So, what next for Americans

Last night, I posted a sincere pledge to do my part to improve the lot of the country in the coming years and support our new president and congress in making some improvements to our national well-being.

I'm curious if some of our more civic minded Democrats (not the partisan ones, please) could offer some suggestions on ways in which I, a some-what repentant member of the vast right wing conspiracy can contribute to the cause in the coming months and years. In other words, not in the name of the Democratic party, but in the name of the country and good governance for all citizens, what would you have us do? I welcome all suggestions, and I am willing to keep an open mind about most things, but I cannot say I can write you a blank check and blindly support things I am philosophically opposed to, like Card-Check.

So, suggest away. Bring us in under your big tent. ~:pat:

I will not abandon my ideals but I am willing to compromise. I give Obama my full support he has a clean slate as POTUS and we should treat him as such.

I agree with Strike. As an Obama supporter I am still nervous to see what he will do. We should give him some time to get his administration together, listen to the man and see how he turns out. I think one thing everyone can do is speak out against the intolerance coming from some groups and try to work together to create solutions to our countries many problems. I think it's too early for me to really say any concrete ways you can help move our country forward, but I think fighting intolerance and partisanship through conversation with those close to you can be a good first step.

Just as a note I am not, nor do I plan to ever be registered as a member of a political party. This election I voted for at least two parties, but by now I've voted for at least three and generally don't pay attention to party lines so I'm definitely not just saying that to get Republicans to work with the near filibuster proof Democratic majorities. Such majorities would actually worry me a lot.

The best thing you and your country can do is lead the way on a grown up attitude to drug use. The world's prisons are overflowing and criminal gangs have never been richer. Sort it out!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

The best thing you and your country can do is lead the way on a grown up attitude to drug use. The world's prisons are overflowing and criminal gangs have never been richer. Sort it out!

---

agreed it should all be legal

Now that election season is over, I am hesitant to praise or criticize Obama until he actually does something as President of the United States. Only then we shall see what direction America will take, and whether it will be the same direction that America should take.

EDIT: This post was taken the wrong way. Yes, I do know what both candidates had planned. But McCain is done, and nothing is going to change that, so we might as well see what Obama is going to do - not talk about or promise, but do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

agreed it should all be legal

---

Yeah... errr... good luck with getting that through...

Don, I would say that looking at things from the long-term perspective is the best thing that can be done for your country. For example, if you get a tax increase this year, accept that it is going towards the greater good of your community in the form of infrastructure. Things that can build your economy in a more Interventionist state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Last night, I posted a sincere pledge to do my part to improve the lot of the country in the coming years and support our new president and congress in making some improvements to our national well-being.

I'm curious if some of our more civic minded Democrats (not the partisan ones, please) could offer some suggestions on ways in which I, a some-what repentant member of the vast right wing conspiracy can contribute to the cause in the coming months and years. In other words, not in the name of the Democratic party, but in the name of the country and good governance for all citizens, what would you have us do? I welcome all suggestions, and I am willing to keep an open mind about most things, but I cannot say I can write you a blank check and blindly support things I am philosophically opposed to, like Card-Check.

So, suggest away. Bring us in under your big tent. ~:pat:

---

You wanna help BHO? Work hard so he can tax your success. You don't want to be selfish. Remember, successful people will continue to do what made them successful and the unsuccessful will keep doing what's made them unsuccessful. When BHO sends out that welfare check (which will probably never happen) he's calling his "middle class tax cut" some of that money will be spent intelligently and with common sense, but I'm sure most of it will be wasted on those that don't have a clue as to how to spend thier own money. I'm going to use my check and buy stock in Kools and colt 45, I'll make a killing. Of course, that profit will be taken from BHO. Damn, what a vicious cycle. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Yeah... errr... good luck with getting that through...

Don, I would say that looking at things from the long-term perspective is the best thing that can be done for your country. For example, if you get a tax increase this year, accept that it is going towards the greater good of your community in the form of infrastructure. Things that can build your economy in a more Interventionist state.

---

HAHAHAHA!!! Good one, oh, wait, you're being serious....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

You wanna help BHO? Work hard so he can tax your success. You don't want to be selfish. Remember, successful people will continue to do what made them successful and the unsuccessful will keep doing what's made them unsuccessful. When BHO sends out that welfare check (which will probably never happen) he's calling his "middle class tax cut" some of that money will be spent intelligently and with common sense, but I'm sure most of it will be wasted on those that don't have a clue as to how to spend thier own money. I'm going to use my check and buy stock in Kools and colt 45, I'll make a killing. Of course, that profit will be taken from BHO. Damn, what a vicious cycle. :wall:

---

HAHAHAHA!!! Good one, oh, wait, you're being serious....

Quote:

---

For example, if you get a tax increase this year, accept that it is going towards the greater good of your community in the form of infrastructure. Things that can build your economy in a more Interventionist state.

---

But it isn't, necessarily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

But it isn't, necessarily.

---

Sure it is, God knows the government is the best group of trusted individuals to spend your own money....:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Last night, I posted a sincere pledge to do my part to improve the lot of the country in the coming years and support our new president and congress in making some improvements to our national well-being.

