Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If they overturn Roe v. Wade, you will see this country torn socially from stem to stern. I don't think anyone will really do that. He's paying the idiots lip service.

You talk a good game sometimes, but you are totally full of shit. They overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion gets outlawed (mostly) in 20 states. It'll be more heavily regulated in maybe 10 more. And none of those states will be California, Illinois or New York.

I love that Do Unto Others thing too. Someday 800 million babies are coming at you with a hack saw.

On another note, I like how you guess that I'm from the poor Catholic areas. Its actually middle-to-upper class Catholic, though lots of the people are descended from poor Catholics 50 or 60 years ago. I agree that people tend to be less rigid in their "faith" as they get wealthier, but that could be because people don't put too much time into thinking a lot of things through as they become professional slaves. I don't think you were active on this board the last 4 times the abortion debate came up, but nothing got solved as to whether its right, wrong, questionable or whatever. If nothing else, one or two posters here and elsewhere have convinced me that they have a sincere basis for their position (contrary to mine).

You might think your heart beats in synch with the rest of America, but if it did, you wouldn't always be so frustrated.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
It's statements like these that make me realize that the Republican party in other states hasn't been taken over by the religious right, and it gives me hope that perhaps some Republican Texan with balls can set the party back here on track.

Yeah. It happened in Illinois. Then Ryan got indicted. After Obama takes the next seat, there won't be much of a Republican party left (though it will come back as the pain under Democrats continues to increase).

Hello

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You've been talking a lot of shit for the last few weeks -- some of it on things you know about, and some obviously not. I'll call you on this one. Kerry said precisely those words (essentially a quote) during both of the Presidential debates. I also think they are more or less in one of his stump speeches.

You're just not listening.

I'll be serious with you.
At best, if he said something like "We are at war, and its going to be a long war that will force us to confront many enemies in many countries for the foreseeable future", its contrary to numerous statements and positions of his over the last 3 years.

In any case, if you believe he will treat this like a war, and I'm being serious here, please let me know what the "Kerry doctrine" is. Can we go into other countries? Assassinations? Preemption? Invasions? If I don't hear him reiterate the Bush doctrine (Big War, Preemption), than I don't see how we are better off with him. Of course, if we do hear him reiterate it, it will be ironic that he's essentially adopting the "neocon" ideal. Which would be okay, right-idea wrong-people implementing it, except that he's derided it so often.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

It is remarkable to me that you find it so easy to believe this of a man who: volunteered for the military, saw combat, was decorated for courage under fire, served as a prosecutor, immersed himself in public service and (before that) engaged in public discourse and activism on the most important issues of that time. Kerry has proven beyond a doubt, over the course of his life, that he thinks seriously and cares deeply about the critical issues of the day. No one could have said that about Bush before he became President.

Of course you need to look at a man's record, but it is also a mistake NOT to think that the Presidency is a unique office and the demands and responsibilities of the job can change their occupants to produce results one would not expect from their records. The job of a President (i.e. represent and protect the nation) is different than the job of any Senator or representative and requires one to view problems differently and take broader positions.

In other words, whatever Kerry has done as 1 of 100 Senators from 1984-2004 (and we disagree on that record) is not an indication that he will not take appropriate action as President in a world tranformed by the 9/11 attacks and the ensuing wars.

Consider, for example, that Harry Truman was a relatively undistinguished Senator with little record before Roosevelt picked him as VP.

If you think that Bush has done well, then your man is also a prime example. Ignore everything pre-1980, and you still have this record: started three businesses with money borrowed from family connections and ran them into the ground; leveraged the cash from the last into an ownership stake in the Texas Rangers (his partners always wanted the Bush name); became personally wealthy based on insider dealings, despite conflicts of interest, with the stadium land deal; served six years in, essentially, a part-time job as Governor of Texas where he laughed about the executions he oversaw. What in the world would make anyone think that this "record" is suitable to be President of the U.S. during and after 9/11?

S_A_M
etft and efs and to add "NOT"

Believe me, I'm voting for Bush only as a comparative matter. I simply do not see Kerry a.) fighting this war to a successful conclusion and b.) doing anything right, er, Right, economically.

But all-in-all, like I think just about everyone else here feels, I think the whole idea of having to choose between these two mutts is a travesty.

Kerry has proven beyond a doubt, over the course of his life, that he thinks seriously and cares deeply about the critical issues of the day. No one could have said that about Bush before he became President.

Just to address this again, I basically agree with this. Fortunately, I think we turned out okay with Bush in terms of ideology when the right ideology was needed in one particular area (our security). While Kerry may think seriously and care deeply, he simply does not come out with the right answers. I don't know why that is. But I don't know why he didn't know he was Jewish until just before he was running for President in a party that historically received a grossly disproportionate amount of its funding from Jews.

If it helps anyone to avoid seeing red, I am sorta Jewish.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Well, look at a bar chart of the deaths if you need a pretty picture of how dangerious the world just became for us. I understand that math is hard, but just bear me out and use your crayons to draw a bar chart here. Label the Y axis "dead Americans at the hands of Islamicists". Label the X axis "Time". Then, plot 250 American deaths in Lebanon in 1983. 250 deaths over Scotland in 1989??. Plot smaller events for WTC I, Mogadishu, Aden, Tanzania, Kenya numerous shootings and bombings against civilians in Israel where Americans were killed.

