Thats not even close. Clinton basically said, "the GOP is right on this and I am going to work with them". Obama basically caved to pressure and the political fallout of allowing the tax cuts to expire so allowed a temporary stalemate to continue.
If that is the most "bipartisan" thing he has done, then the point continues to stand.
It takes 2 people to work together. Clinton was actually able to work with republicans on wellfare reform because they didnt keep moving the goalpost everytime they were close to a deal.
You probably weren't around during those years or weren't paying attention. That was the congress that:
1. Shut down government in a fight with Clinton AND 2. Impeached him.
It was at least as divisive as today if not moreso. I remember it clearly. And even so, they were able to get stuff done. Largely because Clinton was more of a centrist. Obama is not and has not tried to work with congressional GOP.
Didn't all that stuff happen in the 2nd term of Clinton? The divergence of the right started around when Gingrich got control, but didn't become so huge of a deal until the late 90s.
According to that graph, by the time Obama was in office, the Republican party had already moved 0.15 points to the right since the end of Clinton, which is HUGE in the context of historical trends. That means that the current Republicans could be considered 50-80% more devisive than what Clinton faced.
Interesting, though I'm surprised that the chart shows Republicans getting more conservative under Bush.
How so? What policies and voting records changed with the Republican party to make them more "liberal"?
Bigger entitlement spending, more federal funding and involvement in education, a greater willingness to engage in protectionism and a big jump in regulations to name a few.
The key with those provisions is that they were all Republican answers to Democrat issues. Education needed reform, so Republicans created a system that punished failing public schools. Medicare "expansion" was a nod towards the business side of things, not so much the recipient side. Much of their policy changes were in line with that style, where an expansion in government involvement was actually a helping hand to business.
The way the analysis for these things go is by a measure of what certain Congressman have supported before, and then what they support later, then comparing that with the rest of the party. Since parties often offer counter proposals to the majority proposal we see a rolling record of support.
No Child Left Behind did much more than just punish bad schools. Medicare expansion did provide many new benefits.
BTW giving business a "helping hand" is a left position not a right one.
Thats not even close. Clinton basically said, "the GOP is right on this and I am going to work with them". Obama basically caved to pressure and the political fallout of allowing the tax cuts to expire so allowed a temporary stalemate to continue.
If that is the most "bipartisan" thing he has done, then the point continues to stand.
It takes 2 people to work together. Clinton was actually able to work with republicans on wellfare reform because they didnt keep moving the goalpost everytime they were close to a deal.
You probably weren't around during those years or weren't paying attention. That was the congress that:
1. Shut down government in a fight with Clinton AND 2. Impeached him.
It was at least as divisive as today if not moreso. I remember it clearly. And even so, they were able to get stuff done. Largely because Clinton was more of a centrist. Obama is not and has not tried to work with congressional GOP.
Didn't all that stuff happen in the 2nd term of Clinton? The divergence of the right started around when Gingrich got control, but didn't become so huge of a deal until the late 90s.
According to that graph, by the time Obama was in office, the Republican party had already moved 0.15 points to the right since the end of Clinton, which is HUGE in the context of historical trends. That means that the current Republicans could be considered 50-80% more devisive than what Clinton faced.
Interesting, though I'm surprised that the chart shows Republicans getting more conservative under Bush.
How so? What policies and voting records changed with the Republican party to make them more "liberal"?
Bigger entitlement spending, more federal funding and involvement in education, a greater willingness to engage in protectionism and a big jump in regulations to name a few.
The key with those provisions is that they were all Republican answers to Democrat issues. Education needed reform, so Republicans created a system that punished failing public schools. Medicare "expansion" was a nod towards the business side of things, not so much the recipient side. Much of their policy changes were in line with that style, where an expansion in government involvement was actually a helping hand to business.
The way the analysis for these things go is by a measure of what certain Congressman have supported before, and then what they support later, then comparing that with the rest of the party. Since parties often offer counter proposals to the majority proposal we see a rolling record of support.
