Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Not much to thread about today, as Guy Fawkes day was covered to death all week and I'll be joining Ron Paul supporters in Philadelphia tomorrow, with a full report (and some video) to follow.
The week in brief...
- Voters across the country (possibly not your part of the country) went to the polls, and with a few exceptions the Democrats came out looking good.
- Bush's attorney general nominee was confirmed, and for the first time one of his vetoes was overidden. Enjoy your water! Or, more accurately, enjoy your congressman's pet project!
- Hillary (and Bill) Clinton struggled to recover from attacks in the last Democratic debate, and the frontrunner fell in the polls for the first time since the spring. It got less notice, but Fred "the Energizer" Thompson sagged into a tie for second with John McCain. (Ron Paul is still running third in Intrade, though.)
- Bernie Kerik got indicted, and future President Giuliani might pardon him.
- Wyoming Rep. Barbara Cubin (R), who threatened to slap Libertarian candidate Thomas Rankin last year, is calling it quits.
Below the fold...
- The Prowler asks some good questions about Mike Huckabee's aw-shucks brand of secrecy.
- Brainy populist David Sirota labels Mike Huckabee and John Edwards the "Huey Longs of Iowa." He means this in a positive way, although when he points out that the last populist winner on the Democratic side was Dynamite Dick Gephardt, his thesis gets a little creaky. (He's stronger on the GOP side: the state where Pats Robertson and Buchanan pulled close seconds are clealy not wedded to Mitt Romney right now.)
- Parents magazine asks which future leader you'd want to babysit your kids. What the hell does Mitt Romney have to do to win this?
This week's installment of Politics 'n' Prog is an inevitable visit from Genesis guitarist Steve Hackett with the first track from his first solo album: "Ace of Wands."
The Friday Political Thread: Remember, Remember the Thread of November
Comments to "The Friday Political Thread: Remember, Remember the Thread of November":
David E. Gallaher | November 9, 2007, 8:38pm | #
Somebody please tell me which primary Ron faces first?If it's NH, I think he will do well.
If it's IA, I think he will do well also, but if Huckabee does especially well in IA too, that has got to be good news for Ron. It'll divert a little national attention to the back of the pack.
Life is good.
There is and has been a great deal of discussion regarding Ron Paul's huge support base that has yet to reveal itself in the young, internet site posting, etc. etc. And as a Paul supporter myself, who might as well be among them, I have never been contacted by a pollster over the course of this entire campaign. If we are to assume these poll numbers are a meter of anything at all, I might argue that they are at a loss to portray true numbers of anyone's real support, certainly Paul's. I would also say that given the "hidden" nature of the Paul base, it is most important that these people turn out to vote for him in the primaries, as it will only be then that the true strength of his message, campaign, and support be known, and possibly gain momentum. I only hope that New Hampshire's ... dare I resurrect the phrase "Great Silent Majority" speaks up when it is most needed.
David E. Gallaher | November 9, 2007, 8:51pm | #
Peter,Isn't it great to crack the cherry of a new thread before pettiness and sophomorics set in? (That will happen at comment number 11, if not sooner.)
As to what you posted, I'm an anarchist. I don't vote.
Although I'm also an atheist, I must advise you to have faith in the "buzz" only.
Buzz will see us through.
Peace.
Out.
Faith.
teh | November 9, 2007, 8:58pm | #
The increasing radicalization of the Bush presidency: first he was going to let you have wanter, just with arsenic, and now he doesn't want you to have any at all.ed | November 9, 2007, 8:59pm | #
Below the fold...Heh. A useful if not anachronistic metaphor from those thrilling print-media days of yesteryear. OK, they ain't dead yet...let's just say I'm happy I rolled my Tribune stock when it was at 50.
John-David | November 9, 2007, 8:59pm | #
Two things:1)Bush's attorney general nominee was confirmed, and for the first time one of his vetoes was overidden. Enjoy your water!
And thank to Mukasey, enjoy your waterboarding as well!
2) Ron Paul is finally being included on the RCP page? Pajamas Media will be getting a shitload more hits, as that should be good enough to get him back in the online poll.
People need to do more than just register as Republicans if possible. Become a delegate and more.
Anonymo the Anonymous | November 9, 2007, 9:23pm | #
I have never been contacted by a pollster over the course of this entire campaign.Of course you haven't. You live in a nation of 300 million people.
I'm not arguing against the idea that traditional polls miss a significant portion of Paul supporters, but just this particular claim. I'm not an expert on the particulars, but isn't there some statistical reason that, as long as you have a well-chosen representative sample, once you get past ~400 respondents there are rapidly diminishing returns in terms of increased accuracy for most polls? I'm sure there are some here who can fill us in on this, but "I've never been polled" is obviously anecdotal and irrelevant once you understand the math behind polling, I believe.