OK, now add in 3000 on 9/11 and plot that out for 20 years. Then jump it up by another factor of 12 (the same as the jump from 250 to 3000). Maybe it happens sooner, maybe later. Either way, if you don't accept that we are at war and the trajectory is not friendly for American civilians, then you deserve Chicago. I won't argue that it means our eventual overthrow by Islamic radicals. It does mean we are at a war we didn't start, and that we have to win. As you yourself recently stated here (maybe I'm paraphrasing) with regard to an Israeli assassination in Syria "terrorists should be killed wherever they are". Why is that again? Its because we are at war. Has Kerry even mouthed those words once in this race? His base at the wedding would probably sit out the election if he did.

Its really as simple as that. Plot that massive death, which already started, out over another 20 or 50 years. How the hell is that not massive death?

As Twain said, there are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics. What kind of asshole would even for a moment take seriously a mathematical progression as a likely scenario for terrorist casualties? Give me a fucking break.

And in any event, i never said we weren't at war. We are. Kerry and Edwards have acknowedged that as well. But that still doesn't get us to Bilmore's paranoid delusion that a Kerry presidency would "have us all living under Sharia." That was the statement you jumped in to defend. My question to you is this: are you, too, so batshit crazy as to believe that if Kerry is elected we'll all be speaking Arabic? Or are you just picking fights?

On a personal note, can you or another Democrat in the Chicago area please hold a press conference tomorrow announcing that you or another Democrat is running for mayor etc.... Or have you and the rest of the city not had enough yet? Its amazing. Not one word outside of the media. No credible contender. Nada. Its like the city Is. Dead.

Hello

Sorry. See, Daley is one of many reasons I live in the suburbs.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
You talk a good game sometimes, but you are totally full of shit. They overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion gets outlawed (mostly) in 20 states. It'll be more heavily regulated in maybe 10 more. And none of those states will be California, Illinois or New York.

I love that Do Unto Others thing too. Someday 800 million babies are coming at you with a hack saw.

On another note, I like how you guess that I'm from the poor Catholic areas. Its actually middle-to-upper class Catholic, though lots of the people are descended from poor Catholics 50 or 60 years ago. I agree that people tend to be less rigid in their "faith" as they get wealthier, but that could be because people don't put too much time into thinking a lot of things through as they become professional slaves. I don't think you were active on this board the last 4 times the abortion debate came up, but nothing got solved as to whether its right, wrong, questionable or whatever. If nothing else, one or two posters here and elsewhere have convinced me that they have a sincere basis for their position (contrary to mine).

You might think your heart beats in synch with the rest of America, but if it did, you wouldn't always be so frustrated.

1. Overtiurning Roe v. Wade will create a mess on a societal level. It will only be a matter of time until somebody in a state where its illegal seeks to pass a law holding its citizens liable for getting abortions in other states. The anti-abortion people will not stop until they get a constitutional amendment. What is legal in New York cannot be considered murder in Missouri. That just doesn't work.

2. I have seen what happenes to "Catholics" who were forced into bad marriages due to unwanted pregnancies, or who suffered guilt, shame, etc... because they got pregnant because they were afraid to get the pill for fear their parents would find out. I know people who've had abortions. Some of those women are my friends, and they might not have been had their lives been stunted early because of someone else's religious views being written into law. I'll take your 800 million babies any day, you self righteous son of a bitch. Where do I sign up?

3. I never said you came from a poor Catholic background. I said the stereotype you offered was from a poor Catholic background. If you must know, I assumed you were a rather well to do person stereotyping the average Catholic as poor. Goes to show you how far "assuming" goes, eh?

4. Religion is a substitute for money for a lot of people. Money gives you the time to think and the luxury of learning various disparate ideas. There's a reason the rank and file Catholic parishes and Baptists don't want people getting education. It fucks up their business.

5. Any frustration I've felt is due to a lack of money which requires me to work for a living, not because I'm out of sync with average America (I'm willing to bet my brnad of frustration is pretty common to 90% of people). But I'll take your comment as a compliment. I can think of nothing more insulting than for you to have stated that I was "the average American." I'd hope I'm at least a bit better than that. The last thing any human should aspire to is to have his heart beat in sync with the rest of the men round him. If you've no individual thought, what are you?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
No, dumbshit, He was just alright with the Doobie Brothers. As for you, He thinks you suck.

Maybe you're right. But we got a convenant with God Emself. So fuck what the kid thinks.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
In a longer-term way than I think you are considering, this is exactly what I'm seriously arguing.

I was afraid of that. I had really hoped I was wrong, but I was afraid I wasn't.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
As Twain said, there are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics. What kind of asshole would even for a moment take seriously a mathematical progression as a likely scenario for terrorist casualties? Give me a fucking break.

