic of practical reason, but I doubt Kant deduce anything about sex from any form of the categorical imperative (and in the Critic, the formulation about not treating human as mean isn't really said to be equivalent for me, he just deduces it from the "Always act so that the maxim of your will..." so , and not that directly imo).
I say that I doubt it, because the very problem of kantian moral for me (apart from the link with religion which is I think the weakest part I've read from my dear Immanuel), is how little you can actually use it practically. As Péguy famously said "La morale kantienne a les mains pures, mais elle n'a pas de main."
I guess that Kant views on sex akin to the huge majority of his time, but I don't really see how to link it to his philosophy, which is what matters. He did view them as equivalent http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#UniFor. The groundwork covers similar ground to the second critique. You'll find more applied stuff in the Metaphysics of Morals itself. Here he comes out as very anti-sex and masturbation, deriving these views from the CI. Interesting. I really think it's only developped in the Metaphysics, the structure of the Critic seems too different to account for that. I'm 99% sure he doesn't qualify those statement as reformulation in it, even if he covers them in other ways. Maybe if it's because he changed his mind or (more likely) to follow the structure of the first Critic. Anyway, I'm pretty unconvinced by those equivalence, and your link itself restrict the meaning of those too. And I have problems both with the Kingdom and Humanity formulas anyway. As for the torture about animals or sex, I don't think it's a really good critic of kantian moral, as I think you can "fix" the thinking easily to account for the cultural change. What's most interesting is the theory. Thanks very much for the link anyway, I really appreciate it 
You're very welcome. SEP is easily the best general source of information about philosophy on the internet, and I recommend its use to anyone interested.
+ Show Spoiler +
P.S. i probably come off somewhat more anti-Kant than I actually am. I remember back when I took my first ethics course, a sort of survey of ethical schools of thought, I thought Kant was the only thinker who had even a vague idea what morality is about. We have grown a bit more apart since then...
|
United States42993 Posts
On May 08 2013 05:33 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 05:26 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2013 05:19 Sermokala wrote:On May 08 2013 02:13 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2013 02:01 Sermokala wrote:On May 08 2013 01:53 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2013 01:24 Sermokala wrote:
I feel like the pervasive element in the church of "young earth" ascientific nonsense is simple a combination of shitty literalist interpretation of the bible and some intent to distance themselves from "mainstream science". I still to this day don't see where evolution conflicts with my faith or why people accept being taught ignorance for the sake of ignorance.
They don't really deserve the hate they get I don't think. There will always be a strong reactionary element in response to any strong progressive element. Its just a function of an expressive society. I disagree, they absolutely deserve the hate they get. You don't see this shit with gravity. People don't turn around and go "well yes but the thing is my faith tells me that things fall up and God guides me and it's religion". There really is no difference between "things fall down because a force pulls them towards the mass of the earth" and "things have lower amounts of c-14 because it decays at a known rate over time" and yet people think it's fine to contest one of them. If carbon decay was visible to the naked eye nobody would claim the world was 8000 years old. But you have to understand that your reasoning is the same reasoning that they use to hate on gays and common science. We don't know what cause's stuff to fall to the earth like that and its fairly easy to poke holes with some people over a complex calculation of the ammont of a certain kind of carbon to determine its absolute age. you can't just expect people to accept wild scientific theory's without any reasonable explanation for them and then spew hate and bile on them when they don't get it. You have to understand just how much hate these people get from people spouting science at them and telling them that it disproves everything that they believe like its fact. Most of these people never got a college education and are lucky to get anything past a shitty high school education. And yet people are pushing into their face high science and useing it to justify their bigotry tword them. They're ignorant but they aren't necessarily hateful beacuse of that. Your hate for them is only breeding their hate for you. I could explain this to someone with a primary level of education. "Imagine a candle that burns at an even rate" "Okay" "Do you understand that you could see how much of the candle was burned and use that to see how long it'd been alight" "Yes, makes sense" "All dead plants and animals (and anything made from them) have candles like that which can be seen with a special kind of pair of glasses so you can actually see how old they are" "Can I check?" "Yes" You're completely missing the point again. You're explaining to people who didn't learn about carbon dateing in high school to take your word that these "special glasses" that they can't actually look though, will never look though, will never know anyone who will look though, who you yourself never looked though, is explaining what they were taught was wrong in an incredibly demeaning and humiliating way. What if I tried to explain to you why the british empire was responsible for more innocent lives lost then hitler ever dreamed of killing. Sure I probably have the science and statistics to back it up but I have no right to bring up something you care about in some condescending and dickish way. The point is that there wouldn't be "creationalism" taught in our schools if progressives weren't so dickish in fighting people who are ignorant who question their children education when they are questioning