No Child Left Behind did much more than just punish bad schools. Medicare expansion did provide many new benefits.
BTW giving business a "helping hand" is a left position not a right one.
Ask anyone involved in education how they feel about NCLB, I seriously hope he wasnt being an advocate for it.
Thats not even close. Clinton basically said, "the GOP is right on this and I am going to work with them". Obama basically caved to pressure and the political fallout of allowing the tax cuts to expire so allowed a temporary stalemate to continue.
If that is the most "bipartisan" thing he has done, then the point continues to stand.
It takes 2 people to work together. Clinton was actually able to work with republicans on wellfare reform because they didnt keep moving the goalpost everytime they were close to a deal.
You probably weren't around during those years or weren't paying attention. That was the congress that:
1. Shut down government in a fight with Clinton AND 2. Impeached him.
It was at least as divisive as today if not moreso. I remember it clearly. And even so, they were able to get stuff done. Largely because Clinton was more of a centrist. Obama is not and has not tried to work with congressional GOP.
Didn't all that stuff happen in the 2nd term of Clinton? The divergence of the right started around when Gingrich got control, but didn't become so huge of a deal until the late 90s.
According to that graph, by the time Obama was in office, the Republican party had already moved 0.15 points to the right since the end of Clinton, which is HUGE in the context of historical trends. That means that the current Republicans could be considered 50-80% more devisive than what Clinton faced.
Interesting, though I'm surprised that the chart shows Republicans getting more conservative under Bush.
How so? What policies and voting records changed with the Republican party to make them more "liberal"?
Bigger entitlement spending, more federal funding and involvement in education, a greater willingness to engage in protectionism and a big jump in regulations to name a few.
The key with those provisions is that they were all Republican answers to Democrat issues. Education needed reform, so Republicans created a system that punished failing public schools. Medicare "expansion" was a nod towards the business side of things, not so much the recipient side. Much of their policy changes were in line with that style, where an expansion in government involvement was actually a helping hand to business.
The way the analysis for these things go is by a measure of what certain Congressman have supported before, and then what they support later, then comparing that with the rest of the party. Since parties often offer counter proposals to the majority proposal we see a rolling record of support.
No Child Left Behind did much more than just punish bad schools. Medicare expansion did provide many new benefits.
BTW giving business a "helping hand" is a left position not a right one.
Ask anyone involved in education how they feel about NCLB, I seriously hope he wasnt being an advocate for it.
This. Jesus, now we're pointing to No Child Left Behind as a...good thing? Talk about rose-tinted glasses.
Thats not even close. Clinton basically said, "the GOP is right on this and I am going to work with them". Obama basically caved to pressure and the political fallout of allowing the tax cuts to expire so allowed a temporary stalemate to continue.
If that is the most "bipartisan" thing he has done, then the point continues to stand.
It takes 2 people to work together. Clinton was actually able to work with republicans on wellfare reform because they didnt keep moving the goalpost everytime they were close to a deal.
You probably weren't around during those years or weren't paying attention. That was the congress that:
1. Shut down government in a fight with Clinton AND 2. Impeached him.
It was at least as divisive as today if not moreso. I remember it clearly. And even so, they were able to get stuff done. Largely because Clinton was more of a centrist. Obama is not and has not tried to work with congressional GOP.
Didn't all that stuff happen in the 2nd term of Clinton? The divergence of the right started around when Gingrich got control, but didn't become so huge of a deal until the late 90s.
According to that graph, by the time Obama was in office, the Republican party had already moved 0.15 points to the right since the end of Clinton, which is HUGE in the context of historical trends. That means that the current Republicans could be considered 50-80% more devisive than what Clinton faced.
Interesting, though I'm surprised that the chart shows Republicans getting more conservative under Bush.
How so? What policies and voting records changed with the Republican party to make them more "liberal"?