Well, I don't know? What kind of an asshole would assert that massive casualties is not_going_to_happen when they already have? Who in the fuck does not understand how much is at stake here, when both candidates agreed that MWD is the greatest threat to America? The whole point of an MWD is to cause mass casualties, and our choice is to elect someone who will minimize this possibility without surrendering our independence to France or directly to the Islamicists.

If we can't agree that mass-casualties are at stake, and that this became particularly clear after 9/11, there is really no point in continuing this with you.

If we can agree, please feel free to let me know what Kerry will do to minimize this possibility (i.e., please address the question I posed to SAM).

Hello

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
As Twain said, there are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics. What kind of asshole would even for a moment take seriously a mathematical progression as a likely scenario for terrorist casualties? Give me a fucking break.

Hmm, lets see... how bout the drug industry, which offers piles of speciously derived stats to show why you need their therapies to avoid illnesses. How about medicine? Ever ask your doctor "Will 1 or 2 cigarettes actually do anything to me?" He'll never say 'probably not.' He'll cite some inapplicable study which shows that cigarettes - when smoked enmasse - cause cancer. Oh, here's another - breast cancer. Yesterday's Times had an ad saying one in seven women will get that during their lives. Of course, it offers no info regarding the variables in the study or the age at which the cancers are typically found. How about the government? We've had a war on weed for how many years, yet no one has ever died from a marijuana overdose, yet it remains a DEA schedule one drug? Statistics are the new bible. They prove everything.

Oh, according to the govt, I died of cirrhosis last week, have advanced throat cancer, have had about three heart attacks, am carrying about five STDs, have three children and have died in four car accidents. Just like about 3 out of 4 people you know.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You are mixing up socioeconomic status with religious affiliation. The reason these "Catholics" are having illegitimate kids is because they obviously don't know any better because they are being raised in poor households which tend to still follow the Church's criminal teachings on birth control and abortion (the Church should be sued for both teachings to the extent they impact our tax bills). Catholics of better socioeconomic status do not breed like farm animals. Its worth noting that a lot of us were raised differently than the "Irish need not apply" stereotype you cite.

I'm sorry, immediately above this response are you saying that you weren't assuming I'm from a poor Catholic background?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If you've no individual thought, what are you?

Which is exactly why you can't go wrong being a Republican in Chicago.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm sorry, immediately above this response are you saying that you weren't assuming I'm from a poor Catholic background?

Yeh, I didn't see you saying YOU were born in a home where the family was breeding like rabbits because of church teaching. I thought you were talking objectively about people you'd seen who engaged in such behavior.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
You talk a good game sometimes, but you are totally full of shit. They overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion gets outlawed (mostly) in 20 states. It'll be more heavily regulated in maybe 10 more. And none of those states will be California, Illinois or New York.

I love that Do Unto Others thing too. Someday 800 million babies are coming at you with a hack saw.

On another note, I like how you guess that I'm from the poor Catholic areas. Its actually middle-to-upper class Catholic, though lots of the people are descended from poor Catholics 50 or 60 years ago. I agree that people tend to be less rigid in their "faith" as they get wealthier, but that could be because people don't put too much time into thinking a lot of things through as they become professional slaves. I don't think you were active on this board the last 4 times the abortion debate came up, but nothing got solved as to whether its right, wrong, questionable or whatever. If nothing else, one or two posters here and elsewhere have convinced me that they have a sincere basis for their position (contrary to mine).

You might think your heart beats in synch with the rest of America, but if it did, you wouldn't always be so frustrated.

Make up your mind. A month ago, you were from the poorer old neighborhoods that were the primary locus of white flight, like the area around Taylor Street and the near West Side. Now you're claiming to be a middle-to-upper class Catolic (what, Winnetka or Gold Coast?)

You rewrite your personal history more than Gatsby.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Well, I don't know? What kind of an asshole would assert that massive casualties is not_going_to_happen when they already have? Who in the fuck does not understand how much is at stake here, when both candidates agreed that MWD is the greatest threat to America? The whole point of an MWD is to cause mass casualties, and our choice is to elect someone who will minimize this possibility without surrendering our independence to France or directly to the Islamicists.

Hello

I agree that there is a strong possibility that there will be one or more attacks in the US that will result in large numbers of casualties. I just think that if you believe you can plot it out mathematically and show a reliable progression, you're goofy.

As far as who I believe will do the best job of preventing such attacks.... I don't believe anybody can prevent such attacks. I think that either candidate can put in place and adminster an intelligence and security infrastructure that will frustrate and prevent many opportunities. But the enemy is far more committed to this than us, and individually, they are far more willing to die. Which means that ultimately, they will find a chance to attack and they will do so.

In terms of who will, ultimately, do a better job of progressing us toward a resolution, I believe that Kerry is a more intelligent, more humanist person than Bush. Consequently, he will apply methods of dealing with the Mideast other than brute force that we are ultimately not willing to pay for on an unlimited basis.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
...Who in the fuck does not understand how much is at stake here, when both candidates agreed that MWD is the greatest threat to America? The whole point of an MWD is to cause mass casualties, ...

I've missed a few days here, so I may be out of the loop, but what's a MWD? Apologies if you're just dyslexic. I'm just wondering if I'm missing something since you did the same thing in two sentences.