2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

No, it's not simple. That's why it's the women's choice.

Not worth the effort. Continue the whining and keep your head in the sand. It's easier that way, eh?

[ericredaxe]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I know someone who has had the child after being raped, and they are glad they did. I'm not saying nearly everyone feels that way, but this isn't the simple issue many try to style it as.

I totally respect her decision to keep the child. I would also totally respect a rape victims decision to terminate the pregnancy.

Why isn't it simple? It should be the choice of the rape victim and nobody else's. Seems pretty simple to me.

Edit: I noticed you dodged my question too....

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I totally respect her decision to keep the child. I would also totally respect a rape victims decision to terminate the pregnancy.

Why isn't it simple? It should be the choice of the rape victim and nobody else's. Seems pretty simple to me.

Edit: I noticed you dodged my question too....

I answered it by saying I knew someone who was pregnant via rape, and kept the child instead of aborting it.

This all goes back to how people view the right of a woman to do whatever she wants versus the right to life of the baby. Just another avenue of disagreement really. But, again, if a person meets someone who was a rape victim's child, it can make it at least a little harder for people to just quickly dismiss the situation.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I totally respect her decision to keep the child. I would also totally respect a rape victims decision to terminate the pregnancy.

Why isn't it simple? It should be the choice of the rape victim and nobody else's. Seems pretty simple to me.

Edit: I noticed you dodged my question too....

I respect his position. However, there is no way for them to have that position and not support forcing someone to carry their rapist child to term. It's not an easy position to have and I don't see any way that our society at this point in time can go that route.

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Typical dodge of the issue.

Bob, forcing rape victims via govt policy to have their rapists child is Talibanesque. I don't know if I know anybody who's the result of a crime such as this but it doesn't change my opinion one iota. Its the women's decision and her's alone to make that call, not yours. Nobody appointed you God Bob, and you and your ilk seem to struggle with that on this issue. Its barbaric to make a women go through that, essentially against her will which is how the pregnancy happened in the first place.

Now answer the question. Why do you think you have the right, via govt policy, to force these women to accept your view on what they should do? I await your response.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Bob, forcing rape victims via govt policy to have their rapists child is Talibanesque. I don't know if I know anybody who's the result of a crime such as this but it doesn't change my opinion one iota. Its the women's decision and her's alone to make that call, not yours. Nobody appointed you God Bob, and you and your ilk seem to struggle with that on this issue. Its barbaric to make a women go through that, essentially against her will which is how the pregnancy happened in the first place.

Now answer the question. Why do you think you have the right, via govt policy, to force these women to accept your view on what they should do? I await your response.

The question becomes what does God want? Every child is a precious gift, but did God really want the rape to happen?

It certainly is a paradox.

[unofan]

Ever met a person who was a rape victim's child? If you do, you won't find it so easy to tell that person they should have been aborted.

Ever met a rape victim? If you do, you won't find it so easy to tell that person they should've been forced to carry their rapists child. (Key word, forced).

[Critical Thinker]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Now answer the question. Why do you think you have the right, via govt policy, to force these women to accept your view on what they should do? I await your response.

http://blog.chron.com/tubular/files/...its-a-trap.gif

[Priceless]

THIS pretty much lays waste to conservative theory about tax cuts spurring job growth. Fron CNBC today and I'm surprised they allowed it to be printed given how much they carry the water for Republicans.

Please trim this to 4 paragraphs and while you're at it, wrap quoted material in quote tags.

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Please trim this to 4 paragraphs and while you're at it, wrap quoted material in quote tags.

I think that's the board moderator's job.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I think that's the board moderator's job.

The supply siders won't respond and they'll post the same drivel over and over again in the economy thread. They love disproven theories as much as they love equating belief to scientific fact.

[Priceless]

I think that's the board moderator's job.

It is, but the board moderator is sick in bed and doesn't want to get up and log in to his computer. If he has to do so I'll bet he won't be in a good mood.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

The supply siders won't respond and they'll post the same drivel over and over again in the economy thread. They love disproven theories as much as they love equating belief to scientific fact.

An ideology can never fail, it can only be failed.

[Handyman]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

An ideology can never fail, it can only be failed.

*******http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/23...b8.jpg********

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Mind you I'm no fan of the guy, but you're pooh poohing his chances by putting him in the same category as O'Malley and Warner. I'm discounting a Biden bid for right now due to his age (73) at the time of the election. Thinking dispassionately for a second, Cuomo has 1) name recognition, 2) the ability to raise big bucks from his Wall St pals, 3) some bipartisan creds since he inexplicably went along with the GOP running the state Senate even though they're in the minority over there (long story) and 4) I believe was the driving force in NY being the first state to legalize gay marriage legislatively.

Beyond that, he pretty much locks down places like PA that Republicans always slobber over even though they haven't won the state since 1988. He can also reach out to the other Rust Belt states such as Ohio. Really, that's all he needs provided Hispanic heavy states of NV and NM stay home. Provided he can avoid a scandal (a big IF as he seems a little oily) I don't see the O'Malley's or Schweitzer's of the world keeping up with him.

So, no Hillary + no Biden = Cuomo IMHO. Not saying I like that, but he'd be tough to stop for the nomination.

OK, I understand your argument, anyway. I could nit pick but the primaries are so far in the future let's just see what happens between now and the announcements in the early part of '15.

Here is a fairly comprehensive (including the Comments) discussion of a bone of contention that occasionally surfaces between us: TINA vs Leftward Ho! I personally think too much is made of it and it is really a matter of emphasis: some are playing offense and want to move the Dems towards more just policies, some are playing defense and want to ensure we don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. I think we both get that.

This is an interesting time to be a liberal because, for the first time in my political lifetime anyway, the current is going our way. That can change, and even if it doesn't it can still be blown, but we might want to look at the right's successes and mistakes during their period of dominance from 1978 - 2005. There was a similar split, between the "realist" wing who backed compromise policies, and the "idealist" wing who figured hey, the people have given us power, so let's USE it. The rhetorical differences between these groups were not that big and in any case were purely pragmatic: you give the stem winder to the spear carriers and the "adults in the room" spiel to the general staff. But the policies advocated by each wing were very different.

Judged in terms of getting their agenda through, the right actually did a very effective job during most of that period. They weren't able to drive us back to the Stone Age, but they got pretty far back into the Iron Age. The two things they simply could not do were dismantle Social Security and Medicare, because those institutions obviously and directly benefitted a group (the middle class) who were too powerful to roll over. This suggests that a comparable record of success for us will be, between now and say 2030, continuing to expand health care towards universality and single payer, but not being able to do much to curtail corporate welfare or the warfare state (the latter of which, truth be told, also serves as an enormous jobs program and is a bipartisan monstrosity).

But just as the right was able to open up enormous deficits by slashing top bracket taxes we should be able to close the deficits down by restoring a sane tax structure, and just as the right was able to attach all sorts of onerous social engineering exceptions and pressures into domestic policy to push their social agenda, we should be able to clean that out and restore some degree of equal protection under the law. That will follow naturally from Court composition as long as there is a decent winning streak. (The right was able to lurch the court system -- not just the Supremes but the whole federal structure -- to the far right by holding the Oval Office just 70% of the time between 1968 and 2006; the Dems will equal that record between 1992 and 2030 if they win 3 of the next 4 elections, which given EV and demographic realities looks quite doable, even when the GOP breaks out of its bitter-old-rural-white-male nosedive sometime within the next decade).