Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
For as long as they want. Like Sebby said, who else are they going to vote for? The GOP is the least worst for them.

They might go back to being apolitical, like they were in the 1970s. They might form an ill-fated but ideologically pure third party. They might take over the GOP in areas, and drive it to the right. All sorts of things could happen. What would you do in their shoes?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
For as long as they want. Like Sebby said, who else are they going to vote for? The GOP is the least worst for them.

The potential problem for the GOP is that they don't vote at all. (Not that I have a problem with that, but ....) The Rs want to keep the lunatic fringe voting, but not scare the shit out of everyone else. This is a very dangerous game, because, while the loonies may just not vote if they think they aren't getting their goodies, an alienated middle WILL vote, and they will vote DEM. Hence, I think [whoever] is right when they say that the Rs are way more interested in protecting RvW than they are in satisfying jezus nutters.

However, I do anticipate that there will be some erosion around the edges (notice, waiting periods, banning more "offensive" procedures, etc.). So the real question is - how much erosion can they get away with before the middle spooks and 90% of voters who are female, have a daughter or have a non-gay teenage son suddenly convert into single-issue voters.

In other news, the ABA was kind enough to e-mail me this article:

http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/nov19affirm.html

[Article on a recent study of the performance of affirmative action candidates in law school and on the bar.] Of particular interest given some prior discussions here: Affirmative action admittees perform comparably to legacy admittees (which is to say not very well compared to everyone else).

Also, the study makes the interesting but debatable presumtions that (i) people who do poorly at an elite school would do much better elsewhere and (ii) the grades you get in law school matter more than where you go. "Experts" disagreeing with the study's conclusions argue contra (i), while black lawyers who participated in the study disagreed with (ii) vehemently.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Cheri

I prefer Swank and Club (the magazine, not the poster (no offense)).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Well?

Most of 'em don't like me

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Its real fucking simple. You should put yourself in their shoes from time to time and consider what its like to have a bunch of old fucking men with backward values debating what you can and can't do with your body. Imagine for a moment that every time you got laid, you might worry that you'd get pregnant and spend the next nine months carrying a child and then rearing it because some old man who knows nothing about what it feels like to be you thinks he knows your uterus. Then think how offended you'd be if that old man was making that decision based on hypocritical morality and some 2000 year old rag full of fantastic religious fables.

Think about that. When you learn to respect women, you'll get women.*

Now, write me some asinine screed from the position of gestating fetal tissue. Insult me and insult the board by comparing the women in our lives to newly gestating tissue. Make that argument.

* Yes, I realize that I'm a hypocrite because I routinely engage in conversation about how chicks are sex objects, but I can't help that. I just dig hot chicks. Just because the messenger's flawed doesn't mean the message is.

To summarize:
1.) You didn't throw away your crystal ball even after it failed you in the last election;
2.) Your opinion (and the conventional wisdom on this board) is based on the idea that people here know better than the electorate and, in fact, know what the electorate is likely to do.

I'm just going to throw this back at you (and all others here) one more time. If this ever was, or ever will be, an issue that galvanizes the middle towards candidates of choice, than why would you or others worry that overturning RvW would kick it back to the voters? This is staring at y'all, and its why I'm always laughing at the noise in your camp.

If your side were so strong, you'd be doing more than making noise and posturing. But all the polls tell you where the states and the electorate are already, and its not like the Republicans are worried about losing California, New York or Illinois voters over the issue.

4-8 years.

Hello

et replace "the" with "overturning" at page 46, line 23

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
For as long as they want. Like Sebby said, who else are they going to vote for? The GOP is the least worst for them.

I am no longer posting on this board. There is no reason.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I prefer Swank and Club (the magazine, not the poster (no offense)).

