On September 08 2012 07:23 sunprince wrote: The Department of Labor study concludes that any unexplained gap is well within the margin for statistical error and is probably due to the factors they didn't control for. If you have compelling proof that this is not the case, then feel free to show your sources.
Just out of curiosity what are the factors they didn't control for? That Department of Labor study was really long and I don't have the willpower to truck through it all.
Oh, Romney has $300 million for ads. That is not counting the SuperPACs. The ad blitz coming this weekend to several swing states will cost just $4 million.
On September 07 2012 23:09 xDaunt wrote: I agree with Peggy Noonan's take on the convention.
On Obama:
Barack Obama is deeply overexposed and often boring. He never seems to be saying what he's thinking. His speech Thursday was weirdly anticlimactic. There's too much buildup, the crowd was tired, it all felt flat. He was somber, and his message was essentially banal: We've done better than you think. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
There were many straw men. There were phrases like "the shadow of a shuttered steel mill," which he considers writerly. But they sound empty and practiced now, like something you've heard in a commercial or an advertising campaign.
It was stale and empty. He's out of juice.
On the tone of the convention and the delegates:
Beneath the funny hats, the sweet-faced delegates, the handsome speakers and the babies waving flags there was something disquieting. All three days were marked by a kind of soft, distracted extremism. It was unshowy and unobnoxious but also unsettling.
There was the relentless emphasis on Government as Community, as the thing that gives us spirit and makes us whole. But government isn't what you love if you're American, America is what you love. Government is what you have, need and hire. Its most essential duties—especially when it is bankrupt—involve defending rights and safety, not imposing views and values. We already have values. Democrats and Republicans don't see all this the same way, and that's fine—that's what national politics is, the working out of this dispute in one direction or another every few years. But the Democrats convened in Charlotte seemed more extreme on the point, more accepting of the idea of government as the center of national life, than ever, at least to me.
The fight over including a single mention of God in the platform—that was extreme. The original removal of the single mention by the platform committee—extreme. The huge "No!" vote on restoring the mention of God, and including the administration's own stand on Jerusalem—that wasn't liberal, it was extreme. Comparing the Republicans to Nazis—extreme. The almost complete absence of a call to help education by facing down the powers that throw our least defended children under the school bus—this was extreme, not mainstream.
On Fluke (just because I don't think this woman can ever get enough scorn):
The sheer strangeness of all the talk about abortion, abortion, contraception, contraception. I am old enough to know a wedge issue when I see one, but I've never seen a great party build its entire public persona around one. Big speeches from the heads of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, HHS Secretary and abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sebelius and, of course, Sandra Fluke.
"Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception," Ms. Fluke said. But why would anyone have included a Georgetown law student who never worked her way onto the national stage until she was plucked, by the left, as a personable victim? What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool.
And she was one of the great faces of the party in Charlotte. That is extreme. Childish, too.
Here's the most important part that dovetails with the "poisoning the well" conversation that we have had on and off in this thread:
Something else, and it had to do with tone. I remember the Republicans in Tampa bashing the president, hard, but not the entire Democratic Party. In Charlotte they bashed Mitt Romney, but they bashed the Republican Party harder. If this doesn't strike you as somewhat unsettling, then you must want another four years of all war all the time between the parties. I don't think the American people want that. Because, actually, they're not extreme.
And finally, on Slick Willy:
Bill Clinton is The Master. That is stipulated. Almost everyone in the media was over the moon about his speech. It was a shrewd and superb moment of political generosity, his hauling into town to make the case, but it was a hack speech. It was the speech of a highly gifted apparatchik. All great partisan speeches include some hard and uncomfortable truths, but Mr. Clinton offered none. He knows better than so much of what he said. In real life he makes insightful statements on the debt, the deficit and the real threat they pose. He knows more about the need for and impediments to public-school reform than half the reformers do. He knows exactly why both parties can't reach agreement in Washington, and what each has done wrong along the way. But Wednesday night he stuck to fluid fictions and clever cases. It was smaller than Bill Clinton is.
Still, he gave the president one great political gift: He put Medicaid on the table. He put it right there next to the pepper shaker and said Look at that! People talk Medicare and Social Security, but, as Mr. Clinton noted, more than half of Medicaid is spent on nursing-home care for seniors and on those with disabilities such as Down syndrome and autism. Will it be cut? .... Romney-Ryan take note: this will arrive as an issue.
Ultimately, she predicts a dead-cat bounce for Obama just like the one that Romney got. Most of the article is above, but you can read the rest here.
The fact that she considers anything in the Democratic party "extreme" or "extremism" questions the validity of anything she writes. There is nothing extreme about the Democratic party or anything they're doing or saying.
Except for the platform's stance on abortion:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay
Which means government funded abortion with no restrictions. A departure from previous DNC platforms that stated that abortion should be, "Legal, safe, and rare".
Now let's look at the polling. 20% say abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, 25% legal under any circumstance and 52% legal under only certain circumstances (Source).
By definition, among the American electorate, BOTH parties platform stance on abortion is extreme.
Am I missing something? Where does it say 'no restrictions'?
I thought the Roe v Wade decision set these ground rules:
First trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor. Second trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor, but states may intervene in the interest of the mother's health.
Once the fetus is capable of surviving the outside world (dunno when this is), the state can choose to regulate abortion.
