|
|
Post by phil on Mar 7, 2006 15:08:41 GMT -5
You miss her already, don't you ... ??
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Mar 7, 2006 16:42:01 GMT -5
There's nothing to miss. She's still around, she's just lurking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Mar 7, 2006 16:46:27 GMT -5
Well if she's here, she needs to make an appearence on the TV board ... I wanna talk about the new season of The Amazing Race, and who's gonna win Project Runway (after last week's episode, I actually find myself LIKING Santino! and I really don't know what Daniel, who has had such a fine run throughout the show, is thinking with his final collection!).
Who else can I talk about reality TV shows with?
Come back Chrisfan!
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Mar 7, 2006 16:48:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 7, 2006 17:06:07 GMT -5
Those people have never heard of the Abortion Pill ... ??
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Mar 8, 2006 9:51:23 GMT -5
Right around election time I saw a very interesting survey. They asked Bush voters how they themselves felt about things like abortion, gay rights (not gay marriage, but the broader question of generally equal treatment), etc. On all of these issues, a great many of Bush voters disagreed with the President. These people basically said, "I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose, but I know that Bush isn't. However, I don't think he'll actually do anything about making abortion illegal." So here's this guy who's running for President saying that he wants to make abortion illegal, etc., and I disagree with him on all this liberty issues, but I'm going to vote for him b/c he seems likeable and makes me feel safe from terrorists, and I don't think he really means what he says about the other issues. How could anyone vote like that with a straight face? The Republicans have been saying for 25 years "when we get in power we're going to make abortion illegal." Now that they've got the power to credibly threaten abortion rights, people are surprised that they're doing it? No one could have predicted this ... just like no one predicted planes being used as weapons by terrorists, civil war in Iraq, or New Orleans flooding in the wake of a major hurricane. Un-f*cking-believable. Oh alright, I'm back I guess. Ken , I can't speak for anyone who participated in this survey, but I can speak for myself. I disagree with Bush on his belief that abortion should be illegal, and I disagree with him on the notion of a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. For me, voting for him despite disagreeing with him on these issues is not a matter of not thinking he'd do anything about them. It was a matter of determining which issues are the most important to me. For me, espeically on the federal level, aboriton and gay marraige are not high enough priority issues to justify not voting for Bush. It's that simple. If I'm looking at it from an issue of "national security vs abortion" then I'm going with national security. Now I will say that when it comes to state office holders, that list of priorities are not the same. It does not matter as much to me if my State Senator views the military in the same was I do as it does that my Congressman does. That's why I very actively supported a candidate for Congress in the last election, but have not decided whether or not I"m going to support his current run for the state legislature. It's also why I"m supporting a pro-choice candidate for my state's attorney general. To be fair, abortion and gay marraige are not THE priorties for me on a state level either. After all, I'm supporting a candidate for governor who is VERY pro-life, and was the only top state official to support Ohio's gay marriage ban amendment (an amendment which I voted against, because it went too far) But despite his differing from me on these issues, I agree so strongly with him on issues such as tax policy, education, and ethics in government that I will campaign for him and vote for him. It is impossible to vote for a candidate for any office who you agree with on all issues, unless you're running for office yourself. What we all do is to find the candidate who we agree with on the most, and/or who agrees with us on the most important issues. Abortion and gay marriage do not rank high enough on my priority list to make them make or break issues for my vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Mar 8, 2006 10:24:50 GMT -5
Hi Chrisfan! Glad to see you here again.
Thanks for the description of your thought process and prioritization. I'm sure that there are many people who do the same sort of balancing act. I don't remember all the questions on the survey I saw, so I can't say how this fits in with their findings (and frankly, I can't be bothered to look the damn thing up right now ... I'm sure it's somewhere out there on the the internets). I do remember, though, that for most people (I think) it wasn't so much a question of balancing priorities (i.e. I'll trade some individual liberty for greater security, etc.) as it was that these people were saying literally "I don't think Bush and his allies will do these things (ban abortion, etc.)." A great many Americans seem to have voted with their heads in the sand ... or in some rather dark regions of their anatomy.
Oddly enough, since neither issue can directly effect me, politicians stances on abortion and gay rights are extremely important for me. I consider them to be excellent indicators of the candidate's committment to broad application of civil liberties, and think it spills into their views on issues that can effect me (either personally or professionally) such as search and seizure or free speach protections.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Mar 8, 2006 10:32:44 GMT -5
And in all fairness Ken, anyone who said "I don't think Bush will do anything about these issues"? So far - they're right. Abortion is still legal. There is still not a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Bush has not called for such an amendment since coming into office.
Now obviously, pro-choicers will point to what is happening in South Dakota and say "How can you say that's Bush doing something!" But that's South Dakota - not Bush. Some may look to the make up of the court and say "How an you say that's not Bush doing something!" But I think it's quite absurd to boil down the ideology of a Supreme Court justice down to the single issue of abortion. More importantly, we have no way of knowing yet how the Bush appointed justices will rule on abortion. Speculation sure, but no confirmation. If they vote to ban any or all aboriton, is that Bush doing something? Or is that Roberts and Alito doing something? Bush made it quite clear during his campaign just what kind of justices he'd appoint - it was about judicial philosophy and not about the single issue of aborition.