I'm curious if some of our more civic minded Democrats (not the partisan ones, please) could offer some suggestions on ways in which I, a some-what repentant member of the vast right wing conspiracy can contribute to the cause in the coming months and years. In other words, not in the name of the Democratic party, but in the name of the country and good governance for all citizens, what would you have us do? I welcome all suggestions, and I am willing to keep an open mind about most things, but I cannot say I can write you a blank check and blindly support things I am philosophically opposed to, like Card-Check.

So, suggest away. Bring us in under your big tent. ~:pat:

---

Very simply, Don, I think the best single thing all of us, including yourself, could do, is ask what is best for the big picture and the next generation. Thinking of what's best for me, what's best for my tax outlook this april, what's best for my assets, what's best for my tax cut, or (in the case of companies) what's best for this quarter's profit, with no regard given to the greater picture, and only focusing on maximizing short-term immediate advantage regardless of the cost in the long-term, is precisely the thinking that, universally (individual, corporate, government) brought us to the point we are at right now. With a 10 trillion dollar debt and enormous deficit, with the oil companies posting enormous profits, and Wall Street collapsing on its own greed and opportunism and getting paid off for it-- after CEO's already walked away with their golden parachutes shortly before the crash, and many walking away from foreclosures on their homes.

Always being cynical, and thinking well, government is always corrupt, wasteful and incompetent, so my only interest is making it weak enough to throttle to death, with minimal taxes, and no safety net for others, and pawning off the debt of the costs of today on the generations of tomorrow is very uncivic, but it has been the law of the land and the complete norm for years now. Maybe a generation, even-- more than just a matter of a couple years or a couple of administrations.

Part of doing what's best for say, your daughters, and their daughters, and everyone else's kids, may on occasion mean doing what's not 100% best for you, economically or financially, in the immediate short term. You of course know this as a parent as you sacrifice for your children everyday I am sure. But what we as Americans lack is the greater sense that it's counterproductive to invest in education for your kids, individually, today, while selling away their entire generation's future tomorrow to Exxon and China and private interests so that we can all keep our SUV's, daily morning lattes and tax refunds which we use for an annual trip to Hawaii, or whatever the case may be.

I think, in the long-run, no matter how profitable in the short-term, pandering to greed never helps us as a country. Did, for example, the heavy lobbying efforts to fight and prevent fuel efficiency standard increases on our automobile industries help them, in the long-run? GM may get out of cars. All have had big layoffs. And none are truly competitive with Japan and other cutting edge fuel dependance-reducing platforms. It helped some quarterly profitability reports for a number of years but, in the end result, it sabotaged and doomed American automaking to its present fate. The same sort of equation is true for almost everything when greed in the present is catered to as good for its own sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Don, I would say that looking at things from the long-term perspective is the best thing that can be done for your country. For example, if you get a tax increase this year, accept that it is going towards the greater good of your community in the form of infrastructure. Things that can build your economy in a more Interventionist state.

---

Yes, it will go to infrastructure.... oh and into my pocket. That should make you feel better Don. If your taxes go up, some of it will be going straight into my wallet. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Yeah... errr... good luck with getting that through...

Don, I would say that looking at things from the long-term perspective is the best thing that can be done for your country. For example, if you get a tax increase this year, accept that it is going towards the greater good of your community in the form of infrastructure. Things that can build your economy in a more Interventionist state.

---

isnt that communism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

isnt that communism?

---

Yeah. Police are communist. Having a military is communist. Having a government at all is communist. Schools are communist. Foreign aid to Israel that we all have to pay for in taxes is communist.

By the standard you are using, anyhow.

Foreign aid to Israel is not communism b/c its not for the common good of this country by your standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

agreed it should all be legal decriminalized

---

Fixed.~:wacko:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Fixed.~:wacko:

---

It really depends on the drug.

For example cannabis should be outright legalized and regulated like alcohol.

For harder drugs such as cocaine and such, I'd say yes decriminalization is the best option.

Excuse my ignorance as I am not an American, nor have I paid that much attention to the election.

But this kind of disturbed me...

Quote:

---

Now that election season is over, I am hesitant to praise or criticize Obama until he actually does something as President of the United States. Only then we shall see what direction America will take, and whether it will be the same direction that America should take.

---

Should you not know WHAT the new POTUS has planned? How can you chose one candidate over another unless you know what they have planned? Their stance on Iraq and the world ecomonic crisis for example? Otherwise any election must surely must turn into a popularity contest with out any substance?

Obviously politicans lie, or at the least stretch the truth so that maybe what EMFM meant. Does he withhold 100% support till he sees how many promises BHO will keep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

isnt that communism?

---

Errr... speaking about a community is Communist now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

Foreign aid to Israel is not communism b/c its not for the common good of this country by your standards.

---

Where did I make the distinction of "this country?"

If we talk about what's good for the whole community... the whole community might be democracy, or western culture, or first world nations, or insert your grouping really.

Calling money being spent on something YOU DON'T LIKE "Communist" is ridiculous, it gets into the realm of completely meaningless because then everything can be called Communist if taxmoney pays for it and not everyone wants it. Israel is most certainly SUBSIDIZED by the United States. If Israel were a single mom instead of a country in the Middle East would the same arguments be used to justify sending tax money to her?

Think not.

i personally was talking about obamas planned policy of wealth distribution but ok.... :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

i personally was talking about obamas planned policy of wealth distribution but ok.... :2thumbsup:

---

So... explain why his plan is "communist" but forcing taxmoney into private no-bid paramilitary contracts is not "communist." Both are wealth redistribution.