So it's not without restrictions...
Indeed. As the DNC stated, they "unequivocally support Roe v. Wade."
The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]
As for partial-birth abortion there was a debate about that earlier... I suppose you can say the abortion stance is more extreme now but not without valid reason.
For the record, I'm fine with how we currently stand with abortion legally. I'm just tired of the RNC being labeled extreme by the media while the DNC gets a pass. Noonan was right, abortion is being used as a wedge issue and frankly if Noonan is the "conservative" columnist that people want to go after then the country is never moving back to the center.
The big joke (and what really makes the democrat rhetoric a big lie) is that republicans can't really do much to obstruct the right to an abortion anyway.
That's not true, even if the proposed push for a constitutional amendement banning abortion would never get off the ground. Republicans have pushed (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) a lot of legislation that obstructs the right to abortion:
As you can see, there's quite a lot that Republicans can do to mess with abortion rights, ranging from directly challenging Roe v. Wade to simply obstructing abortion as hard as they obstructed health care reform, something known as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP).
On September 08 2012 07:23 sunprince wrote: The Department of Labor study concludes that any unexplained gap is well within the margin for statistical error and is probably due to the factors they didn't control for. If you have compelling proof that this is not the case, then feel free to show your sources.
Just out of curiosity what are the factors they didn't control for? That Department of Labor study was really long and I don't have the willpower to truck through it all.
Occupation, industry, work experience, and job tenure. Y'know, little things.
My personal intuition is that if they did use those factors, they'd probably find a wage gap in the other direction, but they chose not to risk their careers by arousing the ire of feminists (much like how the CDC is careful not to call it rape when the perpetrator is a woman).
On September 08 2012 06:54 Savio wrote: Who let this woman speak at the DNC? This is just painful...
I'm pretty sure that she thought that if she yelled loud enough and waved her arms around haphazard hard enough, she could be as rousing as Bill Clinton.
Pretty comic. Should be trying her hand at various dance TV shows, not trying to re-elect Obama. Maybe will meet with more success, who knows? + Show Spoiler +
vs
May not be able to compete with Barack's pastor though for enthusiam and gesturing.
After watching her speak, I now understand how Sarah Palin gave Republicans so many boners.
I'm pretty sure that she thought that if she yelled loud enough and waved her arms around haphazard hard enough, she could be as rousing as Bill Clinton.
Pretty comic. Should be trying her hand at various dance TV shows, not trying to re-elect Obama. Maybe will meet with more success, who knows? + Show Spoiler +
I'm pretty sure that she thought that if she yelled loud enough and waved her arms around haphazard hard enough, she could be as rousing as Bill Clinton.
Pretty comic. Should be trying her hand at various dance TV shows, not trying to re-elect Obama. Maybe will meet with more success, who knows? + Show Spoiler +
On September 07 2012 23:09 xDaunt wrote: I agree with Peggy Noonan's take on the convention.
On Obama:
Barack Obama is deeply overexposed and often boring. He never seems to be saying what he's thinking. His speech Thursday was weirdly anticlimactic. There's too much buildup, the crowd was tired, it all felt flat. He was somber, and his message was essentially banal: We've done better than you think. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
There were many straw men. There were phrases like "the shadow of a shuttered steel mill," which he considers writerly. But they sound empty and practiced now, like something you've heard in a commercial or an advertising campaign.
It was stale and empty. He's out of juice.
On the tone of the convention and the delegates:
Beneath the funny hats, the sweet-faced delegates, the handsome speakers and the babies waving flags there was something disquieting. All three days were marked by a kind of soft, distracted extremism. It was unshowy and unobnoxious but also unsettling.
There was the relentless emphasis on Government as Community, as the thing that gives us spirit and makes us whole. But government isn't what you love if you're American, America is what you love. Government is what you have, need and hire. Its most essential duties—especially when it is bankrupt—involve defending rights and safety, not imposing views and values. We already have values. Democrats and Republicans don't see all this the same way, and that's fine—that's what national politics is, the working out of this dispute in one direction or another every few years. But the Democrats convened in Charlotte seemed more extreme on the point, more accepting of the idea of government as the center of national life, than ever, at least
The fight over including a single mention of God in the platform—that was extreme. The original removal of the single mention by the platform committee—extreme. The huge "No!" vote on restoring the mention of God, and including the administration's own stand on Jerusalem—that wasn't liberal, it was extreme. Comparing the Republicans to Nazis—extreme. The almost complete absence of a call to help education by facing down the powers that throw our least defended children under the school bus—this was extreme, not mainstream.
On Fluke (just because I don't think this woman can ever get enough scorn):
The sheer strangeness of all the talk about abortion, abortion, contraception, contraception. I am old enough to know a wedge issue when I see one, but I've never seen a great party build its entire public persona around one. Big speeches from the heads of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, HHS Secretary and abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sebelius and, of course, Sandra Fluke.
"Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception," Ms. Fluke said. But why would anyone have included a Georgetown law student who never worked her way onto the national stage until she was plucked, by the left, as a personable victim? What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool.
And she was one of the great faces of the party in Charlotte. That is extreme. Childish, too.