Consider Club International if you want to get play outside the Red States.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I prefer Swank and Club (the magazine, not the poster (no offense)).

good to know. I can't compete with the mag

[sgtclub]

• UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - UN employees are expected to issue an unprecedented vote of no confidence in Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), union sources say, after he pardoned the body's top oversight official over a series of allegations

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_041119115027


eta: This would be the crowning gem of 2004: Bush reelected and Koffi canned! I can hardly contain myself.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - UN employees are expected to issue an unprecedented vote of no confidence in Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), union sources say, after he pardoned the body's top oversight official over a series of allegations

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_041119115027


eta: This would be the crowning gem of 2004: Bush reelected and Koffi canned! I can hardly contain myself.

So you think W will nominate Bill for Sec Gen of the UN?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
So you think W will nominate Bill for Sec Gen of the UN?

Bush likes Clinton, and Clinton certainly has the gravitas, but I'm not sure how that dynamic would work and putting Clinton in would rejuvinate the left by giving them a real leader. It would also be suicide with the base. In short, NO.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
To summarize:
1.) You didn't throw away your crystal ball even after it failed you in the last election;
2.) Your opinion (and the conventional wisdom on this board) is based on the idea that people here know better than the electorate and, in fact, know what the electorate is likely to do.

I'm just going to throw this back at you (and all others here) one more time. If this ever was, or ever will be, an issue that galvanizes the middle towards candidates of choice, than why would you or others worry that the RvW would kick it back to the voters? This is staring at y'all, and its why I'm always laughing at the noise in your camp.

If your side were so strong, you'd be doing more than making noise and posturing. But all the polls tell you where the states and the electorate are already, and its not like the Republicans are worried about losing California, New York or Illinois voters over the issue.

4-8 years.

Hello

I don't know what you're responding. In reply to your request about how to meet women, I explained that in order to get chicks, its probably a good idea to respect them. In reply, you wrote me something about the electorate.

You are dead wrong if you think the electorate supports overturning Roe. Dead. Wrong. Over 60% of the nation supports keeping abortion legal. Go ahead - google it. And don't reply to me with some NR stats to the contrary - Buckley's been fudging his stats on the issue for years. AND, a large % of whatever women the GOP did have this year it will lose if Roe is overturned. The Country does not want that apple cart overturned. You just want to think so because you have this desperate need to feel like the majority. But you're not, and I think you know it.

We're not worried about having Roe kicked back to the voters. We're worried because the states are strange animals. Lots of bad laws are made at the state level. Why would pro-choice people want to give up the advantage of having the federal mandate provided by Roe? Its not merely fear that makes us fight for Roe - its strategic advantage. You don't give up good field position.

The strength of the choice voting bloc is evidenced by the GOP's refusal to overturn Roe. Bush's father could have overturned it by putting a conservative in the Court instead of Souter. But wisely, Bush I did not do so. He realized that would be dengerous to the party. And his son realizes the same thing. You just don't get it, do you? The GOP is not going to overturn Roe. They don't need to, so why take that risk? Even if you were right, and overturning Roe probably would not galvanize choice voters, why take the risk when you don't have to? Why put it all on the line for a vehement minority of your party who have no other choice but to vote GOP? Why risk it all for no good reason? Tell me what the upside to doing that would be> Where's the logic in such an idiotic move? You can't answer that because the answer is "There is no upside." You got hoodwinked, ya dumbass. You gave me a tax break and you're still not going to get a repeal of Roe. Don't you get it? The rule is, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The GOP is all about power. Its not the morals party - its the money party. it just lies to moralists for their votes and gives them pet issues like gay marriage. But its not stupid enough to put its power in jeopardy by fucking with Roe.

You're a true believer in a lie. Didn't you know that? Social conservativism is a selling point, not a real policy goal.

4-8 years? Are you nuts? Sure, some of the old men I described earlier might try to flip Roe, but it ain't happening as long as the GOP's in power.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't know what you're responding. In reply to your request about how to meet women, I explained that in order to get chicks, its probably a good idea to respect them. In reply, you wrote me something about the electorate.