it because they weren't taught it in high school themselves. Intrest in their child's education should be encouraged. Immigrants were taught english coming over from america by teaching their kids to speak english before teaching thei home language . Did people have a problem with their home nations culture being usurped by this assimilation process? Ignorance isn't a character flaw its simple a state of education. Stop attacking ignorance with hate when it should only be attacked with education. As a child I went to science museums, natural history museums and so forth. Science was always accessible to me, it wasn't some arcane magic practiced by priests of science, it was something you could grasp, if only at a basic level. There were basic demonstrations of scientific principles intended for the consumption of children. You're right, they wouldn't have let me into random research labs as a child but you don't need that to make science accessible. There is no great divide between the world of the scientist and the laity. If I'm basing my decision making on the British Empire being not responsible for lives lost and then making important decisions then you'd absolutely be right to bring up statistics that would prove me wrong. It'd potentially stop me making a new British Empire which, if your research panned out, would be bad. You'd be negligent not to, you have a moral obligation to share your knowledge. And the people liveing in middle america didn't get any of those things you talked about. They live probably 100 miles away from a science museum or a natural history museum. Its not logistically logical to expect people who live out in the rual areas of america to have that experience growing up. all they have is whats around them. And your second point points out why people think the loss of religion is reducing the morals of modern times. You are directly justifying the genocides of millions of people because it progress's the billions of other people liveing around them. thats the same justification used in eugenics that gave hitler the scientific justification for the holocaust (not talking about the jew's killed in the holocaust here).
So fund museums and have science fairs and put textbooks in school. I refuse to believe that the American public is incapable of a familiarity with science. You can demonstrate static electricity with a balloon ffs. Also the national history museum was over a hundred miles away, we got the train into London to see the museums on a day out and it was awesome.
I'm pretty sure I didn't justify any genocides of anyone. All I said is that if I'm making a decision based upon wrong information that'll lead to a colossal fuckup then you ought to correct me before I make that colossal fuckup. I'm not sure how that makes me responsible for the holocaust.
|
On May 08 2013 06:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 05:33 Sermokala wrote:On May 08 2013 05:26 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2013 05:19 Sermokala wrote:On May 08 2013 02:13 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2013 02:01 Sermokala wrote:On May 08 2013 01:53 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2013 01:24 Sermokala wrote:
I feel like the pervasive element in the church of "young earth" ascientific nonsense is simple a combination of shitty literalist interpretation of the bible and some intent to distance themselves from "mainstream science". I still to this day don't see where evolution conflicts with my faith or why people accept being taught ignorance for the sake of ignorance.
They don't really deserve the hate they get I don't think. There will always be a strong reactionary element in response to any strong progressive element. Its just a function of an expressive society. I disagree, they absolutely deserve the hate they get. You don't see this shit with gravity. People don't turn around and go "well yes but the thing is my faith tells me that things fall up and God guides me and it's religion". There really is no difference between "things fall down because a force pulls them towards the mass of the earth" and "things have lower amounts of c-14 because it decays at a known rate over time" and yet people think it's fine to contest one of them. If carbon decay was visible to the naked eye nobody would claim the world was 8000 years old. But you have to understand that your reasoning is the same reasoning that they use to hate on gays and common science. We don't know what cause's stuff to fall to the earth like that and its fairly easy to poke holes with some people over a complex calculation of the ammont of a certain kind of carbon to determine its absolute age. you can't just expect people to accept wild scientific theory's without any reasonable explanation for them and then spew hate and bile on them when they don't get it. You have to understand just how much hate these people get from people spouting science at them and telling them that it disproves everything that they believe like its fact. Most of these people never got a college education and are lucky to get anything past a shitty high school education. And yet people are pushing into their face high science and useing it to justify their bigotry tword them. They're ignorant but they aren't necessarily hateful beacuse of that. Your hate for them is only breeding their hate for you. I could explain this to someone with a primary level of education. "Imagine a candle that burns at an even rate" "Okay" "Do you understand that you could see how much of the candle was burned and use that to see how long it'd been alight" "Yes, makes sense" "All dead plants and animals (and anything made from them) have candles like that which can be seen with a special kind of pair of glasses so you can actually see how old they are" "Can I check?" "Yes" You're completely missing the point again. You're explaining to people who didn't learn about carbon dateing in high school to take your word that these "special glasses" that they can't actually look though, will never look though, will never know anyone who will look though, who you yourself never looked though, is explaining what they were taught was wrong in an incredibly demeaning and humiliating way. What if I tried to explain to you why the british