Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Someone argue that this is not exactly what OBL wanted. Because it is.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I thought a wedge was an issue to get a traditonal Rep guy to vote Dem. Gun control would do it for me, but its not the answer to your party because its going to cost you millions of union voters.

Yes. Or vice versa. Most people don't think of gun control as a pro-Dem wedge issue since the wedge it tends to drive is between voters in rural states and the Democratic Party.

Have you checked what your Ouija Board says?

What's your point?

I didn't actually see any Bush speeches, but I've heard they contained a few straight-forward messages. One of the messages is homosexuals shouldn't get married. If that is true, how was he above the fray?

He wasn't pushing it in nearly the same way others were. If he had been, he would have looked worse to swing voters, I'm thinking.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I still have no idea who or what you're talking about. Notwithstanding fringey's post, I suspect you're not irked by the anti-creationists.

He may be by the pro-gun control and pro-protecting right to abortion on a federal level people. I tend to suspect that you think of those things as so basically correct that they aren't even culture issues. I actually tend to agree that this makes you as blind -- even bigoted -- as those on the other side.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

SHFM may be right. We probably need to let the states decide on social issues so we can all do what we like in our own communities. But let me ask SHFM a question:

SHFM, if we take your course and we do allow social issues to be decided at the state level, will you agree to honor that concept and not try to get Constitutional amendments or Fed laws to force your views down my throat? Will you agree to leave abortion legeal in the states that vote as such? And if you would honor such a bargain, what percentage of the Right do you think would be with you?

Well thank you my calmer Pennsylvanian. I answered this today in the context of a belated response to Ty from one of his posts last night. It appears a few hours ago (regarding partial birth abortion and how to keep it and all similar issues out of the Federal arena... --the thread started with "what other types of murder are in the fed arena... (there are some)--.

The thing about that Federalism, is it doesn't just protect you, it protects me too. It protects everybody from having anything but the fundamental constitutional protections forced down their throats... by liberals or conservatives in other states.

To reiterate my earlier answer to Ty, once the Supreme Court takes this view, it better hold onto it for dear life for 50-500 years, because it will be attacked by special interests from both sides forever. They were never supposed to let it go from the beginning, but that's exactly what they did with Roe.

Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
The point of the New Yorkers with whom I communicated was that the article (and I, although I disagree) does not accurately represent the attitude of all or even most New Yorkers. I agree with them. Some of my best friends are New Yorkers, and I am more elitist than they are. But, the fact that the New York Times publishes an article about how New Yorkers cannot fathom what makes the red states tick (they are "bewildered") and then quotes New Yorkers calling red states rednecks and unsavvy rubes probably will not help to heal the rift.

Most of us out here don't have access to the NYT, Flower. I wonder if the few sophisticates out here who do read it, might do better for the country by not rubbing the noses of the rest of us in these feelings.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What is their agenda? What do the fundamentalist Christians expect their government to do now? Less tells me not to worry.

Pray with me, Henry.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
The point of the New Yorkers with whom I communicated was that the article (and I, although I disagree) does not accurately represent the attitude of all or even most New Yorkers. I agree with them. Some of my best friends are New Yorkers, and I am more elitist than they are. But, the fact that the New York Times publishes an article about how New Yorkers cannot fathom what makes the red states tick (they are "bewildered") and then quotes New Yorkers calling red states rednecks and unsavvy rubes probably will not help to heal the rift.

I agree that there are NYers who are not like the people in the article. However, as you were pointing out, a few people on here who just happen to be from the coasts are basically saying what the NYers quoted in the story are saying -- that the rest of the country need to be taught the "correct" way to think.

My mom, though not on a coast, seems to share this view and it irritates the hell out of me.

I'm hoping the polarizing stuff will get toned down after people calm down from their disappointment over the election. However, I think the equally polarizing elements of the right have more power/speak louder than the more moderate elements of the right.

I have to say that I really don't think any of my best friends could be characterized as NYers. They are pretty much all well-educated liberals and some are pretty elitist. Like you, kitten!

[dtb]

Interesting.

From The Times .

