A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[sgtclub]

• With the Shiites on the brink of capturing power here for the first time, their political leaders say they have decided to put a secular face on the new Iraqi government they plan to form, relegating Islam to a supporting role.
  
  The senior leaders of the United Iraqi Alliance, the coalition of mostly Shiite groups that is poised to capture the most votes in the election next Sunday, have agreed that the Iraqi whom they nominate to be the country's next prime minister would be a lay person, not an Islamic cleric.
  
  The Shiite leaders say there is a similar but less formal agreement that clerics will also be excluded from running the government ministries.
  
  "There will be no turbans in the government," said Adnan Ali, a senior leader of the Dawa Party, one of the largest Shiite parties. "Everyone agrees on that."

[sgtclub]

• "We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it," a speaker identified as Zarqawi said in an audio tape on the Internet.
  
  "Those who vote... are infidels," he said.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by sgtclub But then she offered warm words to opponents of abortion and said that faith and organized religion were the "primary" reasons teenagers abstained from sexual relations.

This is obviously idiotic. The absolute far and away primary reason teenagers abstain from sexual relations is they can't find anyone they are willing to have sex with who is willing to have sex with them.

Distant also-rans are (i) fear that one's father/the girl's father will kill them, (ii) difficulty purchasing reliable birth control without parental knowledge, without a car and/or on one's allowance, (iii) vague romantic notions fostered by movies and PG-13 rated romance novels that sex should always be "special" and involve champagne and unicorns and Justin Timberlake and no icky fluids, (iv) abject fear that the object of one's crush will see one naked and laugh and laugh and laugh, and (v) closely related to (iv), fear that you will do it wrong because you have no clue what you are doing. Then comes fear that everyone will find out and think you are a slut, and then, maybe, comes religious conviction.

edited for grammar

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
This is obviously idiotic. The absolute far and away primary reason teenagers abstain from sexual relations is they can't find anyone they are willing to have sex with who is willing to have sex with them.

Distant also-rans are (i) fear that one's father/the girl's father will kill them, (ii) difficulty purchasing reliable birth control without parental knowledge, without a car and/or on one's allowance, (iii) vague romantic notions fostered by movies and PG-13 rated romance novels that sex should always be "special" and involve champagne and unicorns and Justin Timberlake and no icky fluids, (iv) abject fear that the object of one's crush will see one naked and laugh and laugh and laugh, and (v) closely related to (iv), fear that you will do it wrong because you have no clue what you are doing. Then comes fear that everyone will find out and think you are a slut, and then, maybe, comes religious conviction.

edited for grammar

Wow! Great list. You seem to have given this a lot of thought. High school not very fun for you?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Do car companies fight these suits through extended litigation?

Why, yes. In fact, they do. And in some states, they make smaller claims like this even less economical by promoting changes to statutes and court rules requiring the use of expert testimony to prove up virtually any damages for which the plaintiff can't produce a receipt for an out-of-pocket expense.

In other words, don't cry for me, Argentina.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Adder
And then there is Milberg...

This was my thought exactly. The securities class action bar is a real problem, especially with deriviative actions where there is no fraud. Yes, the shareholders receive some compensation, but it is at the expense of their investment because these suits often times have a crippling effect on companies. The lawyers get phat though.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
There is certainly a movement in the DEM party away from the absolute pro-choice position, which is a good thing for both the DEMs and the country.

Why is this a good thing for the Dems?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Why is this a good thing for the Dems?

Because, as John Travolta (as Bill Clinton) noted in the movie "Primary Colors" -- "You have to get elected first, to do anything." (Paraphrase)

Triangulation works. Clinton was a master of it, and Bush II works it well enough to soften the hard, lunatic edges of the GOP. The Democrats need to do more of it to win in 2008.

Al Gore f-d up the 2000 election with a terrible campaign, and one big part of his problem was his effort to become a progressive/populist. "The People Versus the Powerful." What bullshit. Anyway, I think that the tiny margin of defeat in 2000 was horrible for the Democratic Party because it made them think that a lefty-type populist campaign could win. The Dems would be better off now, as a party, if Bush had won in 2000 like he won in 2004.

The hard-core Democratic base of the 1970s and 1980s doesn't exist anymore in sufficient numbers to win a national election. Absolutism is just as obnoxious coming from the left as from the right.

Also -- on an entirely separate point, that F-in Osama bin Laden really screwed the Democrats by giving Bush a reason to matter, but that complaint, while true, is petty and unseemly.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Why is this a good thing for the Dems?

Because the country as a whole does not believe in absolute abortion rights. A majority of the country agrees with the Clinton formulation ("safe and rare") and that limited restrictions like parental notification with judical review are appropriate.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Because the country as a whole does not believe in absolute abortion rights. A majority of the country agrees with the Clinton formulation ("safe and rare") and that limited restrictions like parental notification with judical review are appropriate.

Most people in the country are pro-choice, though.

BTW, parental notification is very expensive.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Most people in the country are pro-choice, though.

Sure, but it's the middle ground supporting limited abortions, with additional restrictions, that you have to get. So far, it appears the republican absolutist position has more appeal to a larger percentage of that group than the democrat absolutist position. Moving to the middle helps garner support.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, but it's the middle ground supporting limited abortions, with additional restrictions, that you have to get. So far, it appears the republican absolutist position has more appeal to a larger percentage of that group than the democrat absolutist position. Moving to the middle helps garner support.

I guess that I don't see the Democratic, pro-Wade, pro-health-of-the-mother position as absolutist.

What's the middle ground?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I guess that I don't see the Democratic, pro-Wade, pro-health-of-the-mother position as absolutist.

What's the middle ground?

Oh, you know, nothing onerous. Special licensing for the doctors, a one-week waiting period, permission of the source of the sperm, parental and grandparental and sibling notification, aversion therapy. The usual.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Oh, you know, nothing onerous. Special licensing for the doctors, a one-week waiting period, permission of the source of the sperm, parental and grandparental and sibling notification, aversion therapy. The usual.

There's room for exorcism and dunking in there too.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I guess that I don't see the Democratic, pro-Wade, pro-health-of-the-mother position as absolutist.

What's the middle ground?

No one is saying the Dem's position isn't horribly hypocritical and destined to cause a huge vote for a liberal 3rd candidate in 2008. People are just saying the Dems are making this move for this wrong reason now.