empire was responsible for more innocent lives lost then hitler ever dreamed of killing. Sure I probably have the science and statistics to back it up but I have no right to bring up something you care about in some condescending and dickish way. The point is that there wouldn't be "creationalism" taught in our schools if progressives weren't so dickish in fighting people who are ignorant who question their children education when they are questioning it because they weren't taught it in high school themselves. Intrest in their child's education should be encouraged. Immigrants were taught english coming over from america by teaching their kids to speak english before teaching thei home language . Did people have a problem with their home nations culture being usurped by this assimilation process? Ignorance isn't a character flaw its simple a state of education. Stop attacking ignorance with hate when it should only be attacked with education. As a child I went to science museums, natural history museums and so forth. Science was always accessible to me, it wasn't some arcane magic practiced by priests of science, it was something you could grasp, if only at a basic level. There were basic demonstrations of scientific principles intended for the consumption of children. You're right, they wouldn't have let me into random research labs as a child but you don't need that to make science accessible. There is no great divide between the world of the scientist and the laity. If I'm basing my decision making on the British Empire being not responsible for lives lost and then making important decisions then you'd absolutely be right to bring up statistics that would prove me wrong. It'd potentially stop me making a new British Empire which, if your research panned out, would be bad. You'd be negligent not to, you have a moral obligation to share your knowledge. And the people liveing in middle america didn't get any of those things you talked about. They live probably 100 miles away from a science museum or a natural history museum. Its not logistically logical to expect people who live out in the rual areas of america to have that experience growing up. all they have is whats around them. And your second point points out why people think the loss of religion is reducing the morals of modern times. You are directly justifying the genocides of millions of people because it progress's the billions of other people liveing around them. thats the same justification used in eugenics that gave hitler the scientific justification for the holocaust (not talking about the jew's killed in the holocaust here). So fund museums and have science fairs and put textbooks in school. I refuse to believe that the American public is incapable of a familiarity with science. You can demonstrate static electricity with a balloon ffs. Also the national history museum was over a hundred miles away, we got the train into London to see the museums on a day out and it was awesome. I'm pretty sure I didn't justify any genocides of anyone. All I said is that if I'm making a decision based upon wrong information that'll lead to a colossal fuckup then you ought to correct me before I make that colossal fuckup. I'm not sure how that makes me responsible for the holocaust.
The problem is parents who do not believe in science not letting there children learn how science works so they grow up just like there parents ect ect.
Its a cycle of ignorance. It requires outside intervention to break the cycle but there is to much religious lobby in America to let the government step in and educate the more rural population.
|
There are people who abuse roles. There are terrible, terrible people who do horrendous things under the guise of "roles". That's just human nature and I would revolt against anything like it. If a man is guiding, respectful, protective in ways that are truly loving and honoring to the woman this is a role society should aspire for imo
I don't think you'll find a lot of camaraderie in your analysis of what's good for society here. There's been quite a rebellion against a "guiding" man, or a "protective" man. It is anathema to think a woman needs or desires guidance from a man, regardless his professed intention.
When is "doesn't take orders from anyone" virtuous by any definition? Honest question, to delve into the thought behind the statement.
This is a liberated woman that has thrown off the shackles of an entrenched patriarchal society. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Rebelling against submission is empowering, not virtuous.
|
On May 08 2013 05:57 mordek wrote:
When is "doesn't take orders from anyone" virtuous by any definition? Honest question, to delve into the thought behind the statement.
It's not that either is more or less virtuous, but rather a woman gets to make her decision, instead of having someone else such as culture, religion, etc. doing so for her. Gender roles to me are like cultural coercion. You're coerced into behaving a specific way, and regardless if people are happier being coerced, it revokes their freedom to choose in the process. Women can still fit in the culturally prescribed box of their choosing, but the difference is they have the choice to do so.
|
On May 08 2013 07:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +There are people who abuse roles. There are terrible, terrible people who do horrendous things under the guise of "roles". That's just human nature and I would revolt against anything like it. If a man is guiding, respectful, protective in ways that are truly loving and honoring to the woman this is a role society should aspire for imo I don't think you'll find a lot of camaraderie in your analysis of what's good for society here. There's been quite a rebellion against a "guiding" man, or a "protective" man. It is anathema to think a woman needs or desires guidance from a man, regardless his professed intention. Show nested quote +When is "doesn't take orders from anyone" virtuous by any definition? Honest question, to delve into the thought behind the statement. This is a liberated woman that has thrown off the shackles of an entrenched patriarchal society. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Rebelling against submission is empowering, not virtuous.
