Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Are you saying that pro-lifers tend to be more economically well off than pro-choicers? If you are, well, you're wrong. The biggest problem with this country is that the people least able to afford their issue breed more than those who are better off and could afford more kids. I don't know any poor people who had abortions (and yes, before you throw some classist gibe, I know plenty of poor people - I grew up near an econimically depressed area). The kids I recall getting abortions were all daughters of lawyers, doctors and developers. For reasons i think are tied to familial adherence to Church teachings, the poor who got knocked up tended to have the kids. I saw a few at my 10th year reunion. Their lives are pretty sad.

Of course, you probably see this as a symptom of the selfishness of the nimby crowd, who, like me, will have only one or two kids so as not to interfere too dramatically with my quality of life (and possibly lessen the quality of my offspring's life).

The biggest problem this ex-republican sees is that the GOP talks out of both sides of its mouth on abortion. We should be funding borth control and abortions for those who can't afford them. I would gladly pay increased taxes for such a program. The GOP bitches about welfare and taxes the Dems cry about lack of jobs and too many mouths to feed, but its taboo for anyone to suggest that irresponsible procreation lies at the heart of the issue, even though its an irrefutable fact. Less people, less need for govt services, welfare, unemployment, etc... Why can't we have an honest debate in this country? Why must everyone shy away from topics like the problem with irresponsible procreation? Its a valid point.

The GOP is like the Catholic Church. They're all about the sanctity of the unborn, but once you're born, fuck you.

The flip-side of this is that a pro-Life state is a state where people are accountable for their actions. At heart, that's the big picture for me. You make a choice, you live with it. In your words yesterday, caveat emptor. Take accountability out of the equation (i.e., eliminate Darwin's law) and evolution rolls backward. So you can live in the state with the people who don't want to be accountable, and who think the government can solve problems and impose solutions on just about anything. We have a name for this state already. Its called Illinois.

Find me any positive trend over the last 40 years in Illinois. Really, anything you can characterize as positive. Compare it to the national trend for the same thing. At best, Illinois is advancing at a slower rate than the national average. At worst, its retreating.

Part of the reason I'd like to live in the pro-Life state when this happens is because this is the boring state with very little crime, very little welfare, a strong job base, and neighbors who can walk around with a gun without shooting anyone. We have a name for this state already. Its called Virginia. It could use some neighborhood bars, but otherwise its okay.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I had hoped two things would happen by asking the cons for five Nobel nominations.

One, I hoped to show that they could not name five ideologically pure living individuals whom they would admire for advancing the cause of peace. I accomplished this by Bilmore and Club expressly admitting they couldn't come up with five, and Slave tacitly admitting so by including Bono.

"Ideologically pure"? I missed that distinction. In that case, I didn't name any.

Two, I hoped against hope that the con side would tacitly admit that the Nobel has more moral authority than their Coulteresque constant repetition of the Carter/Arafat awards would indicate --- as if these two were the only ones ever to have won the award (in Arafat's case, he wasn't even the only recipient that year).

I had hoped merely that they would name people who as a categorical matter leant credence to the Nobel committee's equanimity and fundamental even-handedness in awarding the Peace Prize. They surpassed my wildest dreams by repeatedly naming people WHOM THEY HAD FORGOTTEN HAD PREVIOUSLY WON THE AWARD. All in all, it looks like calling the Nobel Committee a bunch of dupes and internationalist assholes is thoroughly debunked. What, we're going to shit on them now for not naming Reagan before he died?

I named people I thought were deserving. None of them will win the award. That was my point. Carter won, for the explicit reasons laid out by the committee. What was your point, again?

I'm batting 1.000.

Yes, you are. You're confused about which game, though.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The phony libertarians are the ones who argue states' rights as individual's rights. True libertarians want both the Fed Govt AND the state govt off the individual's back.

True libertarians also don't buy the intellectual dishonesty of of the anti-Roe crowd. All Roe really does is tell the states what they CAN"T do. Therefore, its totally in line with liberatarian thinking (indeed, how could any policy which by design dictates that the individual have CHOICE ever be anti-libertarian?). Now, these bullshit libertarians on this board argue "Its an infirngement of states' rights!!!" Their argument, boiled down, is "It is an infringement on my rights for you to tell the state that it cannot regulate what I do to my own body!"