[SlaveNoMore]

ltl/fb
The stem-cell question has been couched "properly and fairly" in any number of media stories and campaigns. To get what you want, you need to get your people to stop sending out the message that it kills cute innocent cuddly soft helpless babies.

Bullshit. Total bullshit.

The Dems falsely declared that the Reps were against all funding, and then they falsely suggested that miracle cures are around the corner.

The issue is whether taxpayers money should be used to subsidize research that requires the destruction of human embryos.

I think Gatti - someone - was onto something - when he suggested the general public should be deluged with information about (a) the millions of embryos sitting out there, (b) what an embryo looks like and (c) then let the public decide if they want to confer the same "rights" to an embryo as they do to a baby - or even a fetus.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I still have no idea who or what you're talking about. Notwithstanding fringey's post, I suspect you're not irked by the anti-creationists.

No, as long as by creationism we are talking about the idea that the bible should be read literally. I am not religious, but I also don't purport to know the answers to the great questions out there. Evolution should be taught as the best available theory, but it should not be taught in a way that demeans anyones belief in god.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
However, as you were pointing out, a few people on here who just happen to be from the coasts are basically saying what the NYers quoted in the story are saying -- that the rest of the country need to be taught the "correct" way to think.

Other than Sebastian, no one really did that, did they?

Conf. to Ty: Exit polls now equal Ouija Boards. Either may prove correct sometimes, but that's just a coincidence.

[cheval de frise]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I think that the reaction your seeing now is that people (like me) had no idea that one could drive people to the polls in such large numbers based on their hate of other people. It was surprising to me. And it is very disappointing.

I agree it's disappointing. But I can't believe you honestly "had no idea that one could drive people to the polls in such large numbers based on their hate of other people." Bullshit.

BOTH Republicans and Democrats have done this in the past and do it now. I happen to think the Republican brand of hate-mongering is far worse. For many decades, the Republicans (have) used fear and hate to drive people to the polls in the South and intimidate others into not voting at all. For their part, left-leaning groups flood the airwaves about assault rifles, intimate that every gun owner is a potential child killer, raise the specter of Mexicans. Indians and Chinese taking all of the mid-to-low wage jobs, and try to scare young people into thinking they'll have no rights at all if one of those "fascist" Republicans is ever elected. Lard some condescension on top of that, and you deepen the problem.

I'm laughing at your comment about my being "condescending." You (and others) are being downright obnoxious. I'm sorry I don't see things quite your way, but I swear to God*, most of the Democrats here are acting like whiny five-year olds who've been given a timeout by the electorate. If you're willing to think about some of the reasons it really happened (besides the cartoonish "they're evil, stupid, hateful fucks," it might not happen again.

I'm just saying.

CDF (*intentional irony)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
He may be by the pro-gun control and pro-protecting right to abortion on a federal level people. I tend to suspect that you think of those things as so basically correct that they aren't even culture issues. I actually tend to agree that this makes you as blind -- even bigoted -- as those on the other side.

Basically right. Add political correctness/free speech and freedom of religion in there as well.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Someone argue that this is not exactly what OBL wanted. Because it is.

Do you genuinely believe OBL would recall his troops to afghanistan/pakistan if Kerry had been elected?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Well thank you my calmer Pennsylvanian. I answered this today in the context of a belated response to Ty from one of his posts last night. It appears a few hours ago (regarding partial birth abortion and how to keep it and all similar issues out of the Federal arena... --the thread started with "what other types of murder are in the fed arena... (there are some)--.

The thing about that Federalism, is it doesn't just protect you, it protects me too. It protects everybody from having anything but the fundamental constitutional protections forced down their throats... by liberals or conservatives in other states.

To reiterate my earlier answer to Ty, once the Supreme Court takes this view, it better hold onto it for dear life for 50-500 years, because it will be attacked by special interests from both sides forever. They were never supposed to let it go from the beginning, but that's exactly what they did with Roe.

Hello

If I give you the states' rights, will you agree not to try to legislate at the federal level my rights in my blue state? Stated otherwise, will you respect my state's vote when it allows me to do something which is dimaterically opposed to your moral views in your state? I will tell you right here and now that I will respect whatever your state allows you to do in your state, no matter how much it offends me. So...

What was your answer? Short and sweet as possible.