On October 26 2008 04:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 26 2008 04:17 boghat wrote: I doubt history will see Bush as a worse president than Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan. Those are the two guys that were president before Abraham Lincoln, the years leading up to the American Civil War. They did little to stop the war and even agreed with and promoted slavery. Obama is lucky because often times the presidents to come after the "worst" presidents end up being regarded as the best presidents, as is the case with Lincoln. The state of this country is nothing like it was before the civil war so saying Bush was the worst president is a bit dumb. Although you could regard this sharp division in politics as a political civil war, but politics has always been like this, it's just worse now with mass media. The Iraq War may even be looked back at in history as a success even if it's generally agreed it shouldn't have happened in the first place. You can't say that about Vietnam, that was certainly no success, Iraq at least can be more successful than Vietnam was.
Irak war a success? Wtf is wrong with you? A success for whom? Weapons and construction multinationals, maybe... That's it. Irak is probably a bigger disaster than Vietnam if you look at the long terms consequences.
Those are just ridiculous statements. If Iraq stabilizes well into a successful democracy (think South Korea), history will almost surely see it as a success.
Any blank statement that Iraq is worse than Vietnam is.....well its just retarded. Vietnam was a MUCH bigger war with MUCH stronger resentment against it and the end result was terrible. Iraq is a tiny thing by comparison.
Iraq is worse than Vietnam for one very important reason, it sends a clear message to Russia and China that (regardless of if you agree with this it is undeniable they believe it and that's what counts) the United States will use military force regardless of international support or of the human consequences to take control of middle eastern oil to further American interest. If you think they went into Iraq to get rid of a bad dictator you are simply naive. In 2003 the year of the Iraq invasion Russia announced an enormous military investment program such that the Russia army is far more capable than it was only a few years ago and in fact is superior to the United States in some important ways. Russia since has become increasingly assertive and aggressive. China is responding in the same way however they are more discreet. One day Iraq and other American aggression i.e toward Iran and indeed just today American forces launched a raid into Syria could be seen as the actions which lead to World War three. Also this war has put tremendous strain on the American budget. 1.4 trillion deficit projected for next year. This is a war the United States cannot (maybe can) afford given the economic challenges they face.
If tensions are increased much further than serious wide spread war is a possibility, a policy hawk like McCain is the last thing the United States needs right now.
Your posts are so bad.
You think that the Iraq War is more antagonistic to Russia and China than the Vietnam War was?
You also think that the Russian army is "superior to the United States in some ways".
You think that only the US, Russia, and China are "realist" and look after their own needs and every other countries behaves that way because we do.
You have not been putting forward coherent thoughts or arguments.
On October 27 2008 11:11 Savio wrote: Boghat, I kinda wanted a response to this. When you said that it is not clear when life begins and I should not look at it as black and white, I said,
Its true that it may not always seem black and white. But when did we decide that if we are going err, lets err on the side of "choice" rather than err on the side of "life"?
Doesn't life seem important enough that if you are going to err, why not err on the side that preserves the life?
I mean if you were shooting target practice and you knew that someone "might" be behind the target, wouldn't you want to err on the safe side rather than on the dangerous side?
It seems that if it is unclear, we should err on the side that preserves life.
There's not much more else to say, the argument just becomes circular. Basically you want the government to make the decision about whether it is life or not, I think it is more fair to the woman to make her own decision. If the woman rather not err on the safe side of preserving "life" that's her decision since you seem to have admitted there's not really a right answer. Plenty of women think the way you do and have the baby, but plenty of women don't. That's the American conservative paradox, they don't want government to control anything but moral issues like abortion.
I was actually talking about the fact that as a SOCIETY we have decided that when in doubt, (about whether the baby is alive), we should ALLOW abortion.
Society has not declared its opinion (I have my own) about when life begins, so somehow, society decided to err on the side that might end life than the side to preserve it.
I just think it is weird that since we, as a society are unsure, we have decided to err on the side of "danger" rather than "safety". End the life we are unsure about rather than allow it to live.
BTW, I can't watch this now cause I am in a library, but I predict that this will be the focus of most of McCain's adds from now until the election:
This is a taped interview with Obama talking about the Supreme Court's failure to support redistribution of wealth along with the civil right movement.