Bigger entitlement spending, more federal funding and involvement in education, a greater willingness to engage in protectionism and a big jump in regulations to name a few.
The key with those provisions is that they were all Republican answers to Democrat issues. Education needed reform, so Republicans created a system that punished failing public schools. Medicare "expansion" was a nod towards the business side of things, not so much the recipient side. Much of their policy changes were in line with that style, where an expansion in government involvement was actually a helping hand to business.
The way the analysis for these things go is by a measure of what certain Congressman have supported before, and then what they support later, then comparing that with the rest of the party. Since parties often offer counter proposals to the majority proposal we see a rolling record of support.
No Child Left Behind did much more than just punish bad schools. Medicare expansion did provide many new benefits.
BTW giving business a "helping hand" is a left position not a right one.
Ask anyone involved in education how they feel about NCLB, I seriously hope he wasnt being an advocate for it.
I've heard theories that suggest that NCLB was a Rovian brainchild meant to help solidify public consensus that government ought to get out of education. Seems reasonable to me.
Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
You're god damn right. Few people believe that if an employee is not performing their job satisfactorily the government should be allowed to say "Hey, you can't fire them employer!". That would obviously be absurd.
But it would be ridiculous for someone to be allowed to say "oh hey, you just came out of the closet? Well, despite the fact that you perform you job competently, you get to hit the road because I hate fags! Fuck job security, fuck your mortgage, fuck your family, fuck your health and everything you rely on that needs a job, you're gay!".
Again, just because there are some absurd hypothetical instances where the government might restrict the freedom of employers to fire employees that the government isn't wrong to restrict those freedoms in other scenarios.
It takes 2 people to work together. Clinton was actually able to work with republicans on wellfare reform because they didnt keep moving the goalpost everytime they were close to a deal.
You probably weren't around during those years or weren't paying attention. That was the congress that:
1. Shut down government in a fight with Clinton AND 2. Impeached him.
It was at least as divisive as today if not moreso. I remember it clearly. And even so, they were able to get stuff done. Largely because Clinton was more of a centrist. Obama is not and has not tried to work with congressional GOP.
Didn't all that stuff happen in the 2nd term of Clinton? The divergence of the right started around when Gingrich got control, but didn't become so huge of a deal until the late 90s.
According to that graph, by the time Obama was in office, the Republican party had already moved 0.15 points to the right since the end of Clinton, which is HUGE in the context of historical trends. That means that the current Republicans could be considered 50-80% more devisive than what Clinton faced.
Interesting, though I'm surprised that the chart shows Republicans getting more conservative under Bush.
How so? What policies and voting records changed with the Republican party to make them more "liberal"?
Bigger entitlement spending, more federal funding and involvement in education, a greater willingness to engage in protectionism and a big jump in regulations to name a few.
The key with those provisions is that they were all Republican answers to Democrat issues. Education needed reform, so Republicans created a system that punished failing public schools. Medicare "expansion" was a nod towards the business side of things, not so much the recipient side. Much of their policy changes were in line with that style, where an expansion in government involvement was actually a helping hand to business.
The way the analysis for these things go is by a measure of what certain Congressman have supported before, and then what they support later, then comparing that with the rest of the party. Since parties often offer counter proposals to the majority proposal we see a rolling record of support.
No Child Left Behind did much more than just punish bad schools. Medicare expansion did provide many new benefits.
BTW giving business a "helping hand" is a left position not a right one.
Ask anyone involved in education how they feel about NCLB, I seriously hope he wasnt being an advocate for it.
This. Jesus, now we're pointing to No Child Left Behind as a...good thing? Talk about rose-tinted glasses.
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
EDIT: Could it also be illegal for someone to choose who he talks to and spends time with? I think there should be strict anti-discriminatory laws for public employees but private people should be able to hire and fire for any reason since it is their money.