Here's the most important part that dovetails with the "poisoning the well" conversation that we have had on and off in this thread:
Something else, and it had to do with tone. I remember the Republicans in Tampa bashing the president, hard, but not the entire Democratic Party. In Charlotte they bashed Mitt Romney, but they bashed the Republican Party harder. If this doesn't strike you as somewhat unsettling, then you must want another four years of all war all the time between the parties. I don't think the American people want that. Because, actually, they're not extreme.
And finally, on Slick Willy:
Bill Clinton is The Master. That is stipulated. Almost everyone in the media was over the moon about his speech. It was a shrewd and superb moment of political generosity, his hauling into town to make the case, but it was a hack speech. It was the speech of a highly gifted apparatchik. All great partisan speeches include some hard and uncomfortable truths, but Mr. Clinton offered none. He knows better than so much of what he said. In real life he makes insightful statements on the debt, the deficit and the real threat they pose. He knows more about the need for and impediments to public-school reform than half the reformers do. He knows exactly why both parties can't reach agreement in Washington, and what each has done wrong along the way. But Wednesday night he stuck to fluid fictions and clever cases. It was smaller than Bill Clinton is.
Still, he gave the president one great political gift: He put Medicaid on the table. He put it right there next to the pepper shaker and said Look at that! People talk Medicare and Social Security, but, as Mr. Clinton noted, more than half of Medicaid is spent on nursing-home care for seniors and on those with disabilities such as Down syndrome and autism. Will it be cut? .... Romney-Ryan take note: this will arrive as an issue.
Ultimately, she predicts a dead-cat bounce for Obama just like the one that Romney got. Most of the article is above, but you can read the rest here.
The fact that she considers anything in the Democratic party "extreme" or "extremism" questions the validity of anything she writes. There is nothing extreme about the Democratic party or anything they're doing or saying.
Except for the platform's stance on abortion:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay
Which means government funded abortion with no restrictions. A departure from previous DNC platforms that stated that abortion should be, "Legal, safe, and rare".
Now let's look at the polling. 20% say abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, 25% legal under any circumstance and 52% legal under only certain circumstances (Source).
By definition, among the American electorate, BOTH parties platform stance on abortion is extreme.
Am I missing something? Where does it say 'no restrictions'?
I thought the Roe v Wade decision set these ground rules:
First trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor. Second trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor, but states may intervene in the interest of the mother's health.
Once the fetus is capable of surviving the outside world (dunno when this is), the state can choose to regulate abortion.
So it's not without restrictions...
Indeed. As the DNC stated, they "unequivocally support Roe v. Wade."
The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]
As for partial-birth abortion there was a debate about that earlier... I suppose you can say the abortion stance is more extreme now but not without valid reason.
For the record, I'm fine with how we currently stand with abortion legally. I'm just tired of the RNC being labeled extreme by the media while the DNC gets a pass. Noonan was right, abortion is being used as a wedge issue and frankly if Noonan is the "conservative" columnist that people want to go after then the country is never moving back to the center.
The big joke (and what really makes the democrat rhetoric a big lie) is that republicans can't really do much to obstruct the right to an abortion anyway.
That's not true, even if the proposed push for a constitutional amendement banning abortion would never get off the ground. Republicans have pushed (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) a lot of legislation that obstructs the right to abortion:
As you can see, there's quite a lot that Republicans can do to mess with abortion rights, ranging from directly challenging Roe v. Wade to simply obstructing abortion as hard as they obstructed health care reform, something known as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP).
Republicans are extreme on social issues and democrats are extreme on economic issues. The abortion stuff is never gonna get signed, half the republicans and none of the democrats would ever vote for that, the scary part is super left policies (obomacare) are getting signed every day. This isn't the country that I grew up in 30 years ago.
It's the lesser of 2 evils it's the way it's always been.
On September 08 2012 07:58 sunprince wrote: That's not true, even if the proposed push for a constitutional amendement banning abortion would never get off the ground. Republicans have pushed (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) a lot of legislation that obstructs the right to abortion:
....
As you can see, there's quite a lot that Republicans can do to mess with abortion rights, ranging from directly challenging Roe v. Wade to simply obstructing abortion as hard as they obstructed health care reform, something known as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP).
This list that you posted strongly suggests that you've bought into the irrational democrat fear-mongering like so many others. Let me lay your fears to rest.
Even assuming that a state passes such a bill (about six have if memory serves correctly), the Supreme Court will strike it down. I guarantee you that Kennedy won't overturn Roe v Wade, and I strongly suspect (would bet money on it) that Roberts won't either. Besides, there is no broad-based republican support for these kinds of bills. They've had trouble gaining traction in even the most conservative states.
Not sure what you're getting at here. I think you have the wrong link. But quite frankly, the government doesn't need to be funding abortion clinics if that's what you're arguing.
Yes, this is a little weird, but the woman can still get her abortion.
Requiring doctors to lie to women about a risk of suicide or breast cancer despite no scientific evidence
I don't know about breast cancer, but abortion (like any other medical procedure) has a ton of possible and serious side effects. Depression (which can lead to suicide) is definitely among them. Permanent damage to the uterus/cervix (thereby rendering the woman sterile) is also among them.
I'm not fond of this on principle, but a sonogram is so damn minor that it really isn't a big deal. A nurse smears jelly on the belly and rubs a probe over it. Again, the woman can still get her abortion.
