Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
Notwithstanding the cosmic wrongness of the fiduciary analogy, sex is not the same as any other human activity for which a person may be held responsible. As you and I both know, once you hit 14, its a biological urge that can all but overwhelm ones life. To hold women hostage to a quirk of nature (not getting that Y chromosome you and I did) is not the same as holding them accountable when they drive drunk.

Stop being stupid. And this is where we concur on the right-wing anti-sex-ed types being stupid too.

This is where the need for progressive interpretation of rights runs headlong into conservative rigidity. I am staunchly social Darwinist on 99% of these matters. I don't agree with many govt social safety nets. BUT, I think progressive policies which try to equal the rights and burdens of the sexes are fair and proper in a free market society. We can't have a fair playing field where one side pays a draconian penalty for a biological urge (or broken condom) and the other gets to walk away from it (I suggest you not even attempt to make the argument that are equally responsible because they have to pay paternity... thats a dead lock loser for innumerable reasons).

Drink some more coffee and make more sense.

I can appreciate what I know your comeback will be - "people must play the cards they're dealt... women included." I agree with that on all things but reprdocutive rights. I think such a belief would keep women out of productive jobs, thus holding back our society and our markets. Nobody benefits where half the workforce can be taken out of commission because of a biological urge or malfunction of birth control.

This is the scotch discussion, You're missing a lot.

Again, you're not anti-woman. You're rigidly libertarian.

I tread Fed/Libert

The pro-lifers, however, are absolutely, 100%, card carrying anti-woman.

Lastly, you have to understand how noxious your argument sounds coming from a man. The GOP seems to believe that being a chickenhawk is OK, that its wrong to have a rule which requires a publi official go to war before he can send others there. Academically, technically, they're right. But that will never change the public's low perception of a chickenhawk. His warmongering will always make others disgusted. For this same reason, your high minded academic justifications for policies which are regressive toward women will always come off disingenuous and chickenhawkish. You and I will never truly understand the abortion debate, so the last thing we should be doing is telling those who can and do understand it as a result of their anatomy what they can or can't do with their bodies.

You're free to do it anyway, of course, but understand that, to women, it will always look pretty goddamned hypocritical.

Nice soapbox there. You hit the Gold, the Silver, the Bronze and the trash can - all in one spew. Congrats.

[SlaveNoMore]

Moveon:

In nominating John Roberts, the president has chosen a right wing corporate lawyer and ideologue for the nation's highest court instead of a judge who would protect the rights of the American people. Working for mining companies, Roberts opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be "overruled," and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion. That's why we believe: THE SENATE MUST NOT CONFIRM RIGHT-WING CORPORATE LAWYER JOHN ROBERTS TO THE SUPREME COURT.

Move "on" is right.

Move the fuck to Canada, you fucking losers. God speed.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I assume then, that you believe suicide should be legal? And unfettered drug use (of course, to the extent it doesn't harm others)? I certainly do.

2

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
2) Roe was, at best, bad law, and at worst, judicial legislation at its worst with a bunch of "old, white men" interpreting medicine.

Roe is terrible law. I equate Roe with Mayor Daley. Mayor Daley is just about as corrupt as it gets. Nevertheless, everyone likes how clean he keeps the parks, so we'll keep him.

Be that as it may, I don't think you really want Roe overturned (not that it's going to happen). The political consequences for the GOP could be devastating. Hell hath no fury like 100 million women scorned.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Stop being stupid. And this is where we concur on the right-wing anti-sex-ed types being stupid too.

Nice soapbox there. You hit the Gold, the Silver, the Bronze and the trash can - all in one spew. Congrats.

Lets talk straight economics.

1. If we flip Roe, the ensuing litigation and wasted legislative time will be enromous. I doubt the lost/wasted man hours will be made up by the boon to the airlines from women having to fly to pro-choice states to get procedures. Why should we waste so much money and time better spent doing something productive and revenue producing? A cottage industry of reporductive rights lawyers is not the new industrial revolution this nation needs.