Everywhere in the U.S. has At Will employment with certain exceptions for protected classes. You are arguing that that protection shouldn't even exist. Well, that's a terrible opinion. The government should force people not to discriminate is such vital issues as employment on the basis of things like race or gender or sexuality. People need jobs in order to make a living, they aren't some luxury. Yes, you should need a better reason to fire someone than "I hate niggers." Is that really so crazy to you? I mean, do you really want to repeal the Civil Rights Act?
Thats not even close. Clinton basically said, "the GOP is right on this and I am going to work with them". Obama basically caved to pressure and the political fallout of allowing the tax cuts to expire so allowed a temporary stalemate to continue.
If that is the most "bipartisan" thing he has done, then the point continues to stand.
It takes 2 people to work together. Clinton was actually able to work with republicans on wellfare reform because they didnt keep moving the goalpost everytime they were close to a deal.
You probably weren't around during those years or weren't paying attention. That was the congress that:
1. Shut down government in a fight with Clinton AND 2. Impeached him.
It was at least as divisive as today if not moreso. I remember it clearly. And even so, they were able to get stuff done. Largely because Clinton was more of a centrist. Obama is not and has not tried to work with congressional GOP.
Didn't all that stuff happen in the 2nd term of Clinton? The divergence of the right started around when Gingrich got control, but didn't become so huge of a deal until the late 90s.
According to that graph, by the time Obama was in office, the Republican party had already moved 0.15 points to the right since the end of Clinton, which is HUGE in the context of historical trends. That means that the current Republicans could be considered 50-80% more devisive than what Clinton faced.
Interesting, though I'm surprised that the chart shows Republicans getting more conservative under Bush.
How so? What policies and voting records changed with the Republican party to make them more "liberal"?
Bigger entitlement spending, more federal funding and involvement in education, a greater willingness to engage in protectionism and a big jump in regulations to name a few.
The key with those provisions is that they were all Republican answers to Democrat issues. Education needed reform, so Republicans created a system that punished failing public schools. Medicare "expansion" was a nod towards the business side of things, not so much the recipient side. Much of their policy changes were in line with that style, where an expansion in government involvement was actually a helping hand to business.
The way the analysis for these things go is by a measure of what certain Congressman have supported before, and then what they support later, then comparing that with the rest of the party. Since parties often offer counter proposals to the majority proposal we see a rolling record of support.
No Child Left Behind did much more than just punish bad schools. Medicare expansion did provide many new benefits.
BTW giving business a "helping hand" is a left position not a right one.
They're still originally Republican solutions to problems. Note that the analysis doesn't base it off of votes on policies being "left" or "right", but instead on all relative terms. You may think of their positions in the 2000s to be more leftist, but Republicans probably voted for them in the 90s or 80s (and then some of them voted against them in the 2000s). That's how it would work from an analysis view.
Some would say that Democrats have the most extreme position on abortion:
"The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That's a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn't it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn't defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans." --Newt Gingrich
As for Marriage between man and woman being an "extreme" position: it is still 50% vs 48%. Neither position could be called "extreme" at this point. --http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
To be honest I don't support that particular stance on abortion; just because I don't like the Republican party doesn't mean I support everything the Democrats do My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
I am in support of the same exceptions as Mitt Romney (mother's life in danger, rape, and incest). Most people are in the middle somewhere. Its too bad that both party platforms have chosen to take the extreme position. Seemed like a good opportunity for one of the parties to show that they are not on the extreme side while the other is.
EDIT: Also, whats up with Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a baby born after surviving an abortion? I haven't heard his explanation for this...
Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Also, I agree with you on abortion as well with the exception of allowing any abortion before 3 months. At that point, the fetus has next to no nervous system and thus is not alive nor thinking.
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
Another, more well known one:
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Are you being serious? I googled her and within 15 seconds found that she was born at 30 weeks which is far beyond the current cutoff where doctors a foetus could survive. Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
I am amazed you had either the ignorance or the audacity to post that without even checking how early she was aborted. My stance: There should be a cutoff. The cutoff should be measured against the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb with current medical science. Babies that cannot survive should be humanely destroyed, those who can should not be aborted. Your response: But this girl who was aborted 6 weeks after the cutoff where doctors think a foetus could survive survived! You wouldn't give her a lethal injection, would you?!?
