US Presidential Elections 2008 (2 Viewers)

There's no different between democrats and republicans. There's a definite similarity between double-knit pant suits and potatoes. IF THE SPUD FITS, WEAR IT!
 
oh shit said:
not to radically alter the thread too much i hope
but this seems as good a place as any

i think that the one thing that the american prochoice movement sometimes fails to realise is that roe v wade was a fundamentally undemocratic move (ie a judgement made by unelected supreme court judges) based on very shaky legal reasoning (the presiding judge in a 1992 bbc interview said he read into 'the lacuna' of the constitutional right to privacy that the state could not intervene to prevent abortion).

it was made at a time when the court was mostly made up of liberally minded judges, and some of the other judges involved have spoken about personal experiences that informed their decision. fine. up until around the 1930s, the supreme court had been dominated by conservatives, who struck down a lot of progressive redistributive policies in the name of 'the right to property'. this was simply the outcome of a swing to more progressively minded legal experts making their way to the top of their profession. many liberal legal theorists, notably ronnie dworkin, celebrated this 'judicial activism' as the means by which new rights would be progressively created to protect people from the tyranny of government.

but in the aftermath of roe v wade the anti-choice movement were not happy. first they tried to challenge the constitution (!) before realising they'd have better success in politically supporting presidential candidates who would appoint conservative judges. it started with reagan, who was elected with the help of many anti-choice democrats. and that's more or less why the evangelical movement has grown so strong in the presidential races, and why the republican party has become the christian right party.

so saying 'i will overturn roe v wade' means 'i will appoint conservative judges to the supreme court', which means 'i want the votes from this massive political machine which was established as a result of roe v wade'.

in effect, if you think that the judicial activism which allowed the right to abortion to be created is ok, then you have to accept that the same mechanism can be used to overturn it. pandora's box is already open.
Click to expand...


Um, wait, people who are pro-choice are responsible for the rise in evangelical right-wing Christians?

Christ. That's a bit of a reactionary view there.

Also, I know what Roe v Wade means, dude, but thanks for the lesson. I know it's on shaky ground, and I know that the supreme court is appointed, not elected.

It doesn't really mean anything to say it's 'undemocratic' because if it is -- which may well be true -- then the supreme court is undemocratic by nature. I'm sure you could reasonably argue that it is not democratic to have major decisions made by unelected people, but I'm just asking if that's what you mean, or if just Roe v Wade was?
 
jane said:
Um, wait, people who are pro-choice are responsible for the rise in evangelical right-wing Christians?

Christ. That's a bit of a reactionary view there.

Also, I know what Roe v Wade means, dude, but thanks for the lesson. I know it's on shaky ground, and I know that the supreme court is appointed, not elected.

It doesn't really mean anything to say it's 'undemocratic' because if it is -- which may well be true -- then the supreme court is undemocratic by nature. I'm sure you could reasonably argue that it is not democratic to have major decisions made by unelected people, but I'm just asking if that's what you mean, or if just Roe v Wade was?
Click to expand...

jane,
firstly, i wasn't writing to attack you, or even to address you specifically. i'm sure you know how the supreme court works. i'm equally sure that many irish people do not.

secondly, using the word 'responsible' like that is just putting words in my mouth. you've completely missed my point. i thought you know me well enough to at least presume that's not what i meant. i've never been called reactionary before, what fun.

finally, the very heart of the matter is in its undemocratic nature. if it still isn't clear, my point is that the prochoice movement (which you know i'm supportive of) might want to stop thinking simply of a 'right to abortion' in the united states, or indeed anywhere. in fact 'rights' are completely dependent upon power politics, and if one looks at the history of the rise of the evangelical movement in the united states one might think that a similar engagement is constantly required, rather than a faith in the idea of 'inalienable rights' as such, which has lead to complacency.

of course, you know this already, but as i said above, i wasn't actually attacking you.
cheers
 
nlgbbbblth said:
is every state having a caucus like Iowa?

all on separate days yeah?
Click to expand...


Yes and no, not all on different days, Super Tuesday for instance has a load on the same day. But, yes to everyone having them. Although they are not all the same somehow. Well, some are caucuses, like Iowa, and some are primaries.
Primaries are more formal elections things, Caucuses are more ad hoc in your gaff type of things. People sort of line up for the Caucuses and post votes for the Primaries.
I dunno. They are different somehow anyway, and everyone has them I think, and then they select the party nomination.



Who is going to be Obama. With Edwards being his wing man.

And we will never have to see or hear from another Clinton, or Bush ever again.

Ever.
The end.



edit, found a link there...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7049207.stm
 
"Hi, I'm Governor Mike Huckabee from Arkansas, and I would like to say congratulations, Canada, on saving your national igloo."