There's nothing wrong with a woman who wants/needs a protective man. Well, perhaps something is wrong with her if she really needs one, in the same sense that there might be issues with any person who absolutely requires someone else to function as an adult. What's wrong is when people claim that women in general need/want protective men because they are women, and any deviation from this is abnormal/wrong/not optimal.
|
Not everything is a power struggle. Men and women compliment each other in very positive and naturally intended ways. I am less of a person when I am alone than when I am with a partner. Doesn't mean I'm somehow submissive, dependent, inferior, or anything else. Gender roles weren't invented by society, they were developed over millions of years of natural selection, because specialization is simply more efficient than trying to be completely independent. The problem is not the roles, but the normative judgments we ascribe to them; for example, the notion that being protected is somehow undesirable or weakening. It just so happens that most things which fall under the female role have been given a negative connotation, intentionally. We should instead be highlighting the positive aspects of both genders, and how they compliment each other, instead of fixating on who is getting the supposed shorter end of the stick.
|
DOVER, Del. (AP) — A divided Delaware state Senate voted Tuesday to make their state the 11th in the nation to allow same-sex marriage, after hearing hours of passionate testimony from supporters and opponents.
The Senate’s 12-9 vote sends the bill to Democratic Gov. Jack Markell, who supports the measure and planned to sign it later in the day. It would go into effect July 1.
“I think this is the right thing for Delaware,” the governor said after the vote, while posing for pictures with supporters outside his legislative office. “It took an incredible team effort.”
Gay rights activists and their supporters in the chamber erupted in cheers and applause following the Senate vote.
Delaware’s same-sex marriage bill was introduced in the Democrat-controlled legislature last month, barely a year after the state began recognizing same-sex civil unions. The bill won passage two weeks ago in the state House on a 23-18 vote.
While it doesn’t give same-sex couples any more rights or benefits under Delaware law than those they have in civil unions, supporters argued same-sex couples deserve the dignity and respect of married couples. They also noted that if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars married gay couples from receiving federal benefits, civil unions would not provide protections or tax benefits under federal law to same-sex couples in Delaware.
Opponents, including scores of conservative religious leaders from across the state, argued same-sex marriage redefines and destroys a centuries-old institution that is a building block of society.
Source
|
On May 08 2013 06:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Gay rights advocates in Minnesota believe they’ve locked up enough votes in the state legislature to legalize same sex marriage ahead of a scheduled House vote Thursday.
“Thursday’s vote in the Minnesota House of Representatives will be a historic victory for thousands of same-sex couples and families in our state,” Richard Carlbom, campaign manager for Minnesotans United For All Families, said in a statement Tuesday. “We are confident that the necessary votes to extend the freedom to marry for same-sex couples have been secured and that HF1054 will pass the House floor.”
Minnesota would be the 11th state in the nation to legalize gay marriage should the bill pass the Democrat-controlled House and Senate. Senate leaders say they have the votes needed to pass a bill, according to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and Gov. Mark Dayton (DFL) has already said he would sign it if it reaches his desk.
“We’re still having conversations, but I think we have the votes,” House Speaker Paul Thissen (DFL) told the Pioneer Press. “This hasn’t been something we’ve been twisting peoples’ arms on. It’s about talking to people, hearing from constituents and those undecided legislators ultimately listening to their hearts.”
A spokeswoman for Minnesota For Marriage, the leading opponent of the bill, did not immediately return requests for comment. Source
Hey, don't forget Delaware.
WILMINGTON, Del. -- Delaware became the 11th state to legalize same-sex marriage after a lengthy debate Tuesday in the state Senate and the surprise votes of two lawmakers.
A half hour after the 12-9 Senate vote, Gov. Jack Markell signed the legislation into law on the main stairs in the lobby of Legislative Hall.
Original Article
|
On May 08 2013 07:14 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 07:05 Danglars wrote:There are people who abuse roles. There are terrible, terrible people who do horrendous things under the guise of "roles". That's just human nature and I would revolt against anything like it. If a man is guiding, respectful, protective in ways that are truly loving and honoring to the woman this is a role society should aspire for imo I don't think you'll find a lot of camaraderie in your analysis of what's good for society here. There's been quite a rebellion against a "guiding" man, or a "protective" man. It is anathema to think a woman needs or desires guidance from a man, regardless his professed intention. When is "doesn't take orders from anyone" virtuous by any definition? Honest question, to delve into the thought behind the statement. This is a liberated woman that has thrown off the shackles of an entrenched patriarchal society. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Rebelling against submission is empowering, not virtuous. There's nothing wrong with a woman who wants/needs a protective man. Well, perhaps something is wrong with her if she really needs one, in the same sense that there might be issues with any person who absolutely requires someone else to function as an adult. What's wrong is when people claim that women in general need/want protective men because they are women, and any deviation from this is abnormal/wrong/not optimal.