It's a stupid law, but women still have 20 weeks to get their abortions, plus longer for health reasons per Supreme Court decisions. Again, big fucking deal. If a woman is having sex, she should be testing herself regularly. There's almost no reason why she shouldn't catch the pregnancy within 20 weeks.
Planned Parenthood can go fuck itself. It's my money. Again, women can go get their abortions elsewhere. I'm sure some clever entrepreneur can fill the void.
This isn't any more threatening than a state outright banning abortion. A federal court will enjoin the law immediately (meaning it will never go into effect), and if it gets to the Supreme Court, it will be struck down.
In all of these cases, woman will still have access to abortions. The only thing that republicans can do is limit government funding for abortions.
On September 07 2012 23:09 xDaunt wrote: I agree with Peggy Noonan's take on the convention.
On Obama:
[quote]
On the tone of the convention and the delegates:
[quote]
On Fluke (just because I don't think this woman can ever get enough scorn):
[quote]
Here's the most important part that dovetails with the "poisoning the well" conversation that we have had on and off in this thread:
[quote]
And finally, on Slick Willy:
[quote]
Ultimately, she predicts a dead-cat bounce for Obama just like the one that Romney got. Most of the article is above, but you can read the rest here.
The fact that she considers anything in the Democratic party "extreme" or "extremism" questions the validity of anything she writes. There is nothing extreme about the Democratic party or anything they're doing or saying.
Except for the platform's stance on abortion:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay
Which means government funded abortion with no restrictions. A departure from previous DNC platforms that stated that abortion should be, "Legal, safe, and rare".
Now let's look at the polling. 20% say abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, 25% legal under any circumstance and 52% legal under only certain circumstances (Source).
By definition, among the American electorate, BOTH parties platform stance on abortion is extreme.
Am I missing something? Where does it say 'no restrictions'?
I thought the Roe v Wade decision set these ground rules:
First trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor. Second trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor, but states may intervene in the interest of the mother's health.
Once the fetus is capable of surviving the outside world (dunno when this is), the state can choose to regulate abortion.
So it's not without restrictions...
Indeed. As the DNC stated, they "unequivocally support Roe v. Wade."
The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]
As for partial-birth abortion there was a debate about that earlier... I suppose you can say the abortion stance is more extreme now but not without valid reason.
For the record, I'm fine with how we currently stand with abortion legally. I'm just tired of the RNC being labeled extreme by the media while the DNC gets a pass. Noonan was right, abortion is being used as a wedge issue and frankly if Noonan is the "conservative" columnist that people want to go after then the country is never moving back to the center.
The big joke (and what really makes the democrat rhetoric a big lie) is that republicans can't really do much to obstruct the right to an abortion anyway.
That's not true, even if the proposed push for a constitutional amendement banning abortion would never get off the ground. Republicans have pushed (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) a lot of legislation that obstructs the right to abortion:
As you can see, there's quite a lot that Republicans can do to mess with abortion rights, ranging from directly challenging Roe v. Wade to simply obstructing abortion as hard as they obstructed health care reform, something known as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP).
Republicans are extreme on social issues and democrats are extreme on economic issues. The abortion stuff is never gonna get signed, half the republicans and none of the democrats would ever vote for that, the scary part is super left policies (obomacare) are getting signed every day. This isn't the country that I grew up in 30 years ago.
It's the lesser of 2 evils it's the way it's always been.
Ya see, this is what kills me. A guy complains about extremism but I don't think you could someone outside of America that would characterize Obamacare as 'super-left'. It's as about as conservative a solution to 'universal' healthcare as you'll find, first endorsed by Bob Dole and then implemented by Romney in the state of Massachusetts. It's a boon to the health care industry.
There is a difference between what xDaunt is saying -- people falsely characterizing each other of extremism -- and what is actually an extreme policy. You can still dislike it, but it's not the end of America as we/you know it.
On September 08 2012 07:58 sunprince wrote: That's not true, even if the proposed push for a constitutional amendement banning abortion would never get off the ground. Republicans have pushed (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) a lot of legislation that obstructs the right to abortion:
....
As you can see, there's quite a lot that Republicans can do to mess with abortion rights, ranging from directly challenging Roe v. Wade to simply obstructing abortion as hard as they obstructed health care reform, something known as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP).
This list that you posted strongly suggests that you've bought into the irrational democrat fear-mongering like so many others.
Oh, please. Anyone familiar with my post history knows that I merely consider Dems the lesser of two evils (at least currently), and that I check my facts thoroughly rather than buying into either sides' rhetoric (which is more than can be said for you when it comes to certain ideological issues).
Requiring doctors to lie to women about a risk of suicide or breast cancer despite no scientific evidence
I don't know about breast cancer, but abortion (like any other medical procedure) has a ton of possible and serious side effects. Depression (which can lead to suicide) is definitely among them. Permanent damage to the uterus/cervix (thereby rendering the woman sterile) is also among them.
I'm not fond of this on principle, but a sonogram is so damn minor that it really isn't a big deal. A nurse smears jelly on the belly and rubs a probe over it. Again, the woman can still get her abortion.
It's a stupid law, but women still have 20 weeks to get their abortions, plus longer for health reasons per Supreme Court decisions. Again, big fucking deal. If a woman is having sex, she should be testing herself regularly. There's almost no reason why she shouldn't catch the pregnancy within 20 weeks.