John-David | November 9, 2007, 9:33pm | #
Apropos of nothing, but Queen's entire live concert at Wembley in 1986 is the greatest spectacle ever. The entire concert is on YouTube.crimethink | November 9, 2007, 9:46pm | #
Anonymo,What you say is correct, though the bodies are buried in the "well-chosen representative sample" criterion. If the speculation is correct, that people without land lines are likely to vote significantly differently than those who have land lines, then the sample is not truly random and all bets are off.
Anonymo the Anonymous | November 9, 2007, 10:00pm | #
crimethink,Agreed on the speculation about land lines and such -- that's the body I was burying, as you say, in "well-chosen representative sample".
Kenny | November 9, 2007, 10:27pm | #
On the landlines:IIRC this was the source of the "Dewey defeats Truman" headline. Polling on landlines skewed richer (and hence more Republican) because in 1948 telephones were not owned by everyone.
But I think with the current situation, the "cell-phone only" demographic correlates highly with the "young and doesn't vote at all" demographic and so the result is a wash and there is no net bias.
A truly energizing campaign may change this, but everyone for nearly twenty years has been trying to 'rock the vote' and get under 30's to show up, but to little effect.
Anonymo the Anonymous | November 9, 2007, 10:33pm | #
Here's Wikipedia on the sample size issue I referenced.sixstring | November 9, 2007, 10:34pm | #
David,Semantics here, but the Iowa caucuses come before the NH primaries.
Kenny | November 9, 2007, 10:41pm | #
Hillary (and Bill) Clinton struggled to recover from attacks in the last Democratic debate, and the frontrunner fell in the polls for the first time since the spring.I think this is the same effect as a "dead cat bounce", but in the opposite direction. Around 50%, Clinton is at her max as long as other people are still actively running against her.
The next interesting shift will be if either Edwards or Obama call it quits. I do not know if Clinton will be able to pick up additional support, or if Obama and Edwards are splitting the same vote. (I tend to think so). This will be the acid test of Clinton's 'electability'
However, Obama has the money, and Edwards has the organization to last all the way well into next year, regardless of primary victories. So we may not see an actual coalesing around Clinton until the convention.
TLB | November 9, 2007, 10:43pm | #
Fun question: Huck is extremely vulnerable on one issue (not, of course, the one above). Is the MSM hyping him because they expect that issue to take him down later on as a way to dash the GOP's hopes, or are they just clueless about how vulnerable that issue makes him?In other news, a supposedly mainstream MiamiHerald columnist said we might face a "LatinoIntifada" if we didn't offer a MassiveAmnesty. In a business setting, something like that would be factored into the costs. For instance, the costs of uprisings are factored into the costs of doing businesses in foreign countries. Yes, for one reason or other, "libertarians"/crypto-corporatists such as those at this site just handwave those costs away, thereby supporting corrupt businesses that don't pay the true cost for their labor but instead want subsidies.
And, I believe I take Kos to the woodshed here: tinyurl.com/yp4ndn
And, while searching for something good I ran across what I'm going to guess is some obscure prog: youtube.com/watch?v=xDiKq9Wf0UQ
For those who are suffering from prog-related symptoms, here's the antidote: youtube.com/watch?v=EI6DsCrvykc
Kenny | November 9, 2007, 10:55pm | #
And as far as Friday threads go,this is indeed one of the funny collaborative pieces I have ever seen.
Thanks to joe for showing this iin a thread earlier today, and to ProLib, Jennifer, Jaime Kelly and the rest of the cast.
Fluffy | November 9, 2007, 11:00pm | #
TLB, we are about 1000x as likely to suffer political violence led by anti-Mexican racists as we are to suffer a "Latintifada".iih | November 9, 2007, 11:15pm | #
Does everyone agree with this statement:There is only one rule in Libertarianism. If you agree with it, then you are a libertarian. This one rule is the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). It states:
no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation.
crimethink | November 9, 2007, 11:28pm | #
iih,I don't disagree with that statement...but applying it to real-world situations can be tricky, because the words "initiate", "force", "human being", and "delegate" are quite vague...hence the disagreement among libertarians on such issues as foreign policy, abortion, immigration, etc.
There is a rather significant dropoff in donations to Ron Paul today. It has been trending down all week (since the big push on Monday), but now has slipped below the average daily prior to November 5. It looks like the tide that goes out before the Tsunami hits. Hopefully something significant on 11/11.
Kenny | November 9, 2007, 11:29pm | #
iih-I rememeber you bringing this up last week. I'm about to the 85th-90th percentile on this. I do not think the "under any circustances" is correct. I would say "under most circumstances." But, I admit I am a very squishy libertarian.