As I said, this argument is really dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Diablo

But this kind of disturbed me...

Should you not know WHAT the new POTUS has planned? How can you chose one candidate over another unless you know what they have planned? Their stance on Iraq and the world ecomonic crisis for example? Otherwise any election must surely must turn into a popularity contest with out any substance?

---

Welcome to the post-war generation American landscape! Please enjoy our fine assortment of melamine tainted candies made in China. We hope you enjoy your stay!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

i personally was talking about obamas planned policy of wealth distribution but ok.... :2thumbsup:

---

Communism - Placing the entire means of production in the working class to create a classless society.
Wealth Redistribution - Taking from some people to give to others.

They are not the same thing.

Quote:

---

Otherwise any election must surely must turn into a popularity contest with out any substance?

---

Getting upset about this after three presidential campaigns of "he's a guy you could have a beer with" and "WOW she's so down to earth I could just have lunch with her" is a bit late, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Diablo

Should you not know WHAT the new POTUS has planned?

---

I do. That is what I based my position on in the election campaign. With his victory, I am inclined to withdraw my moral support for the other candidate and see what Obama does. Why don't we see what legislation actually goes through before we judge the Obama Presidency?

I am making the distinction between "campaign" and "Presidency" in this case. Nothing more. We should wait until he does something as President before praising him as Obamamessiah - and we should wait until he does something before we begin detracting him.

The point I am trying to make is the old adage, that actions speak louder than words.

taking money from people who are wealthy and giving it to those who arent as successful is a major part of communism.
the government isnt forcibly taking money from anyone to give to the poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I do. That is what I based my position on in the election campaign. With his victory, I am inclined to withdraw my support for the other candidate and give Obama a chance.

---

I'm seriously not trying to be rude here, but I find this a really bizarre statement coming from someone who isn't American. Do you have a house here and live here part of the year or something? This statement just seems really odd from someone who isn't a citizen and doesn't vote here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

theres a difference b/w taking money from people who are wealthy and giving it to those who arent as successful is a major part of communism.
the government isnt forcibly taking money from anyone to give to the poor.

---

Ahhhhh!.... so taking from the poor and middle to give to huge transnational defense contractors and Wall Street, is NOT Communism. Or spending on the taxpayer's credit card, to be repaid later with tax money, to give tax cuts to the rich now--- NOT Communism.

Taking from the wealthy in the form of taxes, for things like education and repaired roads and college grants... IS Communism.

Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about.

youre probably right.....
this should teach me to not go on these forums when im drunk....
w/e

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I'm seriously not trying to be rude here, but I find this a really bizarre statement coming from someone who isn't American. Do you have a house here and live here part of the year or something? This statement just seems really odd from someone who isn't a citizen and doesn't vote here.

---

No, you don't understand me. I have no influence over Obama or his victory, and why shouldn't I, as a person - not a voter, just a person - give Obama a chance in my view to see if I end up liking his Presidency or not? The influence of the American election isn't limited to America, you know. Guess what is at the top of the Die Welt website right now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

No, you don't understand me. I have no influence over Obama or his victory, and why shouldn't I, as a person - not a voter, just a person - give Obama a chance in my view to see if I end up liking his Presidency or not?

---

I understand what you mean. You just phrased it in a really bizarre way, that made you sound like an opposition party Congressman or something who was "considering" supporting Obama. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I understand what you mean. You just phrased it in a really bizarre way, that made you sound like an opposition party Congressman or something who was "considering" supporting Obama. ;)

---

I see. I rephrased that post a little bit, does it seem alright now? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I see. I rephrased that post a little bit, does it seem alright now? ~;)

---

Quite. Quite ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Diablo

Excuse my ignorance as I am not an American, nor have I paid that much attention to the election.

But this kind of disturbed me...



Should you not know WHAT the new POTUS has planned? How can you chose one candidate over another unless you know what they have planned? Their stance on Iraq and the world ecomonic crisis for example? Otherwise any election must surely must turn into a popularity contest with out any substance?

Obviously politicans lie, or at the least stretch the truth so that maybe what EMFM meant. Does he withhold 100% support till he sees how many promises BHO will keep.

---

Welcome to the mindset of the Oamamania lovefest; Let's elect a guy who "talks great for a black guy" as Joe Biden, his VP said https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxWSVXZVR4c , and we know nothing about even though by the age of 47, he's already wrote 2 autobiagraphies about himself!!! No, this guy isn't arrogant or borderline sociopath!!! This empty suit would have been exposed if the leftist media wasn't spunking all over themselves to get him elected. :beam:

Way to answer the OT, Dave...

DC, was my answer sufficiently nonpartisan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Way to answer the OT, Dave...

DC, was my answer sufficiently nonpartisan?

---

Yes, I think you were making an honest effort, and you know, I welcome the chance to be proven wrong (in terms of my beliefs leading up to this morning). I hope the next 4 years are about a more centralized, interventionist government that uses its power for the good of its citizens. I will state that it's a two way street. If the administration wants my continued hope and belief, they have to offer just cause for it. It's one thing for me to be a hopeful optimist. It's another to expect me to just quietly turn into a doormat.