On October 28 2008 02:43 Savio wrote: I was actually talking about the fact that as a SOCIETY we have decided that when in doubt, (about whether the baby is alive), we should ALLOW abortion.
Society has not declared its opinion (I have my own) about when life begins, so somehow, society decided to err on the side that might end life than the side to preserve it.
I just think it is weird that since we, as a society are unsure, we have decided to err on the side of "danger" rather than "safety". End the life we are unsure about rather than allow it to live.
actually the other side of "prevent every woman from having an abortion" is "forcing every woman to have an abortion"
letting the mother choose isnt some extremist view.
I mean what would you rather have, a mother raising a kid she doesnt want or cant afford (how good is the child's life going to be then?) or just not having the birth at all.
On October 28 2008 02:43 Savio wrote: I was actually talking about the fact that as a SOCIETY we have decided that when in doubt, (about whether the baby is alive), we should ALLOW abortion.
Society has not declared its opinion (I have my own) about when life begins, so somehow, society decided to err on the side that might end life than the side to preserve it.
I just think it is weird that since we, as a society are unsure, we have decided to err on the side of "danger" rather than "safety". End the life we are unsure about rather than allow it to live.
actually the other side of "prevent every woman from having an abortion" is "forcing every woman to have an abortion"
letting the mother choose isnt some extremist view.
I mean what would you rather have, a mother raising a kid she doesnt want or cant afford (how good is the child's life going to be then?) or just not having the birth at all.
I believe he made that pretty clear.
That she should go thro the preagnancy and just put the kid for adoption
On October 28 2008 02:43 Savio wrote: I was actually talking about the fact that as a SOCIETY we have decided that when in doubt, (about whether the baby is alive), we should ALLOW abortion.
Society has not declared its opinion (I have my own) about when life begins, so somehow, society decided to err on the side that might end life than the side to preserve it.
I just think it is weird that since we, as a society are unsure, we have decided to err on the side of "danger" rather than "safety". End the life we are unsure about rather than allow it to live.
When in doubt, the woman makes her own decision. Not everyone believes removing a fetus that is potentially a life is morally wrong. We have to run the country by law, the supreme court decided it was unlawful to prevent a woman from having an abortion. Most laws are made to improve society as a whole. The only thing abortions do is kill fetuses, which society can't agree whether that is a bad thing or not. Other than the actual fetus dying does abortion hurt society at all because if abortions were illegal there are a lot of potentially negative effects it could have on society. Absolute morality like "human life begins at conception" does not have much place in law does it? There are plenty of doctors on both sides of the issue I would imagine, the science is also fuzzy.
He's talking about the Civil Rights Movement, so its in reference to the inadequate efforts of government dealing with segregation, funding minority schools, etc. I don't think any non-racist would agree that it's been handled properly, and if I'm not mistaken Obama himself isn't a proponent of race based affirmative action. And he said the Court shouldn't be handling it because they won't be effective and its politically not viable, even if its legally possible.
Honestly, if they played the whole interview and didn't include dramatic music, it'd probably be just another dull historical talk on public radio. I'm sure they'll try and play it up because 'redistribution of wealth' sounds bad, but its a vague term that could be used to describe anything from highway construction to class warfare. He was using it specifically with regards to the Civil Rights Movement and it sounded like he was explaining it as a professor would, not as a politician giving an agenda.
On October 28 2008 02:43 Savio wrote: I was actually talking about the fact that as a SOCIETY we have decided that when in doubt, (about whether the baby is alive), we should ALLOW abortion.
Society has not declared its opinion (I have my own) about when life begins, so somehow, society decided to err on the side that might end life than the side to preserve it.
I just think it is weird that since we, as a society are unsure, we have decided to err on the side of "danger" rather than "safety". End the life we are unsure about rather than allow it to live.
people have already laid very clear points on this and it's rather baffling you keep categorizing "how unclear society is on this." you act as if most of the people in the US really don't have a stance on this, as if the vast majority of people are sitting around scratching their head when encountering this topic; and yet somehow abortion slipped through.
The National Review article seems to want us to believe it's just a coincidence this audio is coming out now. A week before the election, at the height of the socialism scare since no other tactic worked.