2. How can unwanted pregancies benefit the ecconomy? I can see no economic/market benefit to allowing such a thing. Your gripe with Roe is legal and dispassionate. So how can you say a policy which can only hurt us economically, and has no economic value, should be implemented?

3. The GOP claims that business should not absorb unfair costs for personal choices of its workers. They are always standing behind efforts to roll back maternity leave, employment regs, etc. Why would it favor a policy which would cost employers a fortune in maternity leave? Why would it favor a policy which would take workers out of commission and invite tons of lawsuits (can you imagine how many women would sue charging discrimination because they didn't get a promotion because they misssed time due to pregnancy?). You're inviting a mess of litigation. Never good for business.

4. The GOP argues that it has society in mind when it favors abolishing Roe. But abolishing Roe would clearly hurt the majority of our society from an economic and legislative efficiency standpoint. And its only benefit would be academic (undo a poorly drafted decision) and to provide a gift to a narrow swath of vehement moralists. Its not sound economic or market policy to stand for a vehement minority's moral policy to the great economic and legislative detriment of the entire country.

From a governmental and economic cost/benefit basis, you can't sell overturning Roe.

I just don't see the benefit to fucking with the perfect stasis we have on this issue. So its imperfect legally? So what? It works. Leave it alone.

[SlaveNoMore]

[iDid you just call me Coltrane? [/i]
Roe is terrible law. I equate Roe with Mayor Daley. Mayor Daley is just about as corrupt as it gets. Nevertheless, everyone likes how clean he keeps the parks, so we'll keep him.

Be that as it may, I don't think you really want Roe overturned (not that it's going to happen). The political consequences for the GOP could be devastating. Hell hath no fury like 100 million women scorned.

1) Women don't vote GOP, so whatever.

2) Roe is terrible law.


3) Why am I responding to you anyway? Thou art eine douche-bage (so says Chalabi)

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) Women don't vote GOP, so whatever.

2) Roe is terrible law.


3) Why am I responding to you anyway? Thou art eine douche-bage (so says Chalabi)

I agree with you, yet I'm a douchebag? We disagree with respect to the Iraq war, and you resort to ad hominem attacks? Well done, Rush. Flawed logic everwhere applauds.

Fucking loser.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
4. The GOP ....

You're assuming a parrot on this issue, I've said the opposite and my view actually has NO prominent voice these days.

From a governmental and economic cost/benefit basis, you can't sell overturning Roe.

Are you kidding me? The Rovians could get ALL federal funding gonzo if "our" side didnt back off and cut from the middle.

I just don't see the benefit to fucking with the perfect stasis we have on this issue. So its imperfect legally? So what? It works. Leave it alone.

You mocked me last week for being a "lawyer". Based on your last comment, I'd say the same.

[SlaveNoMore]

Did you just call me Coltrane?
Fucking loser.

Actually, I always liked you [vaguely] until last week.

I'm quite reticent, but if you wanna bring it and go "nuclear", go ahead kid. But see comments below.

eta1) I was responding to Sebby, but clicked on the wrong post, (2) Nevertheless, I pulled out the initial "douche" , so I'm offering to pull it back

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You're assuming a parrot on this issue, I've said the opposite and my view actually has NO prominent voice these days.

Maybe you can answer this for me... Maybe you can't...

Why is it that the party thats so gung ho about undoing the New Deal and ripping away regs which protect people from being exposed to injury, cancer, etc... is so gung ho about "the unborn?" I'm a fan of inconsistency, and this boggles my mind. How can the GOP be Socially Darwinist on everything, and suddenly flaming idealist on abortion? I can't help but reach the conclusion that the party has a broader cultural agenda (rolling us back to the never existent 50s nuclear family), and that rolling back abortion and refusing to fund contraceptives for all is just one way of putting women back into their “traditional role” in that never-existent fantasy of the perfect nuclear family. No matter how the GOP justifies the inconsistency on these issues, its sounds disingenuous.