I will say the choice of Rham Emmanuel as Obama's chief of staff doesn't give me warm fuzzies about 'reaching out'. The man is bright, disciplined and effective, but he's about as partisan as they come. At the same time, Obama's short list of Treasury secretaries gives me hope that Obama intends to reform Wall Street, not destroy it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Yes, I think you were making an honest effort, and you know, I welcome the chance to be proven wrong (in terms of my beliefs leading up to this morning). I hope the next 4 years are about a more centralized, interventionist government that uses its power for the good of its citizens. I will state that it's a two way street. If the administration wants my continued hope and belief, they have to offer just cause for it. It's one thing for me to be a hopeful optimist. It's another to expect me to just quietly turn into a doormat.

I will say the choice of Rham Emmanuel as Obama's chief of staff doesn't give me warm fuzzies about 'reaching out'. The man is bright, disciplined and effective, but he's about as partisan as they come. At the same time, Obama's short list of Treasury secretaries gives me hope that Obama intends to reform Wall Street, not destroy it.

---

I'm shocked you think we'd expect different, DC. A lot of us certainly made our discontent known when the Bush Admin did the opposite of what it, and its supporters, insisted it would do, over and over.

I think the only expectation would be to give it an honest shot. If you turn a naked eye on any political machine, of any kind, whatsoever, already preconvinced that it's evil and up to no good and against your interests, I am sure you will find reasons to believe it in every speech, every bill, every rider, every vote, every veto, etc. Bush can't claim to have had irrational, partisan opposition his whole two terms--- everyone was behind him after 9/11, and what happened after that was entirely the decisions he made, and the ideological bent he decided to pursue, and the fear tactics he tried to use to tie every possible issue into somehow being related to national security. Whether or not Obama will leave the starting gate with even half of what Bush had after 9/11, is up to Republicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I will say the choice of Rham Emmanuel as Obama's chief of staff doesn't give me warm fuzzies about 'reaching out'. The man is bright, disciplined and effective, but he's about as partisan as they come. At the same time, Obama's short list of Treasury secretaries gives me hope that Obama intends to reform Wall Street, not destroy it.

---

What? No, Rahm is a perfectly reasonable guy. :smash:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

The best Rahm Emanuel story is not the one about the decomposing two-and-a-half-foot fish he sent to a pollster who displeased him. It is not about the time - the many times - that he hung up on political contributors in a Chicago mayor's race, saying he was embarrassed to accept their $5,000 checks because they were $25,000 kind of guys. No, the definitive Rahm Emanuel story takes place in Little Rock, Ark., in the heady days after Bill Clinton was first elected President.

It was there that Emanuel, then Clinton's chief fund-raiser, repaired with George Stephanopoulos, Mandy Grunwald and other aides to Doe's, the campaign hangout. Revenge was heavy in the air as the group discussed the enemies - Democrats, Republicans, members of the press - who wronged them during the 1992 campaign. Clifford Jackson, the ex-friend of the President and peddler of the Clinton draft-dodging stories, was high on the list. So was William Donald Schaefer, then the Governor of Maryland and a Democrat who endorsed George Bush. Nathan Landow, the fund-raiser who backed the candidacy of Paul Tsongas, made it, too.

Suddenly Emanuel grabbed his steak knife and, as those who were there remeber it, shouted out the name of another enemy, lifted the knife, then brought it down with full force into the table.

''Dead!'' he screamed.

The group immediately joined in the cathartic release: ''Nat Landow! Dead! Cliff Jackson! Dead! Bill Schaefer! Dead!''

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Welcome to the mindset of the Oamamania lovefest...

---

Cheer up Dave. You know what they say... ~:pat:

Let's not even get into really nasty campaign management. A good high school friend that I am still in touch with worked on the McCain campaign, and was directly around Schmidt numerous times. And just those few stories.... the guy sounds like a monster. Even when a Republican staffer describes him.

Really competitive, borderline neurotic, controlling, bastard guys are tapped for this kind of job. It's just a matter of degree. I mean, the job description is basically "make me look really good and that other guy like a total :daisy:."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

What? No, Rahm is a perfectly reasonable guy. :smash:

---

Guy sounds like a punk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Really competitive, borderline neurotic, controlling, bastard guys are tapped for this kind of job. It's just a matter of degree. I mean, the job description is basically "make me look really good and that other guy like a total :daisy:."

---

Sounds like he's a real (Il-advised pun). :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Let's not even get into really nasty campaign management. A good high school friend that I am still in touch with worked on the McCain campaign, and was directly around Schmidt numerous times. And just those few stories.... the guy sounds like a monster. Even when a Republican staffer describes him.

Really competitive, borderline neurotic, controlling, bastard guys are tapped for this kind of job. It's just a matter of degree. I mean, the job description is basically "make me look really good and that other guy like a total douche."

---

But the point is, Rham Emmanuel won't be running a campaign, which by its very nature is partisan. Making a guy like that Chief of Staff in your White House sends a strong message what sort of dissent you're going to tolerate. There's lots of Democrats I respect, and I don't think Rham Emmanuel is a particularly ideological freak. But he is all about gutting anybody that disagrees with him. That's not coalition building.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Communism - Placing the entire means of production in the working class to create a classless society.
Wealth Redistribution - Taking from some people to give to others.

They are not the same thing.