The emporer never had any clothes. You're all full of shit. Just come out and say you morally object to abortion, and stop polluting my political affiliation by claiming your stance is somehow aligned with people who REALLY believe in individual rights.

The phony libertarians are the ones who say "I'm the only one who matters, and when I get caught I'll deal with it" which implicitly acknowledges the harm they may cause to others. The Right acknowledges a framework in which efforts are made to protect all individual interests, not just those of the nihilists.

[dtb]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think that was a Kerry debate slam, ala SNL.

When I heard Kerry say "Orwellian", I actually said (out loud), "Awww, John... ya can't say 'Orwellian' -- what are you thinking?"

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The emporer never had any clothes. You're all full of shit. Just come out and say you morally object to abortion, and stop polluting my political affiliation by claiming your stance is somehow aligned with people who REALLY believe in individual rights.

I morally object to abortion. I very strongly believe in individual rights. You just deny the label of "individual" as you see convenient, and continually argue as if you can't hear that point. So who's full of shit now?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The irresistible force wins, that's what. The GOP cuts taxes on contingency fee awards.

Calling it a tax cut is a major failure to communicate. Contnigency fees are costs to plaintiffs. The fact that the IRS has taken the position that plaintiffs should be taxed on them has been a major abuse of the system for years. If you want an easy parallel, imagine a capital gains tax on the sale of your home that didn't allow you to recover your basis without tax.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
umm, that was me, not bilmore. You may also be illiterate.

That was Bilmore, trying to put your post in context. I was calling you the schmuck, not him.


Schmuck.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

The best line from tonight's debate:

John Kerry: Mr. President, how can you crow about a so-called "short recession" there has still been a net loss of jobs on your watch? You are managing the economy about as well as you are running the war in Iraq.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Calling it a tax cut is a major failure to communicate.

Had the GOP voted this down, the posted characterization might have been much different. "GOP continues double taxation of the injured!" It's good, though, to see someone able to make lemonade so easily.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You are managing the economy about as well as you are running the war in Iraq.

Cool. Something we agree on!

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Had the GOP voted this down, the posted characterization might have been much different. "GOP continues double taxation of the injured!" It's good, though, to see someone able to make lemonade so easily.

I was just trying to put the change in its proper perspective. Had I wanted to be critical of the bill, there is so much cannon fodder there, I could devote the rest of my day to it.

It's not always all about negativity, Fishface.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Cool. Something we agree on!

I think most Americans agree with that line - that's why it is powerful. Just as most Americans believe that invading Iraq makes us less safe and that the recession is not over.

But you and I agree on much more. I'm ready to give the Rs full credit for this tax bill, just as you seem to be claiming. Full credit for everything from reducing taxes on foreign profits (hi Ty!) to de-linking more federal tobacco bailouts from FDA regulation of cigarettes. You must be so proud!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think most Americans agree with that line - that's why it is powerful. Just as most Americans believe that invading Iraq makes us less safe and that the recession is not over.

I was too subtle for you again, wasn't I?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The phony libertarians are the ones who argue states' rights as individual's rights. True libertarians want both the Fed Govt AND the state govt off the individual's back.

True libertarians also don't buy the intellectual dishonesty of of the anti-Roe crowd. All Roe really does is tell the states what they CAN"T do. Therefore, its totally in line with liberatarian thinking (indeed, how could any policy which by design dictates that the individual have CHOICE ever be anti-libertarian?). Now, these bullshit libertarians on this board argue "Its an infirngement of states' rights!!!" Their argument, boiled down, is "It is an infringement on my rights for you to tell the state that it cannot regulate what I do to my own body!"

The emporer never had any clothes. You're all full of shit. Just come out and say you morally object to abortion, and stop polluting my political affiliation by claiming your stance is somehow aligned with people who REALLY believe in individual rights.

I'm not sure why, but I gave you more credit that you deserve.

Tell me, Mr. Libertarian, due you support my right to strike you in the jaw, or does my right to swing my fist stop somewhere about 12 inches from your face.

Idiot.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It's not always all about negativity, Fishface.

Funny, I read AG's post about that issue, and got the opposite impression.