Are you serious?
Whoa now, calm down. The video was only meant to show that surviving abortion has happened more than in the 1 example I had posted and not to disagree with you that there should be a cutoff. In fact, if you actually read the text below the video, you will actually see my response to you.
EDIT: Actually, what I mean is that the text under my first video is what I think you and I agree on and what I would now refer you to.
"But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion. " --Savio
It takes 2 people to work together. Clinton was actually able to work with republicans on wellfare reform because they didnt keep moving the goalpost everytime they were close to a deal.
You probably weren't around during those years or weren't paying attention. That was the congress that:
1. Shut down government in a fight with Clinton AND 2. Impeached him.
It was at least as divisive as today if not moreso. I remember it clearly. And even so, they were able to get stuff done. Largely because Clinton was more of a centrist. Obama is not and has not tried to work with congressional GOP.
Didn't all that stuff happen in the 2nd term of Clinton? The divergence of the right started around when Gingrich got control, but didn't become so huge of a deal until the late 90s.
According to that graph, by the time Obama was in office, the Republican party had already moved 0.15 points to the right since the end of Clinton, which is HUGE in the context of historical trends. That means that the current Republicans could be considered 50-80% more devisive than what Clinton faced.
Interesting, though I'm surprised that the chart shows Republicans getting more conservative under Bush.
How so? What policies and voting records changed with the Republican party to make them more "liberal"?
Bigger entitlement spending, more federal funding and involvement in education, a greater willingness to engage in protectionism and a big jump in regulations to name a few.
The key with those provisions is that they were all Republican answers to Democrat issues. Education needed reform, so Republicans created a system that punished failing public schools. Medicare "expansion" was a nod towards the business side of things, not so much the recipient side. Much of their policy changes were in line with that style, where an expansion in government involvement was actually a helping hand to business.
The way the analysis for these things go is by a measure of what certain Congressman have supported before, and then what they support later, then comparing that with the rest of the party. Since parties often offer counter proposals to the majority proposal we see a rolling record of support.
No Child Left Behind did much more than just punish bad schools. Medicare expansion did provide many new benefits.
BTW giving business a "helping hand" is a left position not a right one.
Ask anyone involved in education how they feel about NCLB, I seriously hope he wasnt being an advocate for it.
This. Jesus, now we're pointing to No Child Left Behind as a...good thing? Talk about rose-tinted glasses.
Yea, we're not talking about whether we like or support the measures, just how they were voted on.
You probably weren't around during those years or weren't paying attention. That was the congress that:
1. Shut down government in a fight with Clinton AND 2. Impeached him.
It was at least as divisive as today if not moreso. I remember it clearly. And even so, they were able to get stuff done. Largely because Clinton was more of a centrist. Obama is not and has not tried to work with congressional GOP.
Didn't all that stuff happen in the 2nd term of Clinton? The divergence of the right started around when Gingrich got control, but didn't become so huge of a deal until the late 90s.
According to that graph, by the time Obama was in office, the Republican party had already moved 0.15 points to the right since the end of Clinton, which is HUGE in the context of historical trends. That means that the current Republicans could be considered 50-80% more devisive than what Clinton faced.
Interesting, though I'm surprised that the chart shows Republicans getting more conservative under Bush.
How so? What policies and voting records changed with the Republican party to make them more "liberal"?
Bigger entitlement spending, more federal funding and involvement in education, a greater willingness to engage in protectionism and a big jump in regulations to name a few.
The key with those provisions is that they were all Republican answers to Democrat issues. Education needed reform, so Republicans created a system that punished failing public schools. Medicare "expansion" was a nod towards the business side of things, not so much the recipient side. Much of their policy changes were in line with that style, where an expansion in government involvement was actually a helping hand to business.