What do you think the GOP will do if Roe is overturned and we suddenly find a majority of states want to keep abortion legal within their borders? How will the GOP then placate its angry religious wing? And what will the Religious Wing then do? It won't be satsified with any result other than national outlawing of abortion, so whats its option? Does it then reject states' rights and fight for a constitutional amendment? And does the GOP support that quest?

This isn’t rhetorical. I’m truly interested in hearing what you think might happen then.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Maybe you can answer this for me... Maybe you can't...

Why is it that the party thats so gung ho about undoing the New Deal and ripping away regs which protect people from being exposed to injury, cancer, etc... is so gung ho about "the unborn?" I'm a fan of inconsistency, and this boggles my mind. How can the GOP be Socially Darwinist on everything, and suddenly flaming idealist on abortion? I

Two different parts of the party. It's a coalition of social conservatives and big business. It's not the same people pushing both agendas. Indeed, the big fear is that the social conservatives would leave the party without continued attention to Roe, becacuse they could get their compassion agenda better filled by Dems. That is, except for the ones that believe money is the way to heaven and don't know the relative sizes of a camel and a needle's eye.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
That being said, the point is irrelevent, since no Congress can be bound by former Congresses, nor bind future Congresses, with rules outside of the Constitution.

There is no question that the Senate could change its own rules. No question. But, as you put it, the Senate Republicans lack the balls to simply change the rules. So they're pretending that long-standing rules are unconstitutional.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I learned Daily KOS requires a 24 hour wait period before allowing comments on their site. I'll send the uber personal resonse I received from the "Huffington" folks to anyone that asks, since its rather personal (and hilarious).

Congrats to Ty, Sidd, Gatti, Sidd, and others (e.g.the half-brain of Sebby) for allowing the silencing of dissention.

Godspeed, lefties.

Most major right-wing blogs don't have any comments at all, right? Like DU, you probably read Kos more than I do -- I find the comments at the more trafficked sites mostly useless and tedious to read. Too many trolls, and no good way to sort through the posts.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
3) I think that one can determine a "right to privacy" in the Bill of Rights/14th that doesn't go anywhere near the recent expansion by the Court

...

Here is the line where Federalism and Libertarianism meet, and without getting into a long discussion (b/c I type poorly, and its better over a few drinks- I'll leave it with "there are competing pluses and problems with both")

...

No, it doesn't. I'm probably as pro-choice as you, yet I've stand by the assertion that (i) Roe is awful law and (2) it's because of this "law by judicial fiat" that abortion is such a divisive issue in this country. If people got to actually vote on the topic (shocking, eh), you'd see that 70% are in the middle and the 15% of the fringe dictate the current conversation

You make a lot of sense when you stop snarling. You recognize gray areas and legitimate competing concerns, when you aren't so busy bashing your perceived mortal enemies. You say a number of things I agree with, and a number of things I disagree with but could discuss, even to the point of being convinced to change my mind. When you don't fulminate and call everyone who opposes you a traitor, an idiot, and so forth.

You ought to do this more often.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I learned Daily KOS requires a 24 hour wait period before allowing comments on their site. I'll send the uber personal resonse I received from the "Huffington" folks to anyone that asks, since its rather personal (and hilarious).

Congrats to Ty, Sidd, Gatti, Sidd, and others (e.g.the half-brain of Sebby) for allowing the silencing of dissention.

Godspeed, lefties.

What the fuck are you talking about?


I guess that non-fulminating, able to talk rationally Slave can only survive so long.


KOS is a blog -- right? Do most blogs allow any posts at all? As I've said repeatedly, I don't read blogs.* Even when Ty posts links to them. If I want to read the ravings of extremist lunatics, I already have this board bookmarked.



Still, I suppose every policy of every left-wing blog is my fault -- does that mean that every policy of every far-right blog is attributable to you and your more-or-less evil-twin Penske?


*One exception -- I used to read the Julie/Julia Project religiously. That was funny shit. I guess you could post replies there, though I wonder who bothers to read 25 iterations of "wow, I really liked your entry today"