---

One is communism, and the other is socialism. Those are both part of the so-called left-wing economies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Cheer up Dave. You know what they say... ~:pat:

---

Nothing makes me happier than a wonderful song during a cruxifiction. Thanks!!!:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I'm seriously not trying to be rude here, but I find this a really bizarre statement coming from someone who isn't American. Do you have a house here and live here part of the year or something? This statement just seems really odd from someone who isn't a citizen and doesn't vote here.

---

He lives in Germany and Canada I believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

One is communism, and the other is socialism. Those are both part of the so-called left-wing economies.

---

Socialism involves far more things than simple wealth redistribution. There is no way Obama even comes close to being a Socialist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Nothing makes me happier than a wonderful song during a cruxifiction. Thanks!!!:laugh4:

---

I thought that would cheer you up as you seemed so cross about the election. Hopefully on the third day you'll feel much better... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

taking money from people who are wealthy and giving it to those who arent as successful is a major part of communism.
the government isnt forcibly taking money from anyone to give to the poor.

---

Well thecnically, enforcing tax payments does not equal (is not in the same league) as 'foricibly taking'. And thecnically, 'giving it to those who arent as successful' is not at all communism. In an ideal communist state there be no such distinction possible to make.

Communism is the state form in which (in its idealised -I mean idealised Plato style- state) the distinction between two individuals is minimised as much as possible in the hope that given an equal status, and equal means of living, and an equal 'task' towards and share in society as a whole; people will be more happy. Well, thecnically not even that as it doesn't really consititute a state form, so much as an ideology whereby people live in one big commune and share the means of sustainance with each other on a basis of equality. One would say the communism is like giving each person equal shares in the stock of society; with the expectation individuals act prudent accordingly: to act in the best interest of the society/company/producing entity would (likely) see a rise in the worth of those shares, thereby increasing the wealth of the individual.

In practice however state forms modeled on communism tend to deviate from that pattern, and never achieve any sort of communism at all. These just use communism as a means of advertising themselves towards people who don't know better (just like anyone can advertise himself as a patriot towards any other [insert: fool] who's willing stupid enough to take that as measure of benovelence competence).

By origins the Jewish Kibbutz is decidedly communist. In practice however...

Neither work.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Right up until he signs FOCA into law - then it is no-holds-barred combat.

I plan to be in Washington for this years anniversary of the Roe verdict. My money is on the act being signed on that day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

I thought that would cheer you up as you seemed so cross about the election. Hopefully on the third day you'll feel much better... ~;)

---

:laugh4:

:applause:

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Right up until he signs FOCA into law - then it is no-holds-barred combat.

---

He is a co-sponsor of the bill and has said he would sign it. Don't get your hopes up.

Glad to hear you are giving him the benefit of the doubt until then though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

He is a co-sponsor of the bill and has said he would sign it. Don't get your hopes up.

Glad to hear you are giving him the benefit of the doubt until then though.

---

Sorry, Tuff, not only is FOCA going into affect, the determination the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (2002) will be repealed. I suggest if you're squeamish about infanticide, you drop the issue, because it's coming and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

The way to end abortion is not to legislate it out of existence and to raise the conciousness of the American people to where Europe is, where they consider abortion as a form of birth control to be grotesque, not chic.

Quote:

---

he's already wrote 2 autobiagraphies about himself!!!

---

Wow thats outrageous he should have written his autobiographies about someone else:2thumbsup:

Don, may I ask what I hope is a constructive question? - in no way do I mean to belittle anyone's beliefs here.

It strikes me that the biggest impediment to putting a decent and humane bill on abortion is the polarisation of the issue in the States. The left defends Roe versus Wade (a truly awful ruling, it seems to me) because the opposition will brook nothing less than the complete outlawing of abortion (understandable if one accepts their premise that abortion is murder).

Do you think it is possible that a Democratic president with a very strong mandate plus a compliant Congress might be able to address this issue thoughtfully? Perhaps to propose a bill (maybe even a Constitutional Amendment) that would set a limit of (ideally) 12 weeks for abortion (with slightly longer limits for serious medical issues) or even the European standard of 20 weeks? Would there be a possibility of bi-partisan support for this (since really important bills usually need this)? Or would opening the can of worms result in ignominious defeat?

Perhaps the Democratic party is too far gone on the pro-choice defensive, but I seem to recall President Clinton putting it very well: "Abortion should be legal, but very, very rare."

Am I too optimistic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Don, may I ask what I hope is a constructive question? - in no way do I mean to belittle anyone's beliefs here.

It strikes me that the biggest impediment to putting a decent and humane bill on abortion is the polarisation of the issue in the States. The left defends Roe versus Wade (a truly awful ruling, it seems to me) because the opposition will brook nothing less than the complete outlawing of abortion (understandable if one accepts their premise that abortion is murder).

Do you think it is possible that a Democratic president with a very strong mandate plus a compliant Congress might be able to address this issue thoughtfully? Perhaps to propose a bill (maybe even a Constitutional Amendment) that would set a limit of (ideally) 12 weeks for abortion (with slightly longer limits for serious medical issues) or even the European standard of 20 weeks? Would there be a possibility of bi-partisan support for this (since really important bills usually need this)? Or would opening the can of worms result in ignominious defeat?

Perhaps the Democratic party is too far gone on the pro-choice defensive, but I seem to recall President Clinton putting it very well: "Abortion should be legal, but very, very rare."

Am I too optimistic?