Planned Parenthood can go fuck itself. It's my money. Again, women can go get their abortions elsewhere. I'm sure some clever entrepreneur can fill the void.
This isn't any more threatening than a state outright banning abortion. A federal court will enjoin the law immediately (meaning it will never go into effect), and if it gets to the Supreme Court, it will be struck down.
In all of these cases, woman will still have access to abortions. The only thing that republicans can do is limit government funding for abortions.
I hope you feel better now.
The point that you're deliberately overlooking is that the GOP is doing whatever it can to limit abortion rights, and the only thing stopping them is the difficulties of doing so.
Therefore, the assertion advanced by Dems that the GOP is trying to limit abortion rights is factually true. Hell, Republican groups even admit to it. Yes, it would be hyperbolic to insist that the GOP can ban abortion in the near future, but this doesn't change the fact that they're trying to get there, step-by-step. It's all part of a long-term plan with an obvious and self-admitted goal: banning abortions.
On September 08 2012 07:58 sunprince wrote: That's not true, even if the proposed push for a constitutional amendement banning abortion would never get off the ground. Republicans have pushed (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) a lot of legislation that obstructs the right to abortion:
....
As you can see, there's quite a lot that Republicans can do to mess with abortion rights, ranging from directly challenging Roe v. Wade to simply obstructing abortion as hard as they obstructed health care reform, something known as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP).
This list that you posted strongly suggests that you've bought into the irrational democrat fear-mongering like so many others.
Oh, please. Anyone familiar with my post history knows that I merely consider Dems the lesser of two evils (at least currently), and that I check my facts thoroughly rather than buying into either sides' rhetoric (which is more than can be said for you when it comes to certain ideological issues).
Yes, this is a little weird, but the woman can still get her abortion.
Requiring doctors to lie to women about a risk of suicide or breast cancer despite no scientific evidence
I don't know about breast cancer, but abortion (like any other medical procedure) has a ton of possible and serious side effects. Depression (which can lead to suicide) is definitely among them. Permanent damage to the uterus/cervix (thereby rendering the woman sterile) is also among them.
I'm not fond of this on principle, but a sonogram is so damn minor that it really isn't a big deal. A nurse smears jelly on the belly and rubs a probe over it. Again, the woman can still get her abortion.
It's a stupid law, but women still have 20 weeks to get their abortions, plus longer for health reasons per Supreme Court decisions. Again, big fucking deal. If a woman is having sex, she should be testing herself regularly. There's almost no reason why she shouldn't catch the pregnancy within 20 weeks.
Planned Parenthood can go fuck itself. It's my money. Again, women can go get their abortions elsewhere. I'm sure some clever entrepreneur can fill the void.
This isn't any more threatening than a state outright banning abortion. A federal court will enjoin the law immediately (meaning it will never go into effect), and if it gets to the Supreme Court, it will be struck down.
In all of these cases, woman will still have access to abortions. The only thing that republicans can do is limit government funding for abortions.
I hope you feel better now.
The point that you're deliberately overlooking is that the GOP is doing whatever it can to limit abortion rights, and the only thing stopping them is the difficulties of doing so.
Therefore, the assertion advanced by Dems that the GOP is trying to limit abortion rights is factually true. Hell, Republican groups even admit to it. Yes, it would be hyperbolic to insist that the GOP can ban abortion in the near future, but this doesn't change the fact that they're trying to get there, step-by-step. It's all part of a long-term plan with an obvious and self-admitted goal: banning abortions.
So it is rational to not vote for a party at all because there is a very remote possibility that they'll be able to ban abortion some time in the not so near future?
Look, there are lots of plausible reasons to support democrats over republicans. All that I am saying is that abortion is one of the silliest ones because there really isn't going to be a lot of movement on the issue one way or another. It is basically settled law, other than in the context of government funding. So if you are supporting democrats solely because you don't like the republican position on abortion, you should really reexamine your priorities.
On September 08 2012 07:58 sunprince wrote: That's not true, even if the proposed push for a constitutional amendement banning abortion would never get off the ground. Republicans have pushed (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) a lot of legislation that obstructs the right to abortion:
....
As you can see, there's quite a lot that Republicans can do to mess with abortion rights, ranging from directly challenging Roe v. Wade to simply obstructing abortion as hard as they obstructed health care reform, something known as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP).
This list that you posted strongly suggests that you've bought into the irrational democrat fear-mongering like so many others.
Oh, please. Anyone familiar with my post history knows that I merely consider Dems the lesser of two evils (at least currently), and that I check my facts thoroughly rather than buying into either sides' rhetoric (which is more than can be said for you when it comes to certain ideological issues).
Yes, this is a little weird, but the woman can still get her abortion.
Requiring doctors to lie to women about a risk of suicide or breast cancer despite no scientific evidence
I don't know about breast cancer, but abortion (like any other medical procedure) has a ton of possible and serious side effects. Depression (which can lead to suicide) is definitely among them. Permanent damage to the uterus/cervix (thereby rendering the woman sterile) is also among them.
I'm not fond of this on principle, but a sonogram is so damn minor that it really isn't a big deal. A nurse smears jelly on the belly and rubs a probe over it. Again, the woman can still get her abortion.