In the context of government initiated force, (the 'delegation' refered to by the Principle') I think Jefferson and the boys had it right. That we need government, in order to ensure individual rights. I don't see how a true minarchist or anarcho-syndicalist system will result in anything other than feudalism, even in the firearms era.
iih | November 9, 2007, 11:40pm | #
Kenny, crimethink,The reason I posted that question is in relation to another (very more difficult) one that I will post shortly. But thought to pose this one first.
Let me just say that NAP does not imply getting rid of the right to self defense, nor the right to preemptive wars, etc. In other words, it might be okay to carry out a preemptive war if one views the actions of others as cause to believe that the opponent is about to initiate war. Hence, preemptive wars may arguably not violate NAP (I am personally of the belief that preemptive wars are not legitimate acts of self-defense). So NAP is pretty general, I think.
iih | November 9, 2007, 11:54pm | #
OK... so here is what has been preoccupying me literally all day long, and that which I will think about during the weekend (and probably beyond):I will try to figure out what the medical, philosophical and the different religious beliefs consider to be the time at which an embryo is considered "individual".
Your feedback would be highly valuable.
I am thinking about this because I find Ron Paul's stance on abortion a bit confusing.
On one hand, being against abortion is understandable (from a religious and libertarian points of view) since no one would have the right to initiate force against an embryo, even if the initiator is the mother/father. Hence, it is important to ask (and try to answer) the question "when is an embryo considered a full individual?" (see my post at 11:15)
On the other hand, one would think that a free-market point of view would say that the mother (and the father?) has the right to abortion. The "free-market" of ideas and beliefs would self-regulate the rate of abortions. If nothing else, people who are against abortion on moral grounds would feel compelled to improve their arguments against abortion and those pro-choice would compete against them to provide better arguments for abortion rights. (We really do not have a healthy and rational discourse on this issue right now, and I think there is a lot of room for competition among ideas in this regards.) Eventually people could arrive at a socially acceptable "norm" over time. As a free-marketer, one would expect Paul to support this "free-market" solution. One can probably come up with a libertarian argument (based on NAP) for the right to abortion, too.
Paul clearly assumes the religious and a libertarian (one among others, of course, where an embryo is viewed as a full "individual") stance of anti-abortion
I personally am against abortion (I wouldn't ask anyone I know to do it unless not doing it will cause severe physical harm to the mother). However, I do not feel like it is the right thing to ban the practice at all government levels except at the most local level.
I dunno. In any case, any thoughts?
It is actually getting late and it has been a long day. But I look forward to hearing peoples' views on the issue.
tarran | November 10, 2007, 12:16am | #
iihThis lecture by Walter Block might be useful in your ruminations.
tarran: Thanks. I already have it on my ipod, but couldn't find the time earlier today to listen to it.
civan93 | November 10, 2007, 12:33am | #
It must just be late, and I'm crazy.It got less notice, but Fred "the Energizer" Thompson sagged into a tie for second with John McCain. (Ron Paul is still running third in Intrade, though.)I'm thinking that the order is actually
1. Rudy
2. Romney
3. McCain/Thompson
... RP/Huckabee/who else is left
so Fred fell into a tie for third ... unless Mitt has fallen dramatically in the polls and is now trailing the guy who can't afford to take the bus to South Carolina.
prolefeed | November 10, 2007, 12:38am | #
iih: Whether abortion is considered libertarian or not, and in consonance with the Non-Initiation of Force principle, depends on when you consider a developing fertilized egg has become a human being, in combination with whether you feel the mother's right to not have something growing against her will in her body outweighs the human or non-human's right to stay alive.There's no way to definitively settle this using logic -- it's based more on ethical beliefs.
I'm personally on the border between what is considered pro-life and pro-choice -- I think at six or seven weeks, when a fetus has clearly defined fingers and toes, it appears to me to be a human deserving of protection. A one-day old fertilized egg, though, just doesn't seem to me to be a human being. I guess I'm going by the thoroughly unscientific "ick" factor here -- if it starts looking like a baby, I feel repelled by the thought of it being killed.
sixstring | November 10, 2007, 1:09am | #
iih,I don't know if this helps or confounds the issue. Here's my, very personal, take on abortion.
I was born in 1966, a few years before Roe v Wade, but not during a time when abortion was a rarity. My mother was a 19 year old college freshman at the time of the pregnancy. My father was unaware of the pregnancy. My mother took a year off from school, had an illegitimate baby and gave me up for adoption.