This is right. Some women are naturally submissive and very much want protection and dependence, because this is how they are. Similarly, some men need this from a woman, and there are both men and women for whom this sort of life is impossible to stand, and who might even need people who THEY can be dominant over. And then there's lots of room in the middle as well. I can think of examples of all of these types who I have met in my shockingly limited experience.
What's empowering isn't rebelling against submission or anything like that. It's being able to choose what kind of life is right for you, and having the power and freedom to do it, whatever it may be. Anyone who says that there is only one appropriate path is guilty of shackling the free, no matter what good they think they might be doing.
|
|
|
Apparently HuffPo has a sense of humor.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zRsVL5c.png)
|
No surprise, but sad nonetheless. For a party that isn't willing to compromise on their core beliefs, they're very willing to do so to keep a Democrat out of office.
|
On May 08 2013 09:56 aksfjh wrote:No surprise, but sad nonetheless. For a party that isn't willing to compromise on their core beliefs, they're very willing to do so to keep a Democrat out of office.
I can guarantee you that if Colbert-Busch had run just as Busch, she would have gotten more votes. Not altogether a surprising result, but I was hoping for a Colbert in office
|
On May 08 2013 09:59 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 09:56 aksfjh wrote:No surprise, but sad nonetheless. For a party that isn't willing to compromise on their core beliefs, they're very willing to do so to keep a Democrat out of office. I can guarantee you that if Colbert-Busch had run just as Busch, she would have gotten more votes. Not altogether a surprising result, but I was hoping for a Colbert in office
And taken the presidency if she would have only dropped the 'C' as well...
|
On May 08 2013 10:04 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 09:59 farvacola wrote:On May 08 2013 09:56 aksfjh wrote:No surprise, but sad nonetheless. For a party that isn't willing to compromise on their core beliefs, they're very willing to do so to keep a Democrat out of office. I can guarantee you that if Colbert-Busch had run just as Busch, she would have gotten more votes. Not altogether a surprising result, but I was hoping for a Colbert in office And taken the presidency if she would have only dropped the 'C' as well...
I'd vote for bush If he ran as a democrat I don't give a fuck. That guy really knew how to be a good politician. Made colbert and john steward the greatest hour of news there was.
|
I can't believe Sanford won. What a disgrace.
|
On May 07 2013 23:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 16:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2013 14:44 sunprince wrote:On May 07 2013 05:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2013 05:11 Paljas wrote:
wtf 6% believe in Unicorns? Unless they also asked little kids, this is absolutly mind boggling.
In my opinion, this is also partly due to the education system not being centralized by the state.
I really think a uniform education system across a whole nation is superior to a regional system. I doubt 6% really believe in unicorns. Believing in unicorns isn't really that much stupider (if at all) than believing in Young Earth creationism. Considering that 46% of Americans believe in Young Earth creationism, I don't think 6% believing in unicorns is much of a stretch. Now now, people aren't stupid just because they don't share the same religion as you. They're stupid if they use fairy tales of dudes floating in clouds to conclude that the Universe and all life in it were created 10,000 years ago in 144 hours. The only difference between believing in unicorns and Young Earth creationism is an argumentum ad populum. Ahh, yes. Hate and intolerance. How novel.
Citation needed.
Criticism ≠ hate and intolerance. Proving that someone is wrong and stupid does not imply hatred of any sort.
|
On May 08 2013 10:26 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 10:04 aksfjh wrote:On May 08 2013 09:59 farvacola wrote:On May 08 2013 09:56 aksfjh wrote:No surprise, but sad nonetheless. For a party that isn't willing to compromise on their core beliefs, they're very willing to do so to keep a Democrat out of office. I can guarantee you that if Colbert-Busch had run just as Busch, she would have gotten more votes. Not altogether a surprising result, but I was hoping for a Colbert in office And taken the presidency if she would have only dropped the 'C' as well... I'd vote for bush If he ran as a democrat I don't give a fuck. That guy really knew how to be a good politician. Made colbert and john steward the greatest hour of news there was.
It's debatable whether his political successes could be attributable to him or to his team of advisors, most notably Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
My personal intuition says that he was mostly a figurehead for more... intellectual leaders behind the throne.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
