Politics: A new beginning

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
This is the Board of Immigration Appeals -- not an actual court. The ALJs that sit on the Board are not truly independent -- they work for DOJ and thus ultimately for the AG, at least wrt performance standards (incl. case quotas).

The article goes on to clarify what the attorneys were talking about -- Last year DOJ cut the authorized number of ALJ slots on the Board from 19 to 11 (budgetary constraints) -- but at the same time upped the case clearance quotas and (given current events) are pressing forward hard with many deportation cases.

S_A_M

Ah. This makes more sense, then. The department trying to deport determines the outcome of appeals based on presentations made by the department trying to deport?

No, wait, that makes no sense . . .

Let me guess - they're illegals, so no Con protections?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
The Iraqi civilian deaths were unintentional deaths. Everything was done to prevent these deaths.

Horseshit. "Everything" would have included not invading.

I am not saying that if you oppose abortion, you must oppose invading Iraq, just so we're clear.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
[Kucinich has]
Less fat, IMHO. [than humans are supposed to have.]

That could be it. Darned vegans.

Originally posted by Not Me
I thought Shapton's commentary on state's rights was funnier.

Yes, his comment that he was unwilling to leave any basic human rights issue to the discretion of the states was funny, in context. [As a rebuttal of Edwards constantly saying that gay marriage should be left to the individual states.]

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Horseshit. "Everything" would have included not invading.

to be fair, the administration did lie to us, so we'd feel better about it.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Really? Am I misinterpreting "Anyone else see the intellectual dishonesty in a society that would spend $600,000 to save the life of one 24 week old fetus in the neonatal intensive care unit but would dispose of another in a red bag labeled "biohazardus waste" and bases its distinction between the two simply on the whether the mother wants the child?"

No. That is why I qualified that by saying "I think." I was trying to be funny (albeit it in a deliberately obtuse way) regarding all the offense that gets taken around here when anyone uses the term "intellectual dishonesty," but I see I am the only one who gets my sense of humor (which is also irrelevant to the thrill I get by seeing my words published here).

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I saw this as part of your argument against the viability test.

In retrospect, I guess it was.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Because the right to choose is overcome by the now-viable fetus' right to live. Why is that nonsensical? Must choice be unfettered?

It is not that choice must be unfettered. What I cannot understand is how it is that you have determined that at viability the fetus now has rights that it didn't have 1 second before it became viable. Why does viability confer rights on a human being?

I know WHAT it is that you think. You think at the point of viability the fetus' right to life outweighs the mothers right to choose. What I don't get is WHY you think that. WHY do rights vest at viability.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I am seriously telling you that that is part of why I draw the line at viability instead of conception.

Thanks, but that is a slippery slope you are traveling down and it leads to Bilmore eating old people because they are hard to care for.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Interesting stat. How many of them are going to be single moms? How many of them will not be able to keep working at their jobs while they raise a child? How many of them will be forced to raise a child without a father, and without any after-school supervision because they can't afford day care?

Fine but how does the viability of the fetus change any of that? If those factors are so important to determining whether abortion should be available, do any of those factors change once the fetus becomes viable.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
And unlike Ty, too.

Que?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
So I'd like the GOP leadership to stop lying about its intentions in this regard. They* want to federalize abortion law; they just want the law to go their way on it.

I think they're happier having abortion and Roe to rally their troops, and many of them don't really want to do anything to change the current situation much. These culture wars are terrific to run on. If they outlawed abortion, they would scare off swing voters and energize the other side's base.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
But what do you base this "sufficiently human" concept on? I know what Ty bases it on. You are sufficiently human if you do not depend on a PARTICULAR person to live.

Do you have trouble reading, or are you just trying to vex me? The latter, I think. I said the question is not whether feti are human or not, since we all know they are.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think they're happier having abortion and Roe to rally their troops, and many of them don't really want to do anything to change the current situation much. These culture wars are terrific to run on. If they outlawed abortion, they would scare off swing voters and energize the other side's base.

My impression, at least at the local level, is that the Repubs are slowly but surely casting out the hard-core, single-issue anti-abortion idealogues, and moving to a more centrist, let's-not-make-this-our-defining-issue position. The bulk of the remainder are probably still pro-life, but I don't think we're going to see any more possible candidates rejected for the one sin of not being "sufficiently pro-life" like we have in the past. I also see the (again, local) Dems being more moderate in this regard, too, being willing to work for and elect candidates who don't make preservation and expansion of abortion availability a central philosophy.

It's as if two semi-intelligent people were slowly and simultaneously backing away from a chasm. And so, of course, it must not be true.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Que?

Just testing to see if you were paying attention.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
My impression, at least at the local level, is that the Repubs are slowly but surely casting out the hard-core, single-issue anti-abortion idealogues, and moving to a more centrist, let's-not-make-this-our-defining-issue position. The bulk of the remainder are probably still pro-life, but I don't think we're going to see any more possible candidates rejected for the one sin of not being "sufficiently pro-life" like we have in the past.

You just haven't seen a Republican primary race for a few years. Wait till the run up to the '08 election and you will see potential candidates rejected for not being 100% against abortion.
It is our Achielle's heel (along with anti-gay shit).

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I said the question is not whether feti are human or not, since we all know they are.

So if they are human, WHY does viability change their legal status? That is the question I have never heard a satisfactory answer to. I am all ears.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You just haven't seen a Republican primary race for a few years. Wait till the run up to the '08 election and you will see potential candidates rejected for not being 100% against abortion.
It is our Achielle's heel (along with anti-gay shit).

What would you say the Dems Achille's heel is? Just curious (and trying to shift the debate away from abortion since I have humiliated my opponents and am now feeling bad for them).

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
So if they are human, WHY does viability change their legal status? That is the question I have never heard a satisfactory answer to. I am all ears.

Thomas Dew wrote a good book outlining this thought process. It's a social utility argument.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
My impression, at least at the local level, is that the Repubs are slowly but surely casting out the hard-core, single-issue anti-abortion idealogues, and moving to a more centrist, let's-not-make-this-our-defining-issue position. The bulk of the remainder are probably still pro-life, but I don't think we're going to see any more possible candidates rejected for the one sin of not being "sufficiently pro-life" like we have in the past. I also see the (again, local) Dems being more moderate in this regard, too, being willing to work for and elect candidates who don't make preservation and expansion of abortion availability a central philosophy.

It's as if two semi-intelligent people were slowly and simultaneously backing away from a chasm. And so, of course, it must not be true.

When you cast out Not Me, note that we are not taking it.