It's a stupid law, but women still have 20 weeks to get their abortions, plus longer for health reasons per Supreme Court decisions. Again, big fucking deal. If a woman is having sex, she should be testing herself regularly. There's almost no reason why she shouldn't catch the pregnancy within 20 weeks.
Planned Parenthood can go fuck itself. It's my money. Again, women can go get their abortions elsewhere. I'm sure some clever entrepreneur can fill the void.
This isn't any more threatening than a state outright banning abortion. A federal court will enjoin the law immediately (meaning it will never go into effect), and if it gets to the Supreme Court, it will be struck down.
In all of these cases, woman will still have access to abortions. The only thing that republicans can do is limit government funding for abortions.
I hope you feel better now.
The point that you're deliberately overlooking is that the GOP is doing whatever it can to limit abortion rights, and the only thing stopping them is the difficulties of doing so.
Therefore, the assertion advanced by Dems that the GOP is trying to limit abortion rights is factually true. Hell, Republican groups even admit to it. Yes, it would be hyperbolic to insist that the GOP can ban abortion in the near future, but this doesn't change the fact that they're trying to get there, step-by-step. It's all part of a long-term plan with an obvious and self-admitted goal: banning abortions.
So it is rational to not vote for a party at all because there is a very remote possibility that they'll be able to ban abortion some time in the not so near future?
No, but it is rational to keep in mind that the GOP opposes abortion, as a factor (along with the caveats that they have limited power to push those issues quickly) in your voting decision. Just like it's rational to keep in mind that the Dems support certain batshit insane feminist positions, despite their limited power to advance them to their logical conclusion, as a factor in your voting decision.
On September 08 2012 12:05 xDaunt wrote: Look, there are lots of plausible reasons to support democrats over republicans. All that I am saying is that abortion is one of the silliest ones because there really isn't going to be a lot of movement on the issue one way or another. It is basically settled law, other than in the context of government funding. So if you are supporting democrats solely because you don't like the republican position on abortion, you should really reexamine your priorities.
On September 08 2012 07:58 sunprince wrote: That's not true, even if the proposed push for a constitutional amendement banning abortion would never get off the ground. Republicans have pushed (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) a lot of legislation that obstructs the right to abortion:
....
As you can see, there's quite a lot that Republicans can do to mess with abortion rights, ranging from directly challenging Roe v. Wade to simply obstructing abortion as hard as they obstructed health care reform, something known as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP).
This list that you posted strongly suggests that you've bought into the irrational democrat fear-mongering like so many others.
Oh, please. Anyone familiar with my post history knows that I merely consider Dems the lesser of two evils (at least currently), and that I check my facts thoroughly rather than buying into either sides' rhetoric (which is more than can be said for you when it comes to certain ideological issues).
Yes, this is a little weird, but the woman can still get her abortion.
Requiring doctors to lie to women about a risk of suicide or breast cancer despite no scientific evidence
I don't know about breast cancer, but abortion (like any other medical procedure) has a ton of possible and serious side effects. Depression (which can lead to suicide) is definitely among them. Permanent damage to the uterus/cervix (thereby rendering the woman sterile) is also among them.
I'm not fond of this on principle, but a sonogram is so damn minor that it really isn't a big deal. A nurse smears jelly on the belly and rubs a probe over it. Again, the woman can still get her abortion.
It's a stupid law, but women still have 20 weeks to get their abortions, plus longer for health reasons per Supreme Court decisions. Again, big fucking deal. If a woman is having sex, she should be testing herself regularly. There's almost no reason why she shouldn't catch the pregnancy within 20 weeks.
Planned Parenthood can go fuck itself. It's my money. Again, women can go get their abortions elsewhere. I'm sure some clever entrepreneur can fill the void.
This isn't any more threatening than a state outright banning abortion. A federal court will enjoin the law immediately (meaning it will never go into effect), and if it gets to the Supreme Court, it will be struck down.
In all of these cases, woman will still have access to abortions. The only thing that republicans can do is limit government funding for abortions.
I hope you feel better now.
The point that you're deliberately overlooking is that the GOP is doing whatever it can to limit abortion rights, and the only thing stopping them is the difficulties of doing so.
Therefore, the assertion advanced by Dems that the GOP is trying to limit abortion rights is factually true. Hell, Republican groups even admit to it. Yes, it would be hyperbolic to insist that the GOP can ban abortion in the near future, but this doesn't change the fact that they're trying to get there, step-by-step. It's all part of a long-term plan with an obvious and self-admitted goal: banning abortions.
So it is rational to not vote for a party at all because there is a very remote possibility that they'll be able to ban abortion some time in the not so near future?
Look, there are lots of plausible reasons to support democrats over republicans. All that I am saying is that abortion is one of the silliest ones because there really isn't going to be a lot of movement on the issue one way or another. It is basically settled law, other than in the context of government funding. So if you are supporting democrats solely because you don't like the republican position on abortion, you should really reexamine your priorities.
Should one then apply the "they probably won't be able to make headway there" to all of the GOP's social conservatism? How about their economic policies? Despite their platform, we should vote for the GOP because their candidates look better, I think.