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.



as an aside - you could do similar vox pops all over europe and have worse answers. I didn't know canada was split into provinces - that kid knew.
 
oh shit said:
jane,
firstly, i wasn't writing to attack you, or even to address you specifically. i'm sure you know how the supreme court works. i'm equally sure that many irish people do not.

secondly, using the word 'responsible' like that is just putting words in my mouth. you've completely missed my point. i thought you know me well enough to at least presume that's not what i meant. i've never been called reactionary before, what fun.

finally, the very heart of the matter is in its undemocratic nature. if it still isn't clear, my point is that the prochoice movement (which you know i'm supportive of) might want to stop thinking simply of a 'right to abortion' in the united states, or indeed anywhere. in fact 'rights' are completely dependent upon power politics, and if one looks at the history of the rise of the evangelical movement in the united states one might think that a similar engagement is constantly required, rather than a faith in the idea of 'inalienable rights' as such, which has lead to complacency.

of course, you know this already, but as i said above, i wasn't actually attacking you.
cheers
Click to expand...

But I think one of the problems is that most pro-choicers have *never* become complacent because it's always been clear that Roe v Wade was not enough, and did not amount to abortion on demand. And I can absolutely see your point that there was a knock-on effect among evangelicals, but it just sounded like support for Roe v Wade means support for judges behaving as judges should not (i.e., if someone is a really good judge, his or her personal politics shouldn't matter at all, although that would imply they were open minded and thus 'liberal', so, like QED), but it's not. It may be because there was a continued activism that so many pro-lifers were incensed -- why continue to fight for a right you are already presumed to have (whether or not this is true) unless you're actually after all the foetuses in the land? The fact is, everyone who knows about reproductive legislation feels uneasy about Roe v Wade, mainly because it's just not enough, and it just takes a few right-wing judges to overturn it and bring us back to the dark ages. I think it's still a state decision, but still, the reality is that it's easier for your average 19-year old in Connemara to get an abortion than it is for her counterpart in the American South, unless she happens to live near one of the few cities that has a PP clinic that performs abortions.

But that doesn't mean that the rise in evangelical crazies was a result of Roe v Wade. They have never needed to be on the rise -- they've always been there, and they've dominated American politics for a hell of a long time. We look at more liberal administrations and think -- hope, maybe -- that that's the norm, but unfortunately, that's not true. The evangelical conservative right is not on the rise, nor did they rise in the last twenty years -- they've been on top the whole time, with the liberal administrations a blip on the political timeline. Look at the Red Scare from the earlier 20th century, which often goes overlooked. Look at McCarthyism. I think the 'rise' is perhaps a misconception -- in fact, the left has become much wussier, more intellectual, and less 'of the people', which makes it look like the right has got more power when actually, a lot of the left spends time and energy on internet one-upmanship that used to be spent on real activism.

Pro choice activists, though, have *never* been complacent. Partly because you can't be when you've got maddos bombing clinics that aren't doing anything illegal. I think I've told this story before, but my folks took us to a church one time that was stormed by pro-life crazies who swarmed and jostled us as we came out. It was really scary for me because I was twelve or so, and some lunatic with one eye had me by the shoulders, screaming in my face about not killing my baby. I was terrified, and it certainly wasn't going to make me join their cause. Looking back, physically and verbally abusing a child is not really a good way to garner support for your so-called protection of God's children.

One of the problems is that there isn't any solid argument that is goign to make everyone agree. Like gun control. I don't like guns or hard drugs and I wish we could get rid of all of them, but we can't, so we have to acknowledge reality and find realistic ways of dealing with their existence.

My initial point was that if someone claims to be libertarian, that view should be applied to all 'government in your business', and that because Roe v Wade was a privacy decision, the irony of Mr Ron Paul wanting to overturn it was double-fucked. After all, he wants private individuals to have privacy, only the first thing he wants to do (which you usefully point out he *can't* do because it's the court's job) is overturn a major privacy ruling.

ANYWAY, back to the election. I truly feel despair. I can't shake it. How do older lefties do it? I mean, continue to be bothered? It's something between apathy and despair, but I feel doomish no matter who wins. It's gonna be the worst fucking sloppy-seconds presidency ever. I hope it's Obama, but the guy's gonna have such a major job on his hands that he won't really get to show his stuff. The other worry I have is that nearer the election time, if the Republicans look like they're gonna take a beating, I *REALLY* worry about either 'increased terror alerts' or an actual 'attack'. We can expect to 'go to orange' a good few times around September and October of this year. And maybe we'll even be at red or orange on Election day, meaning really high-security at the polling places, and thus lots of would-be Dems prevented from voting. See? I'm doomish. The Humans appear to be winning, and I'm still assuming there's disaster ahead.
 
jane said:
But I think one of the problems is that most pro-choicers have *never* become complacent because it's always been clear that Roe v Wade was not enough, and did not amount to abortion on demand. And I can absolutely see your point that there was a knock-on effect among evangelicals, but it just sounded like support for Roe v Wade means support for judges behaving as judges should not (i.e., if someone is a really good judge, his or her personal politics shouldn't matter at all, although that would imply they were open minded and thus 'liberal', so, like QED), but it's not. It may be because there was a continued activism that so many pro-lifers were incensed -- why continue to fight for a right you are already presumed to have (whether or not this is true) unless you're actually after all the foetuses in the land? The fact is, everyone who knows about reproductive legislation feels uneasy about Roe v Wade, mainly because it's just not enough, and it just takes a few right-wing judges to overturn it and bring us back to the dark ages. I think it's still a state decision, but still, the reality is that it's easier for your average 19-year old in Connemara to get an abortion than it is for her counterpart in the American South, unless she happens to live near one of the few cities that has a PP clinic that performs abortions.