The way the analysis for these things go is by a measure of what certain Congressman have supported before, and then what they support later, then comparing that with the rest of the party. Since parties often offer counter proposals to the majority proposal we see a rolling record of support.
No Child Left Behind did much more than just punish bad schools. Medicare expansion did provide many new benefits.
BTW giving business a "helping hand" is a left position not a right one.
Ask anyone involved in education how they feel about NCLB, I seriously hope he wasnt being an advocate for it.
This. Jesus, now we're pointing to No Child Left Behind as a...good thing? Talk about rose-tinted glasses.
Do you know what is being discussed?
Ah, I see. My bad. I'd actually lost track of what exactly you two were disagreeing on. Conflation of "Republican" with "rightist", and all.
On September 04 2012 09:36 Souma wrote: Can anyone point me to a good site to follow California politics?
All I know is that it is a state in constant political turmoil, and that a California Democratic party member recently likened Paul Ryan to Joseph Goebbels.
On September 04 2012 07:29 Chocolate wrote: [quote] To be honest I don't support that particular stance on abortion; just because I don't like the Republican party doesn't mean I support everything the Democrats do My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
I am in support of the same exceptions as Mitt Romney (mother's life in danger, rape, and incest). Most people are in the middle somewhere. Its too bad that both party platforms have chosen to take the extreme position. Seemed like a good opportunity for one of the parties to show that they are not on the extreme side while the other is.
EDIT: Also, whats up with Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a baby born after surviving an abortion? I haven't heard his explanation for this...
Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Also, I agree with you on abortion as well with the exception of allowing any abortion before 3 months. At that point, the fetus has next to no nervous system and thus is not alive nor thinking.
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Are you being serious? I googled her and within 15 seconds found that she was born at 30 weeks which is far beyond the current cutoff where doctors a foetus could survive. Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
I am amazed you had either the ignorance or the audacity to post that without even checking how early she was aborted. My stance: There should be a cutoff. The cutoff should be measured against the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb with current medical science. Babies that cannot survive should be humanely destroyed, those who can should not be aborted. Your response: But this girl who was aborted 6 weeks after the cutoff where doctors think a foetus could survive survived! You wouldn't give her a lethal injection, would you?!?
Are you serious?
Whoa now, calm down. The video was only meant to show that surviving abortion has happened more than in the 1 example I had posted and not to disagree with you that there should be a cutoff. In fact, if you actually read the text below the video, you will actually see my response to you.
EDIT: Actually, what I mean is that the text under my first video is what I think you and I agree on and what I would now refer you to.
"But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion. " --Savio
A video showing that someone born after the date where doctors think it is possible for you to survive survived is utterly meaningless to the debate. It's just an example of the classic "here's this person, you wouldn't murder them, don't abort". What is the connection between the partial birth debate and a video of someone who was born when doctors said she could survive and then survived?
On September 04 2012 09:36 Souma wrote: Can anyone point me to a good site to follow California politics?
All I know is that it is a state in constant political turmoil, and that a California Democratic party member recently likened Paul Ryan to Joseph Goebbels.
Thats not even close. Clinton basically said, "the GOP is right on this and I am going to work with them". Obama basically caved to pressure and the political fallout of allowing the tax cuts to expire so allowed a temporary stalemate to continue.
If that is the most "bipartisan" thing he has done, then the point continues to stand.
It takes 2 people to work together. Clinton was actually able to work with republicans on wellfare reform because they didnt keep moving the goalpost everytime they were close to a deal.
You probably weren't around during those years or weren't paying attention. That was the congress that:
1. Shut down government in a fight with Clinton AND 2. Impeached him.
It was at least as divisive as today if not moreso. I remember it clearly. And even so, they were able to get stuff done. Largely because Clinton was more of a centrist. Obama is not and has not tried to work with congressional GOP.