---

Bill Clinton was quoting the original party line for abortion that Planned Parenthood has used since 1973. One of the rare missteps Obama had during the campaign was defending his oppostion to the "Born Alive" act, something he opposed in the Illinois state senate. What it outlawed, I'll describe in hidden text in the interest of civility.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There is a very late term abortion procedure by which the doctor induces premature delivery. The idea is that the fetus (typically at 32/33 weeks by this point) will not survive the shock of being forced into delivery early. Many do. Those that do are left to die of exposure, as it was decided "before they were born", that they were not to be born, so even though they survived the delivery process, since the intention was for them not to, the medical staff should let them die. It is an uncommon procedure that accounts for 0.5% of abortions, and the AMA is against it (the AMA does support elective 3rd trimester abortions, however).

When a "Born Alive" act, basically outlawing the procedure, was brought to a vote in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted against it. This is not merely a defensive posture to an assumption of slippery slope from the pro-choice side, it is a widening of the scope of abortion. In light of that, and in light of the stated intention by NARAL to get the federal "Born Alive" act repealed, I think it's a safe guess that it will be.

I understand what you're saying... that the extremism of the pro-choice side is a reaction to the extremism of the pro-life side. It's not that. Look at the numbers of abortions per year over the past 35 years of Roe. I agree that it should be "Safe, Legal and Rare", but we as a society are doing what we can to see to it that it's anything but rare.

I am pro-choice in the legal sense, at least in the first trimester, but would do whatever I could to discourage the practice. Unfortunately, that's a losing battle, and most pro-choice people would say I'm really anti-choice, because by my efforts, I'm implying there's something wrong with having the procedure. I would argue that there is, it should be an option of last resort, and I am called a misogynist for that view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Don, may I ask what I hope is a constructive question? - in no way do I mean to belittle anyone's beliefs here.

It strikes me that the biggest impediment to putting a decent and humane bill on abortion is the polarisation of the issue in the States. The left defends Roe versus Wade (a truly awful ruling, it seems to me) because the opposition will brook nothing less than the complete outlawing of abortion (understandable if one accepts their premise that abortion is murder).

Do you think it is possible that a Democratic president with a very strong mandate plus a compliant Congress might be able to address this issue thoughtfully? Perhaps to propose a bill (maybe even a Constitutional Amendment) that would set a limit of (ideally) 12 weeks for abortion (with slightly longer limits for serious medical issues) or even the European standard of 20 weeks? Would there be a possibility of bi-partisan support for this (since really important bills usually need this)? Or would opening the can of worms result in ignominious defeat?

Perhaps the Democratic party is too far gone on the pro-choice defensive, but I seem to recall President Clinton putting it very well: "Abortion should be legal, but very, very rare."

Am I too optimistic?

---

It all sounds very good. "Legal, Safe and Rare" is what allowed people who were pro-life to hold their noses and vote for Clinton. Obama voted against the born alive act and against the partial birth abortion ban. He is of the opinion that the unborn are not human beings and have no rights if they are nto wanted by their mother. He has no desire to limit in any way the method or frequency of abortions because he believes that it is the same thing as having a tumor removed - does anyone have a moral problem with how many growths you decide to remove?

He ran on a platform of wishing to end the old cultural wars that have plagued us for so many years - people interpreted that in their own way - what he meant was that he was tired of not winning outright and his resolution of those old conflicts would be the total allowance of abortion without any compromise. Under his plan - even in comparison with other pro-abortion politicians - the life issue is further muddied until even after the birth of an unwanted child it doesn't receive human rights based on the mothers feelings.

The legislature was always capable of dealing with this issue until it was polarized and hijacked. I hope some moderates learned their lessons well from the Roe debacle.

"I don't want my daughters punished with a baby" would be his response to "legal safe and rare"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

When a "Born Alive" act, basically outlawing the procedure, was brought to a vote in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted against it. This is not merely a defensive posture to an assumption of slippery slope from the pro-choice side, it is a widening of the scope of abortion. In light of that, and in light of the stated intention by NARAL to get the federal "Born Alive" act repealed, I think it's a safe guess that it will be.

---

The bill Obama voted against was full of backdoor riders meant to curtail the legality of abortion. The insistence that he "voted for infanticide" is entirely created by the far right, and an intentional misrepresentation of the reasons he voted no on it.

Let's be straight about the point; the pro-life movement is not seeking to create "responsible" and "ethical" laws regarding abortion procedures, which they view as inherently immoral and unethical. They are trying to find any possible avenue to making it illegal, even if they have to do it by babysteps (pardon the pun), which was what the Illinois state bill was full of.

I also think the idea that abortion is "chic" is a gross, gross misrepresentation. I think you would be extremely hard pressed to find, even on the left, even in the pro-choice crowd, someone who would say, "You just got an abortion? WELL DONE!"

Tuff, I am a bit mystified as to why you believe Obama saying he wants to end the culture wars means a total submission to the will of the pro-life movement, or else he's insincere. If there was some middle ground compromise that would appease the pro-life movement, I think there's room for discussion of it. But the pro-life movement is an extremist one, and won't settle for anything less than nearly full banning. Even when they are not for full banning, they want it only available for really extreme things; within the pro-life movement there isn't even consensus on whether or not it should be alright if the mother's life is in danger or in the case of incestuous rape.