But that doesn't mean that the rise in evangelical crazies was a result of Roe v Wade. They have never needed to be on the rise -- they've always been there, and they've dominated American politics for a hell of a long time. We look at more liberal administrations and think -- hope, maybe -- that that's the norm, but unfortunately, that's not true. The evangelical conservative right is not on the rise, nor did they rise in the last twenty years -- they've been on top the whole time, with the liberal administrations a blip on the political timeline. Look at the Red Scare from the earlier 20th century, which often goes overlooked. Look at McCarthyism. I think the 'rise' is perhaps a misconception -- in fact, the left has become much wussier, more intellectual, and less 'of the people', which makes it look like the right has got more power when actually, a lot of the left spends time and energy on internet one-upmanship that used to be spent on real activism.

Pro choice activists, though, have *never* been complacent. Partly because you can't be when you've got maddos bombing clinics that aren't doing anything illegal. I think I've told this story before, but my folks took us to a church one time that was stormed by pro-life crazies who swarmed and jostled us as we came out. It was really scary for me because I was twelve or so, and some lunatic with one eye had me by the shoulders, screaming in my face about not killing my baby. I was terrified, and it certainly wasn't going to make me join their cause. Looking back, physically and verbally abusing a child is not really a good way to garner support for your so-called protection of God's children.

One of the problems is that there isn't any solid argument that is goign to make everyone agree. Like gun control. I don't like guns or hard drugs and I wish we could get rid of all of them, but we can't, so we have to acknowledge reality and find realistic ways of dealing with their existence.

My initial point was that if someone claims to be libertarian, that view should be applied to all 'government in your business', and that because Roe v Wade was a privacy decision, the irony of Mr Ron Paul wanting to overturn it was double-fucked. After all, he wants private individuals to have privacy, only the first thing he wants to do (which you usefully point out he *can't* do because it's the court's job) is overturn a major privacy ruling.

ANYWAY, back to the election. I truly feel despair. I can't shake it. How do older lefties do it? I mean, continue to be bothered? It's something between apathy and despair, but I feel doomish no matter who wins. It's gonna be the worst fucking sloppy-seconds presidency ever. I hope it's Obama, but the guy's gonna have such a major job on his hands that he won't really get to show his stuff. The other worry I have is that nearer the election time, if the Republicans look like they're gonna take a beating, I *REALLY* worry about either 'increased terror alerts' or an actual 'attack'. We can expect to 'go to orange' a good few times around September and October of this year. And maybe we'll even be at red or orange on Election day, meaning really high-security at the polling places, and thus lots of would-be Dems prevented from voting. See? I'm doomish. The Humans appear to be winning, and I'm still assuming there's disaster ahead.
Click to expand...

Hey Jane, I found this cool article you might like to read:

http://ezinearticles.com/?When-Do-You-Need-an-Editor?&id=227727
 
I think the American people got an important reminder of what may happen if they elect a woman president. Do they really want somebody who'll burst into tears if everything doesn't go her way in the middle east or whatever.
 
Wobbler said:
I think the American people got an important reminder of what may happen if they elect a woman president. Do they really want somebody who'll burst into tears if everything doesn't go her way in the middle east or whatever.
Click to expand...

Possibly the most embarassing thing I've seen on TV.
 
jane said:
Editing takes me a really long time and since I've already been told numerous times that no one reads my posts or has much interest in anything I have to say, I don't see why I should put extra time into them.
Click to expand...

throw in a few dick jokes.
 
Who put those tags on there?

My ma and da used to get mistaken for Geraldine Ferraro and Michael Dukakis around the late 1980s. It was really funny. They only looked like them from a distance (until you notice that my dad only has regular eyebrows), but many a curious onlooker thought they'd stumbled onto a torrid secret affair.

My dad got it more often than my mom, but partly because he worked in the government buildings in Boston, so people kind of assumed "Guy who looks like the governor near the government buildings must be governor," although he did find himself occasionally addressed as 'governor' by strangers.

Geraldine Ferraro is cool.

I don't care if Hilary Clinton cries, but then, I only heard it on the radio and even then I was cringing a bit: "Oh, no, she's gonna sob!"

Cock poop gee boobies. (as requested)
 
New posts

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Activity
So far there's no one here
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.

Similar threads

flashback
  • Question
Am I completely fucked in the head?
Replies
4
Views
650
7 - No tomorrow
7 - No tomorrow
тхеодоре кацзынски
General Election 2016
18 19 20
Replies
388
Views
41K
Cormcolash
Cormcolash
pete
[Jun 16, 2015] Circuit des Yeux (Upstairs at Whelan's)
Replies
0
Views
891
pete
pete
U
this tuesday (may 31) Meat Puppets, Button Factory
Replies
1
Views
874
jay69
jay69
U
This tuesday (may 31) Meat Puppets, Button Factory
Replies
0
Views
899
u:m
U

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...

Upgrade now

Latest threads

Latest Activity

Loading…
Back
Top