On October 28 2008 02:43 Savio wrote: I was actually talking about the fact that as a SOCIETY we have decided that when in doubt, (about whether the baby is alive), we should ALLOW abortion.
Society has not declared its opinion (I have my own) about when life begins, so somehow, society decided to err on the side that might end life than the side to preserve it.
I just think it is weird that since we, as a society are unsure, we have decided to err on the side of "danger" rather than "safety". End the life we are unsure about rather than allow it to live.
I mean what would you rather have, a mother raising a kid she doesnt want or cant afford (how good is the child's life going to be then?) or just not having the birth at all.
This ignores what would really happen, which is adoption.
On October 28 2008 02:43 Savio wrote: I was actually talking about the fact that as a SOCIETY we have decided that when in doubt, (about whether the baby is alive), we should ALLOW abortion.
Society has not declared its opinion (I have my own) about when life begins, so somehow, society decided to err on the side that might end life than the side to preserve it.
I just think it is weird that since we, as a society are unsure, we have decided to err on the side of "danger" rather than "safety". End the life we are unsure about rather than allow it to live.
people have already laid very clear points on this and it's rather baffling you keep categorizing "how unclear society is on this." you act as if most of the people in the US really don't have a stance on this, as if the vast majority of people are sitting around scratching their head when encountering this topic; and yet somehow abortion slipped through.
Actually, what I was saying is that society has not agreed on when you can consider the fetus alive. Most people do have their opinions about abortion in general, but I don't know of any consensus regarding when life begins.
So in my opinion, if we (as a society) are unsure, it is better to err on the side the preserves the potential life.
Here's a particularily interesting part from that New Yorker article, from the end:
McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:
YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.
For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.
I one actually did some research on the ramifications of making abortions illegal, this wouldn't be much of a debate. Society, on a global scale, is better off allowing pregnant women to choose.
What's more frightening is that there are actually people out there that want government officials that share similar religious views to make a faith-based decision, rather than look at the facts.
What else happens? Banning pre-marital sex? Banning the teaching of evolution? Banning the plowing with an ox and a donkey that aren't harnessed together? Banning clothes which aren't made of two kinds of thread?
There's the actual interview if anyone on earth actually still has Realplayer installed. I think it's hilarious that bloggers are fired up over what he said, given that 99% of them haven't taken a law class past highschool Civics and have zero comprehension on what the discussion was over. It was essentially a historical law discussion between three eminent professors and if anyone had said something controversial in that context, they would've been called out on it.
Even more to the point is that it seems as a law professor, Obama was extremely skillful in keeping his views hidden from his students. Reading this, and understanding that he was made a senior lecturer at Chicago after only very little time seems to indicate that he was a FUCKING AMAZING professor.
On October 28 2008 03:52 Phoned wrote: I one actually did some research on the ramifications of making abortions illegal, this wouldn't be much of a debate. Society, on a global scale, is better off allowing pregnant women to choose.
What's more frightening is that there are actually people out there that want government officials that share similar religious views to make a faith-based decision, rather than look at the facts.
What else happens? Banning pre-marital sex? Banning the teaching of evolution? Banning the plowing with an ox and a donkey that aren't harnessed together? Banning clothes which aren't made of two kinds of thread?
Get real, folks.
whether you believe it or not, being anti-abortion does not mean you have an illogical stance. while i believe the benefits of legalizing abortion outweigh the costs, if we are looking purely at the facts, there is no denying that abortion is the killing of an organism that will soon become a human being and i would believe that's what most logical people have issue over.
I think I'll listen to the whole interview, I have to see just how far that little clip was taken out of context. I'm sure the McCain campaign is going to play this up until election day, socialism is all they have left.
The National Republican Trust PAC, which aired one harsh anti-Obama ad that it also used to fundraise on Drudge and elsewhere, says it's putting $2.5 million behind this spot in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
The ad is exactly what many conservatives have been hoping would air for months: A Jeremiah Wright highlight reel, with a voice-over describing the pastor's long relationship with Obama.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.squishable.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/cow_thumbnail.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.squishable.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/octopus_thumbnail.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.squishable.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/snail_thumbnail.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.squishable.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/hedgehog_thumbnail.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.squishable.com/user_gallery/squish_giraffe_15/squish_giraffe_15_user1.jpg)