Obviously, I'm not asking either of the above questions seriously, and I think your long post above defending this horse shit is absurd. What's irrational is voting against your own interests, because ?????. Unsurprisingly, much of what you said -- either actually, or effectively, -- is, "Well women can still just get abortions anyway", despite the very real possibility that they just can't afford it on their own, whether or not there are health risks. All of these unnecessary mandatory procedures you're defending are extra costs, and you can be damn sure the people pushing them aren't going to help cover the costs to the pregnant mother. Of course, to that I may as expect "Tough shit, shouldn't have gotten pregnant," and saying anything else is going to be either inconsistent or irrelevant.
"when you go through a speech you don't go through a laundry list, you talk about the things that are important" (romney referring to not mentioning the veterans in RNC)
is this guy serious? literally spending 100s of millions on an election and he actually has the nerve to say something so idiotic
On September 08 2012 13:00 MinusPlus wrote: Should one then apply the "they probably won't be able to make headway there" to all of the GOP's social conservatism?How about their economic policies? Despite their platform, we should vote for the GOP because their candidates look better, I think.
No, just abortion for the obvious reasons stated above. I made that crystal clear.
Obviously, I'm not asking either of the above questions seriously, and I think your long post above defending this horse shit is absurd. What's irrational is voting against your own interests, because ?????. Unsurprisingly, much of what you said -- either actually, or effectively, -- is, "Well women can still just get abortions anyway", despite the very real possibility that they just can't afford it on their own, whether or not there are health risks. All of these unnecessary mandatory procedures you're defending are extra costs, and you can be damn sure the people pushing them aren't going to help cover the costs to the pregnant mother. Of course, to that I may as expect "Tough shit, shouldn't have gotten pregnant," and saying anything else is going to be either inconsistent or irrelevant.
On September 08 2012 07:58 sunprince wrote: That's not true, even if the proposed push for a constitutional amendement banning abortion would never get off the ground. Republicans have pushed (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) a lot of legislation that obstructs the right to abortion:
....
As you can see, there's quite a lot that Republicans can do to mess with abortion rights, ranging from directly challenging Roe v. Wade to simply obstructing abortion as hard as they obstructed health care reform, something known as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP).
This list that you posted strongly suggests that you've bought into the irrational democrat fear-mongering like so many others. Let me lay your fears to rest.
Even assuming that a state passes such a bill (about six have if memory serves correctly), the Supreme Court will strike it down. I guarantee you that Kennedy won't overturn Roe v Wade, and I strongly suspect (would bet money on it) that Roberts won't either. Besides, there is no broad-based republican support for these kinds of bills. They've had trouble gaining traction in even the most conservative states.
the supreme court is made up of nine justices who currently support abortion by a 6-3 margin. during the next presidential term, 3 of these justices will step down (2 in favor of abortion rights, 1 against), and the president will have heavy influence over who replaces them. with a democratic president the margin supporting abortion will likely become 7-2, with a republican president it will likely become 4-5. the supreme court can not simply be relied upon due to a historical mandate. especially considering the two biggest issues the supreme court will be facing next term involve abortion rights and gay marriage which democrats and republicans have very different ideas regarding.
So what do you want to do? Violate a constitutional right just to allow a woman to get an abortion where she chooses?
this will be way easier to talk about with one of the other points you make. but freedom of religion protects an individual's right to religion and religious institutions, a hospital is neither an individual nor a religious institution.
Not sure what you're getting at here. I think you have the wrong link. But quite frankly, the government doesn't need to be funding abortion clinics if that's what you're arguing.
would you rather the government spend the 150k it takes to get an unwanted child to college? or spend money improving the foster care system? or paying for the medical care of a woman forced to take an abortion into her own hands by trying to induce a miscarriage and risking all kinds of infection because she can't get an abortion safely? or fund the prison costs of that unwanted child getting involved in criminal activity? raising a child costs a TON of effort and money. if a pregnant woman admits she is unable to raise a child properly, why should the government take on the burdens of raising it for her?
Requiring doctors to lie to women about a risk of suicide or breast cancer despite no scientific evidence
I don't know about breast cancer, but abortion (like any other medical procedure) has a ton of possible and serious side effects. Depression (which can lead to suicide) is definitely among them. Permanent damage to the uterus/cervix (thereby rendering the woman sterile) is also among them.
by far the most laughable of your arguments. did you even read the study? there is no evidence linking having an abortion and suicide. and that "damage to the uterus/cervix" goes up when abortion is illegal as women start attempting abortions on themselves. how else does central africa have the worst access to abortion and the highest abortion rate? because outlawing abortion doesn't eliminate it.
I'm not fond of this on principle, but a sonogram is so damn minor that it really isn't a big deal. A nurse smears jelly on the belly and rubs a probe over it. Again, the woman can still get her abortion.
the controversy regarding sonograms relates to the method of sonogram. a sonogram is a necessary part of any abortion procedure so that the medical providers can determine the length of the embryo/fetus and gauge its viability (if its become too mature to abort legally). external sonograms on a woman's stomach are not the issue, they're required. but several states are requiring additional vaginal sonograms that don't give any additional pertinent information and require a penetration of a woman's vagina with some bills written in a way that mean it'd happen without the woman's consent and could be termed as rape. why are women in a difficult situation forced to be victimized further?
the 24-hour waiting period is something i'd be overall fine with if abortion access was more widespread. in practice it forces women already in a difficult situation to travel potentially hundreds of miles for a procedure, risking exposure of their situation to an abusive partner and incurring additional expenses should they require a hotel. furthermore most women who visit abortion clinics have already made their decision, but in theory one could be a victim of an abusive partner demanding an abortion (yeah, that happens too), and the 24-hour waiting period can provide a convenient excuse to find more support for such a woman.