You are dead wrong if you think the electorate supports overturning Roe. Dead. Wrong. Over 60% of the nation supports keeping abortion legal. Go ahead - google it. And don't reply to me with some NR stats to the contrary - Buckley's been fudging his stats on the issue for years. AND, a large % of whatever women the GOP did have this year it will lose if Roe is overturned. The Country does not want that apple cart overturned. You just want to think so because you have this desperate need to feel like the majority. But you're not, and I think you know it.

We're not worried about having Roe kicked back to the voters. We're worried because the states are strange animals. Lots of bad laws are made at the state level. Why would pro-choice people want to give up the advantage of having the federal mandate provided by Roe? Its not merely fear that makes us fight for Roe - its strategic advantage. You don't give up good field position.

The strength of the choice voting bloc is evidenced by the GOP's refusal to overturn Roe. Bush's father could have overturned it by putting a conservative in the Court instead of Souter. But wisely, Bush I did not do so. He realized that would be dengerous to the party. And his son realizes the same thing. You just don't get it, do you? The GOP is not going to overturn Roe. They don't need to, so why take that risk? Even if you were right, and overturning Roe probably would not galvanize choice voters, why take the risk when you don't have to? Why put it all on the line for a vehement minority of your party who have no other choice but to vote GOP? Why risk it all for no good reason? Tell me what the upside to doing that would be> Where's the logic in such an idiotic move? You can't answer that because the answer is "There is no upside." You got hoodwinked, ya dumbass. You gave me a tax break and you're still not going to get a repeal of Roe. Don't you get it? The rule is, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The GOP is all about power. Its not the morals party - its the money party. it just lies to moralists for their votes and gives them pet issues like gay marriage. But its not stupid enough to put its power in jeopardy by fucking with Roe.

You're a true believer in a lie. Didn't you know that? Social conservativism is a selling point, not a real policy goal.

4-8 years? Are you nuts? Sure, some of the old men I described earlier might try to flip Roe, but it ain't happening as long as the GOP's in power.

At the risk of repition, you thought you knew where the country stood on November 2nd. You didn't. Yet, you are still here telling me that the country stands in exactly the same place that it didn't stand on November 2nd. You can raise your voice, draw cartoons, swear, shriek like a little girl, and drool "ah feel yo pain" for the bettys from here til Sunday, but it doesn't make you argument or credibility any better. I'm gonna leave you alone for awhile, so please don't eat those crayons while nobody's here to watch you. Draw me a nice portrait of that nice justice Scalia and I might even make you some hot chocolate while you do your homework.


eta on a more serious note, you seen the historical makeup of the senate over time? What in the world are you talking about when you say what Bush's father would have done?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
To summarize:
1.) You didn't throw away your crystal ball even after it failed you in the last election;
2.) Your opinion (and the conventional wisdom on this board) is based on the idea that people here know better than the electorate and, in fact, know what the electorate is likely to do.

I'm just going to throw this back at you (and all others here) one more time. If this ever was, or ever will be, an issue that galvanizes the middle towards candidates of choice, than why would you or others worry that overturning RvW would kick it back to the voters? This is staring at y'all, and its why I'm always laughing at the noise in your camp.

If your side were so strong, you'd be doing more than making noise and posturing. But all the polls tell you where the states and the electorate are already, and its not like the Republicans are worried about losing California, New York or Illinois voters over the issue.

4-8 years.

Hello

et replace "the" with "overturning" at page 46, line 23

One last thing... you never replied to the part of my post where I suggested that you didn't respect women or understand women. I wonder why. You wanted the advice, didn't you?

[SlaveNoMore]

y Tyrone Slothrop
They might go back to being apolitical, like they were in the 1970s. They might form an ill-fated but ideologically pure third party. They might take over the GOP in areas, and drive it to the right. All sorts of things could happen. What would you do in their shoes?

I rank this post an "8"

You would have received a 10, if you ended it with "What would Jesus do?"