Quote:

---

A similar poll in January 2006 surveyed people in the United States about U.S. opinion on abortion; 33% said that abortion should be "permitted only in cases such as rape, incest or to save the woman's life", 27% said that abortion should be "permitted in all cases", 15% that it should be "permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now", 17% said that it should "only be permitted to save the woman's life", and 5% said that it should "never" be permitted.

---

As you can see, no consensus. When the public is this divided on the issue and there is no clear majority for one specific ruleset on the issue I think the wisest course is leave it up to individuals and doctors to make the best decision in accordance with their beliefs and medical needs.

Thank you Don, for your insights. :bow: It seems to be an intractable problem, which is very sad.

The "Born Alive" procedure you described seems indefensible to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

The bill Obama voted against was full of backdoor riders meant to curtail the legality of abortion. The insistence that he "voted for infanticide" is entirely created by the far right, and an intentional misrepresentation of the reasons he voted no on it.

---

So you support the Federal version of the "Born Alive Act" which doesn't contain these riders? If so, then according to NARAL, you're anti-choice. Actually, according to this article in the NYTimes, (yes, you read that right, I've started reading the NY Times again in my effort to reach out and understand and support the other side), there were actually two bills, one which was identical to the federal version, and one that provided civil and legal penalties for failing to provide neo-natal care to said babies/fetuses. Obama, as the committe chairman, squashed them both, because he claims they were linked, thought it appears he could have squashed just the one. There appears to be some debate on whether they were directly linked or not, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt and drop the point.

Quote:

---

Let's be straight about the point; the pro-life movement is not seeking to create "responsible" and "ethical" laws regarding abortion procedures, which they view as inherently immoral and unethical. They are trying to find any possible avenue to making it illegal, even if they have to do it by babysteps (pardon the pun), which was what the Illinois state bill was full of.

---

I do not argue this point. You're absolutely correct that the Pro-Life side also has a "not a whiff of a compromise" attitude towards the issue. You'll note that I ceded that point to Banquo in my response.

Quote:

---

I also think the idea that abortion is "chic" is a gross, gross misrepresentation. I think you would be extremely hard pressed to find, even on the left, even in the pro-choice crowd, someone who would say, "You just got an abortion? WELL DONE!"

---

I guess you've forgotten this 'trendy' piece out of the New York Times magazine.

Oka

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I guess you've forgotten this 'trendy' piece out of the New York Times magazine. ?

---

Sweet mary mother of God. After reading that article I want to vomit. I will never understand those kind of people or there thought process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I guess you've forgotten this 'trendy' piece out of the New York Times magazine.

Oka

---

That's part of the problem Don... you're talking to a stained in the wool leftie right now. Don't assume you know how every prochoice person thinks by reading some inflammatory article in the NY Times editorial page. Look at the stats I put up... public opinion is all over, and anyone who acts like 50% of the country is bloodthirsty KILL DA BABIES IT'S COOL ghouls, they're just fearmongering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

That's part of the problem Don... you're talking to a stained in the wool leftie right now. Don't assume you know how every prochoice person thinks by reading some inflammatory article in the NY Times editorial page. Look at the stats I put up... public opinion is all over, and anyone who acts like 50% of the country is bloodthirsty KILL DA BABIES IT'S COOL ghouls, they're just fearmongering.

---

I never said anything of the sort, and I resent you portraying my views that way. I said that in some circles, abortion is enjoying a 'chic' phase. Think "Cider House Rules". Think "Juno". Yes public opinion is all over the place, but one thing the majority of Americans DO agree on (possibly even you) is that elective abortion should have a timelimit, somewhere between 13 weeks and full viability (~24 weeks).

This isn't an abortion thread, so I consider the matter closed, and this will be the last I have to say on this topic, in this thread. The funny thing is, my main point for raising it was to suggest that attempting to end the procedure by legislating it away was misdirected and unfruiful. One thing I think we can both agree upon here is that lowering the 1.2 million abortions that are performed in the US each year would not be a bad thing, especially if it was done by offering better alternatives, not by passing laws.

As a feminist, I'd like to point out that abortions are not risk free and put women at jeopardy (yes, so do pregnancies). The best option for women is avoiding unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I never said anything of the sort, and I resent you portraying my views that way. I said that in some circles, abortion is enjoying a 'chic' phase. Think "Cider House Rules". Think "Juno". Yes public opinion is all over the place, but one thing the majority of Americans DO agree on (possibly even you) is that elective abortion should have a timelimit, somewhere between 13 weeks and full viability (~24 weeks).

This isn't an abortion thread, so I consider the matter closed, and this will be the last I have to say on this topic, in this thread. The funny thing is, my main point for raising it was to suggest that attempting to end the procedure by legislating it away was misdirected and unfruiful. One thing I think we can both agree upon here is that lowering the 0.8 million abortions that are performed in the US each year would not be a bad thing, especially if it was done by offering better alternatives, not by passing laws.

As a feminist, I'd like to point out that abortions are not risk free and put women at jeopardy (yes, so do pregnancies). The best option for women is avoiding unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

---

That's true of EVERY elective procedure Don. It's factual, but not widely known, that babies get severe infections and/or die every year from circumcision. Way off topic, but wanted to point out that danger from elective procedures is nothing specific to abortion. You can even die going to get plastic surgery.

Well, like I said Koga, I was dropping the topic, so you're getting the last word (and unlike Bill O'Reily, I won't say you do then get a zinger in at the end).

