The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Huh?!?!? Could you cite me on the overwhelming outrage in the Arab/ME world over the Iranian president's comments, the Al Aksa's comments or over the policy of terroristic homocide bombing? Are they rioting in the streets in Cairo and Amman in front of the Iranian embassy?

I said "significant" ME opinion. Popular opinion is still largely insignificant in the ME.

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Could I get a cite on ME/ARab countries that have meaningful relations with Israel?

Egypt and Jordan. (Also -- more underground -- Saudi Arabia and (if you count them as ME) Pakistan.)

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Where do you think the money for Al Aksa, Hamas and every other anti-Israel/pro-palestine acronymn (and the arms that they bare) in the ME comes from? The profits from the all the vast industry in Gaza and the West Bank?

Iran, SA and some others. Post 9/11, the Saudis have turned the cash spigot on and off at our request from time to time to enforce better behavior.

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You are dreaming S_A_M. Not a tear would be shed in the ME (or france) if the babykiller Arafat rose from the grave and drove all the jews into the sea. The best bet for Israel is preemption. And to never, ever, ever trust a Clinton again.

Your enthusiasm lags behind your knowledge.

S_A_M

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Captain
Why doesn't a market based rationale work for unions? Why must we have an additional regulatory level for them?

I agree. the regulatory protections accorded unions should be removed.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Corporations are not allowed to donate to Federal campaigns. I am pretty sure the same is true for most states. They have to be able to justify their contributions to shareholders, and if the shareholders don't like it they can always sell their shares. It is much easier to sell shares than it is to leave ones job.

Um, I don't think this CA law is going to apply to what CA unions do w/r/t federal campaigns, is it?

And my impression is that the new regulation of union dues would ban any political donations -- not just campaigns. For sure corporations donate soft money on "issues" in federal campaigns.

I think unions should be able to donate to stuff to the extent that Pfizer and Glaxo etc. are supporting that HUGE ad campaign for the one drug proposition. Though, having their names at the end of every ad, for me tends to reinforce the idea that that proposition is mainly good for drug companies, and not so much for actual people getting prescriptions.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I said "significant" ME opinion. Popular opinion is still largely insignificant in the ME.



S_A_M

Cite? I want to see public statements from ME leaders calling for the Palestinians stop the terror and calling the Iranians to task. any outrage at the UN? Real outrage? Sanctions?

Is the same reaction as if Sharon had said "the Palestians should be wiped from the face of the Earth"?

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

Egypt and Jordan. (Also -- more underground -- Saudi Arabia and (if you count them as ME) Pakistan.)


S_A_M

Oh please, that support and the relations are tepid at best. With friends like those......

No arms, $$$ or other material support is coming into Gaza via Egypt?

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

Iran, SA and some others. Post 9/11, the Saudis have turned the cash spigot on and off at our request from time to time to enforce better behavior.



S_A_M

turning it on and off is not the answer. Turning it off would be. How about Syria and Egypt? You can't be serious leaving them off.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


Your enthusiasm lags behind your knowledge.

S_A_M

You are either delusional or naively optimistic.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
Corporations are not allowed to donate to Federal campaigns. I am pretty sure the same is true for most states.

Well, I'm convinced - corporations are barred from any influence on shaping government policy if they can't contribute directly to campaigns. They can't form PACs or 527s, either. Damn, that is SO UNFAIR!

They have to be able to justify their contributions to shareholders, and if the shareholders don't like it they can always sell their shares. It is much easier to sell shares than it is to leave ones job.

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that corporations do not have to report in detail where their contributions (by the way, what contributions?) go, but the opposite is true for the unions.

Also, the union members do not have to leave their jobs if they don't like the political activities of the union - they leave the union. They retain their jobs, pay a representation fee, and get the collective bargaining.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Spanky, quoting former Senator Morgan

Proposition 73 on the California November 8th Ballot will require parental consent for young women to get an abortion. The requirement of parental consent for this very serious decision sounds right. But through the work that I have been doing for the last 15 years with.... ...devastating, dysfunctional, and abusive situations...

To hell with kissing up to pro-lifers by explaining all the terrible things that could happen if a young woman is forced to get Daddy's consent to abort. You'll never convince them with any of it. Most teenage-consent supporters would also require wifey to get hubby's permission (ex: Alito) which conflicts with the "she's only 14 and this is a medical procedure" reasoning. All this "consent/notification" does is allow someone else to try to obstruct the process and prevent the abortion.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
To hell with kissing up to pro-lifers by explaining all the terrible things that could happen if a young woman is forced to get Daddy's consent to abort. You'll never convince them with any of it. Most teenage-consent supporters would also require wifey to get hubby's permission (ex: Alito) which conflicts with the "she's only 14 and this is a medical procedure" reasoning. All this "consent/notification" does is allow someone else to try to obstruct the process and prevent the abortion.

I am praying for you Dianne. The babyjesus still loves you.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Dianne.

There you go again, Whoop.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda

Also, the union members do not have to leave their jobs if they don't like the political activities of the union - they leave the union. They retain their jobs, pay a representation fee, and get the collective bargaining.

This may not be true of public employee unions, but there are many unions that are close shopped. In other words, you have to be a member of the union to work there.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
There you go again, Whoop.

I knew you remembered. Those were the days.

:yum:

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
To hell with kissing up to pro-lifers by explaining all the terrible things that could happen if a young woman is forced to get Daddy's consent to abort. You'll never convince them with any of it. Most teenage-consent supporters would also require wifey to get hubby's permission (ex: Alito) which conflicts with the "she's only 14 and this is a medical procedure" reasoning. All this "consent/notification" does is allow someone else to try to obstruct the process and prevent the abortion.

The reasons for Becky's letter is there are many prochoice people that support this proposition. If all pro-choice people were against in California it would lose overwhelmingly. This letter was not for the pro-lifers, but for the "pro-choice" people who don't understand the issue.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
The reasons for Becky's letter is there are many prochoice people that support this proposition. If all pro-choice people were against in California it would lose overwhelmingly. This letter was not for the pro-lifers, but for the "pro-choice" people who don't understand the issue.

Spanky, you know I love you, platonically, like as in the pre-pubescent crush I had on Nixon as a young lad in the 60s, but perhaps they do understand the issue and that is the problem for the culture of death.

The Wall Street Journal had a poll this weekend which is consistent with the numbers the MSM liberal media has, 70 plus % of Americans support parental notification and consent. Over 50% support spousal notification. Sorry, you are in the minority, but it is probably good for you to see how the other half lives, considering our team controls the ball, sts.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The Wall Street Journal had a poll this weekend which is consistent with the numbers the MSM liberal media has, 70 plus % of Americans support parental notification and consent. Over 50% support spousal notification.

Was that the poll that had a 54-36 margin for appoval of allowing abortion (with certain restrictions similar to those currently in place)?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Was that the poll that had a 54-36 margin for appoval of allowing abortion (with certain restrictions similar to those currently in place)?

Possibly. did I say I was for abortion being illegal? Certainly you can tell the difference between anti-Roe-ism and anti-abortion, no?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Possibly. did I say I was for abortion being illegal? Certainly you can tell the difference between anti-Roe-ism and anti-abortion, no?

Not these days. The "states' rights" argument has clearly gone out the window with efforts to federalize antiabortion rules and many other things traditionally left to the states to regulate.

But, yes, in principle there is a difference.