Didn't all that stuff happen in the 2nd term of Clinton? The divergence of the right started around when Gingrich got control, but didn't become so huge of a deal until the late 90s.
According to that graph, by the time Obama was in office, the Republican party had already moved 0.15 points to the right since the end of Clinton, which is HUGE in the context of historical trends. That means that the current Republicans could be considered 50-80% more devisive than what Clinton faced.
Interesting, though I'm surprised that the chart shows Republicans getting more conservative under Bush.
How so? What policies and voting records changed with the Republican party to make them more "liberal"?
Bigger entitlement spending, more federal funding and involvement in education, a greater willingness to engage in protectionism and a big jump in regulations to name a few.
The key with those provisions is that they were all Republican answers to Democrat issues. Education needed reform, so Republicans created a system that punished failing public schools. Medicare "expansion" was a nod towards the business side of things, not so much the recipient side. Much of their policy changes were in line with that style, where an expansion in government involvement was actually a helping hand to business.
The way the analysis for these things go is by a measure of what certain Congressman have supported before, and then what they support later, then comparing that with the rest of the party. Since parties often offer counter proposals to the majority proposal we see a rolling record of support.
No Child Left Behind did much more than just punish bad schools. Medicare expansion did provide many new benefits.
BTW giving business a "helping hand" is a left position not a right one.
They're still originally Republican solutions to problems. Note that the analysis doesn't base it off of votes on policies being "left" or "right", but instead on all relative terms. You may think of their positions in the 2000s to be more leftist, but Republicans probably voted for them in the 90s or 80s (and then some of them voted against them in the 2000s). That's how it would work from an analysis view.
I'm not sure that's a good way to analyze things. Voting against increasing the size of the welfare state is different when it is small vs after it has grown large.
On September 04 2012 07:46 aksfjh wrote: [quote] Didn't all that stuff happen in the 2nd term of Clinton? The divergence of the right started around when Gingrich got control, but didn't become so huge of a deal until the late 90s.
According to that graph, by the time Obama was in office, the Republican party had already moved 0.15 points to the right since the end of Clinton, which is HUGE in the context of historical trends. That means that the current Republicans could be considered 50-80% more devisive than what Clinton faced.
Interesting, though I'm surprised that the chart shows Republicans getting more conservative under Bush.
How so? What policies and voting records changed with the Republican party to make them more "liberal"?
Bigger entitlement spending, more federal funding and involvement in education, a greater willingness to engage in protectionism and a big jump in regulations to name a few.
The key with those provisions is that they were all Republican answers to Democrat issues. Education needed reform, so Republicans created a system that punished failing public schools. Medicare "expansion" was a nod towards the business side of things, not so much the recipient side. Much of their policy changes were in line with that style, where an expansion in government involvement was actually a helping hand to business.
The way the analysis for these things go is by a measure of what certain Congressman have supported before, and then what they support later, then comparing that with the rest of the party. Since parties often offer counter proposals to the majority proposal we see a rolling record of support.
No Child Left Behind did much more than just punish bad schools. Medicare expansion did provide many new benefits.
BTW giving business a "helping hand" is a left position not a right one.
Ask anyone involved in education how they feel about NCLB, I seriously hope he wasnt being an advocate for it.
This. Jesus, now we're pointing to No Child Left Behind as a...good thing? Talk about rose-tinted glasses.
Do you know what is being discussed?
Ah, I see. My bad. I'd actually lost track of what exactly you two were disagreeing on. Conflation of "Republican" with "rightist", and all.
No problem, I just don't want to get lumped in with the people that support everything their party pushes out their backsides
On September 04 2012 09:31 Savio wrote: "But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion. " --Savio
Roe v. Wade
The essence of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is that Constitutional rights apply only after birth; hence abortion does not breach a person’s right to life. States cannot regulate 1st trimester abortions; states can regulate but not ban 2nd trimester abortions; and states can ban 3rd trimester abortions (as many have).
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EkA4O.jpg)
My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