I can't believe you passed over my admission that I've started reading the NY Times again. :jawdrop: Now, I know all about Jason Blair and company, but I'm willing to give this whole left of center approach a chance. What else do you guys read? I don't waste time reading fiction, so I can't go to DailyKos or MoveOn.org. The Atlantic and the Nation are a bit too focused, is there a lefty Drudgereport out there I should start reading?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I guess you've forgotten this 'trendy' piece out of the New York Times magazine.

---

That is simply barbarianism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well, like I said Koga, I was dropping the topic, so you're getting the last word (and unlike Bill O'Reily, I won't say you do then get a zinger in at the end).

I can't believe you passed over my admission that I've started reading the NY Times again. :jawdrop: Now, I know all about Jason Blair and company, but I'm willing to give this whole left of center approach a chance. What else do you guys read? I don't waste time reading fiction, so I can't go to DailyKos or MoveOn.org. The Atlantic and the Nation are a bit too focused, is there a lefty Drudgereport out there I should start reading?

---

Believe it or not, Don, I read mostly AP. I don't even read the NY Times. Local papers, LA Times, Daily Breeze, and then sometimes BBC stuff for international news. I don't run away to some "liberal haven." I don't 100% trust anything I read, even British news, while generally better than American ones, has its own bias problems. One story in particular I brought up quite awhile ago was the completely different spin on the same story between American and British news on the same incident of a pre-teen girl being shot from an Israeli security border post. The American (CNN) story had somehow neglected the bit of information that another couple dozen rounds had been posthumously emptied into her body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I can't believe you passed over my admission that I've started reading the NY Times again. :jawdrop:

---

If it is any consolation - I am impressed.

Now, to get you reading DailyKos :wink:

I'm willing to give this whole left of center approach a chance.

By this do you mean you could be moving your political stance if results go well, or conservative at heart willing to go along with this until the conservative movement in your country changes ?

jus' curious...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I'm willing to give this whole left of center approach a chance.

By this do you mean you could be moving your political stance if results go well, or conservative at heart willing to go along with this until the conservative movement in your country changes ?

jus' curious...

---

I am a small "c" conservative. Fiscally conservative. Non-interventionist on foreign policy, socially non-interventionist as well.

Right now, I am saying that I'm willing to be a team player and work like a dog with an idea in mind that I didn't agree with. Should that idea prove itself to be true, yes I will adopt it. I don't believe in turning poor people out to the cold. I believe that relying on government in the first place is a terrible place to be, but I am open to the possibility in that I am wrong in this.

Here's some more of what's next:

Reid looking to remove Lieberman as committee head

Quote:

---

Democrats in the past had tolerated Lieberman's political straddling because he held their slim 51-49 majority in his hands. Now that Democrats have strengthened their hold in the Senate to at least 55 seats as a result of Tuesday's election, Lieberman no longer is vital to their majority control.

---

They may have thrown him out of the party, but they didn't mind letting Lieberman caucus with them. But now, with a solid senate majority, it sounds like they want to completely throw him overboard. :yes:

I'm sure if you're a good partisan Democrat, you're pleased to see this happen. However, those who were expecting a new bipartisan tone in congress may be disappointed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

They may have thrown him out of the party, but they didn't mind letting Lieberman caucus with them. But now, with a solid senate majority, it sounds like they want to completely throw him overboard. :yes:

---

Good riddance...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'm sure if you're a good partisan Democrat, you're pleased to see this happen. However, those who were expecting a new bipartisan tone in congress may be disappointed.

---

...you caught me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I don't waste time reading fiction

---

Now I really am speechless. Yowza. May you be tormented by the ghost of Philip K. Dick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The Atlantic and the Nation are a bit too focused, is there a lefty Drudgereport out there I should start reading?

---

Hey kid, here's a nickel, go get yourself a real news magazine.

I would caution my fellow conservatives on reaching across the aile. "Bipartison" to democrats simply means to agree to what they want. So, I plan on giving BHO the exact same respect and support that so many on the Left gave George Bush during his presidency...

Oh and one more thing, that's complete history revision about everyone being behind Bush after 911. So cut the bull. It was not even an hour after the towers collapsed before he was being criticised for flying aound in Air Force One and not a day before people were on him about not freaking out in front of the school kids when he first heard of the attacks. The Jedi mind trick that Obama has played on all you fools won't work on me. I remember, and untill Mr Hussien sends his civilian security force to gather me up to go to a reeducation camp, I will remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I remember, and untill Mr Hussien sends his civilian security force to gather me up to go to a reeducation camp, I will remember.

---

The appropriate agency has been contacted. Please do not bother packing, as everything you need will be provided in the jungle compound.

So what's this lieberman character like, is he something like the democrat version of pre bush McCain ?

Whilst the whole republicans like of him does ring some warning bells for me, surely this is somewhat against obama's bipartisan rhetoric... this guy seems like a great choice to somewhat reach across the aisle, him and one or two of the better republicans could prove his bipartisanship and help concentrate on rebuilding the country rather than partisan conflict.....

The Jedi mind trick that Obama has played on all you fools won't work on me. I remember, and untill Mr Hussien sends his civilian security force to gather me up to go to a reeducation camp, I will remember.

How does it feel to be one of the last sane members of the human race ?

anyway back to work with you dave, xaihou has been promised a ps3 but pj's hidden his dads money so you need to pick up the slack....