Who gives a shit. This doesn't affect a woman's right to an abortion. Are you actually going to argue that we should be encouraging abortions?
the issue is mostly what the hell do these anti-abortion groups do? do they reduce abortion rates? nope (the largest contributer to reducing abortion rates is reducing unintended pregnancy rates which is most affected by access to contraception, a service most abortion providers also offer, as mentioned earlier central africa has the highest abortion rate, least access to abortion, and least access to contraception, conversely western europe has the lowest abortion rate, best access to abortion, and best access to contraception, this is not a coincidence). do they support young mothers? nope. do they work to improve the chances of children put up for adoption? nope. so why give money to a counterproductive initiative that doesn't help anyone?
Women can pay for their own abortions. The government doesn't need to do it for them.
nope, they do. most abortions are done by low-income single mothers (yes, mothers, they usually have a kid already and realize they can't afford another one). proper pre-natal care alone costs $2000 not to mention the additional $150k you're likely to spend to get a kid through college (tack on at least $75k if you want them to go to a four year college). an abortion is on average around $600, but that could equate to a whole months rent which is tricky when you're barely scraping by (but at least it's cheaper that any of the other costs that you're expected to pay for without much assistant from the government or so-called "pro-life" groups).
It's a stupid law, but women still have 20 weeks to get their abortions, plus longer for health reasons per Supreme Court decisions. Again, big fucking deal. If a woman is having sex, she should be testing herself regularly. There's almost no reason why she shouldn't catch the pregnancy within 20 weeks.
it's not about "catching" the pregnancy. it's about the risks associated with pregnancy, many of which don't show up until around 18 weeks (such as spina bifida), leaving a very small window. some of these fetuses become unviable at this stage though the only options for removal are an "abortion" or to give birth, others will survive maybe four months and die forcing a very difficult decision of terminated the pregnancy then and there or dumping a ton of money into a baby that will die anyway once it's born. not every pregnancy can be carried to term. close to 2% are ectopic meaning the embryo attaches to the fallopian tube rather than the uterus which makes it automatically unviable and will KILL the mother if the pregnancy lasts too long. though medical science has reduced many of the risks associated with pregnancy it has not eliminated them completely, and this window is crucial to ensuring pregnant women's health.
Planned Parenthood can go fuck itself. It's my money. Again, women can go get their abortions elsewhere. I'm sure some clever entrepreneur can fill the void.
yeah, i'd love planned parenthood to be unnecessary. most of its services should be provided by regular hospitals. but so long as ignorant people like you continue to make illogical uninformed arguments, i'd like them to stay in business.
This is a stupid bill that would increase the costs of abortions, but women could still get them.
embarrassingly i'm not that familiar with this piece of legislation so i don't have much to say about it. overall the point is to find the balance between cost and safety. incurring unnecessary additional costs decreases safety as it may turn women to alternative less safe methods, but with correctly implemented proper abortion procedures any excess should naturally eliminate itself.
Same objection as above, but this is less egregious because it actually is related to quality of care. Again, women can still get abortions.
learning to perform an abortion should be standard medical training. it aides a doctor in helping its patients to the best of his or her abilities, not much more to say.
This isn't any more threatening than a state outright banning abortion. A federal court will enjoin the law immediately (meaning it will never go into effect), and if it gets to the Supreme Court, it will be struck down.
see what i said earlier about the supreme court.
In all of these cases, woman will still have access to abortions. The only thing that republicans can do is limit government funding for abortions.
I hope you feel better now.
women have "access" to abortion no matter what they do. but i'd rather they do it safely in a medical facility with proper medical tools than in a back alley with a coat hanger. reducing the abortion rate is an admirable goal (though organizations like planned parenthood do far more to reduce the abortion rate than so-called "pro-life" organizations, that only want to eliminate legal abortion potentially creating a situation like central africa). no one WANTS to have an abortion. unfortunately pregnancy is not a simple condition and contraception doesn't always work (provided people having sex even know how to use it properly, cuz well, only 25% of teenagers know proper condom usage and 40% of women on the pill take it correctly, which is a terrific statistic), so abortion services are necessary to protect problems that may arise during pregnancy until medical science progresses to the point that an embryo/fetus can survive from conception to independence without the aid of being biologically connected to a uterus (which medical science is nowhere close to achieving, though maybe pro-life groups could donate to that instead of politicians that haven't fully examined the complexity of this issue and make me worry about what other issues they haven't fully analyzed).
On September 08 2012 05:55 jdsowa wrote: Peggy Noonan is a moderate Republican. That's why she's allowed to write for the NYT. She's been critical of the Tea Party folks. Romney's more her speed.
Paul Krugman is a liberal liberal. You'll never catch him criticizing any liberals, because he's an unthinking loyal team player.
On September 08 2012 15:18 farvacola wrote: ^I don't know who you are or where you came from, but hot damn do I agree with everything you've written. Well done
Indeed, Feb is quite the boss. In any event I don't really feel up to debate, but once in a while I'll pop in too look at what's going on. A gem of a post :O
EPT
![[image loading]](http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/granholm_570.gif)