I know that people could also point to things like banning federal funding for abortions to say "Look! Bush did something" But isn't that a matter of interpretation? There is a line to be drawn between the government not paying for abortions and banning it outright. IMO, to attach federal funding to the issue is attaching a BIG assumption on the interpretation of the people surveyed.
So yeah ... for now, I think I'd have to say that if the people surveyed said Bush woudln't do anything about the issues of abortion and gay marriage - they're right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Mar 8, 2006 10:47:51 GMT -5
Yeah, at the overt federal level, Bush really hasn't "done" anything, and I see your point. But at the same time, I think that under-estimating the tremendous effect that eight years of (generally) very conservative (and anti-individual liberties) judges is a bit disingenuous. Quite frankly, South Dakota wouldn't have done what they've done if they didn't believe that they now had a decent chance of getting the Supremes to seriously consider overturning (or modifying so substantially that it no longer matters) Roe v. Wade.
If there is a continuing erosion of personal liberties, I think that both history and the general population will directly link this to the Bush presidency. For better or worse, Presidents get the blame and credit for things that happen during their watch, and for big trends that come out of their terms of office.
But again, good to see you back here. This place needs to have reasoned voices from the right and left (and any other perspectives out there).
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Mar 8, 2006 11:00:48 GMT -5
Oh I absolutely agree with you that it's the changes in the make up of the court that have led South Dakota to take the action they have when they have. I just don't think you can attach that line of thinking to people asked if BUSH would do anything about abortion or gay marriage.
Further, I'm not so sure that you can attach individual liberties as a value to a justice based on their views of abortion or gay marriage. What happens when you throw the New Haven case into the mix? Isn't your right to own private property, and protection to retain that property an issue of individual liberty as well? It was all those pro-choicers who said that the government of a municipality can up their revenue by taking away your land. Protection to individual liberties is a rather broad and subjective issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Mar 8, 2006 12:54:36 GMT -5
Didn't Bush call for a ban on gay marriage and nominate both Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court?
|
|
|
|
Post by Weeping_Guitar on Mar 8, 2006 13:17:45 GMT -5
Come on home, Holzman. This is bound to spring up all kids of needs for lawyers. There's already a $1 million in the legal trust fund for this baby and more to come. No income tax, baby. Bill Janklow is getting is his law liscense back - can you say partnership? I'd recommend you do all the cases involving travel.
I don't think the surprise is that this happened, but that it was actually known to the public before the finality of it. Sure, the actual debate was non-existent in traditional SD fashion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Mar 8, 2006 13:19:13 GMT -5
Bush "called for" a ban on gay marriage, and he's nominated two folks who are likely to weaken or overrule Roe v. Wade, but neither of these things has actually happened, yet. I think this is Chrisfan's point. I think it's a bit disingenuous to argue that Bush hasn't "done anything" at all on these social issues, but it is true that we don't currently have a federal law that prohibits gay marriage, nor has Roe v. Wade yet been ripped to shreds. Large parts of the fourth amendment may lie in tatters, but not Roe. Yet.
BTW, loved the Chris Matthews transcript posted on Melon's Hell board. That kind of questioning could really change the terms of this debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Mar 8, 2006 13:25:41 GMT -5
Come on home, Holzman. This is bound to spring up all kids of needs for lawyers. There's already a $1 million in the legal trust fund for this baby and more to come. No income tax, baby. Bill Janklow is getting is his law liscense back - can you say partnership? I'd recommend you do all the cases involving travel. I don't think the surprise is that this happened, but that it was actually known to the public before the finality of it. Sure, the actual debate was non-existent in traditional SD fashion. LMAO! Yep, there's going to be a full-blown firestorm over this thing in federal court. What's likely to happen is that the S.D. District Court will throw the law out (they really have to), as will the 8th Circuit. Then the question is whether the Supremes will grant cert to the case. With the current line-up, the smart money is on "no." But you never know for sure ... Scalia and his lap-dog Thomas are both likely to grant cert, and I think Alito is likely to go along with them. I have no idea, however, if Roberts will. I think that it's very likely that the Court will just let the 8th Circuit decision stand. But if Stevens is gone, then all bets are off. In fact, if Dubya gets to add another justice, before this thing comes up to the Supremes, I'd bet on them granting cert. The question will then be, will they throw the whole thing out and basically reaffirm the status quo, or just say that there needs to be an exception for the life of the mother, etc., and rip up Roe. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Mar 8, 2006 13:31:48 GMT -5
BTW, loved the Chris Matthews transcript posted on Melon's Hell board. That kind of questioning could really change the terms of this debate. I'm not so sure that Matthews was as effective there as he's being given credit for. Yes, no politician wants to be the one th say "We'll punish the woman for getting an abortion". But Matthews is insisting that Toomey is not proposing any punishment for abortion. That's wrong. He's proposing punishment for the doctor. That is certainly not out of line with other things we've prohibited by law. If a bar is caught selling alcohol to minors, the bar can lose it's liquor license. If you threaten the medical license of a doctor who performs an abortion, you're doing the same thing. Obviously when it comes to minors and alcohol, or illegal drug, there are also punishments in place for the people who use said substance. But a punishment to those who provide the service is certainly not "no punishment at all" as Matthews is claiming. He was just pissed that the trap he set didn't work the way he was expecting it to. |
|