Here's the point. It would have been significantly easier for my mother to have an abortion than to have a baby. Her sacrifice gave me life. Trying to discern WHEN, along the timeline of my pre-birth, I went from zygote to blastula to fetus is immaterial to me -- if ANYWHERE along development there is an interruption, I cease to exist.
Well, how do we fit that into a libertarian context? I guess we start with that it is really inconvenient that biology requires a host for the pregnancy. Is it unreasonable for society to expect, given that pregnancy does not occur in a vacuum, some consideration for the potential of life at the expense of some personal freedoms of the host? I think not, though, given my situation, I am somewhat biased. It is difficult for me to reconcile my nascient libertarianism with my ingrained anti-abortion stance. Here's how I'll leave it -- with any philosophy, religion, or political position, there is never purity. You go with the best of the lot that hurts the least. Even if that means someone is inconvenienced for 9 months so that someone can live for 80 years.
Mike Laursen | November 10, 2007, 1:13am | #
Does everyone agree with this statement:No. It's an important principle, but it is often not very helpful in figuring out the right thing to do in many political situations.
Furthermore, even as an ethical principle it can be improved upon: it says nothing about appropriate level of retaliation against the other person's initiation of force, nor about reconciling conflict. I know from past conversations about this topic on this blog that some libertarians interpret the non-aggression principle as addressing those ethical concerns, but none of that is there in the literal statement of the principle.
Mike Laursen | November 10, 2007, 1:26am | #
And you came up with exactly one of those situtations where the non-aggression principle isn't very helpful. The non-aggression principle works best when analyzing scenarios involving fully-informed, independent actors, with no outside coercion being applied to them, and no history between them.Brandybuck | November 10, 2007, 1:46am | #
Ron Paul can indeed win the election. That is because primaries have abysmally low turnouts. But Ron Paul supporters are excited and ardent. They're going to show up at a much higher turnout. If the leading candidates can't get their base excited, that could mean a win for Ron Paul despite significantly lower polling numbers.http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/muratore5.html
Vlad Drac | November 10, 2007, 2:25am | #
James Donald:"A woman owns her body, and does not have to sustain her baby. The bible does
not equate induced miscarriage with murder -- there was one penalty for
striking a woman, causing her to die, and another much lesser penalty for
striking a woman and causing a miscarriage, and there was *no* penalty listed
for inducing a miscarriage intentionally, even though a number of herbal
methods for inducing miscarriage have been known for thousands of years, for
example pennyroyal. The list of herbs traditionally used by witches and the
list of herbs alleged effective in inducing abortion are remarkably similar,
so it's possible that the biblical prohibition against witchcraft was in fact
a backdoor prohibition against abortion. However, there appears to be no
biblical authority for using force to prevent abortion.
"Abortion is clearly wrong, and more wrong the later it is performed. But
using violence to prevent someone from having an abortion is also clearly
wrong. No deep philosophizing is required -- both of these propositions
should be obvious to anyone. That's why women find abortions disturbing, and
it's why everyone, including most of the Christian right, are backing away
like mad from people who murder abortion doctors.
"I could give a profound philosophical justification of both the above
propositions, but anybody who disputes either proposition is just blowing
smoke. Nobody in their hearts disbelieves either statement. It is right to
use force to keep the peace. So it is right to kill murderers. Abortion,
however wrong it may be, does not breach the peace.
"No sane person would imagine that he personally had the right to go forth
with a six gun and stop women from aborting -- they merely imagine that this
god like being, the state, has the right to do that. Yet everyone realizes
that they have the right to violently stop a murderer with a six gun.
"Thus, clearly everyone already knows in their heart that abortion is not
murder. Indeed, believe it or not, that is the official position of the Roman
Catholic church -- that abortion is not murder. The Church reluctantly
accepts, on the basis of the natural law arguments that I alluded to above,
that abortion is not murder, but claims it is morally as bad as murder and
should therefore be banned.
"But the last conclusion does not follow. Even if abortion was in some sense
morally as bad as murder, it is not equivalent to murder in that it is not a
breach of the peace, thus however bad abortion may be, it does not follow
that it is right to use violent means to prevent abortion."
Kenny | November 10, 2007, 4:48am | #
iih-Not really going to answer the abortion question per se, because others have pretty much said what I would (it's a ethical quandary with no satisfactory bright line answers, its probably best policywise for it to be legal for most of a pregnancy, because the actual reasons for abortion would seem to militate against there being a great number of late term ones.)
But I did want to discuss your line of argumentation here:
The "free-market" of ideas and beliefs would self-regulate ... Eventually people could arrive at a socially acceptable "norm" over time..
From a cultural anthropology perspective this is always true, and descriptive of how cultural norms develop. But it does not follow that these norms will always be "moral", at least in many quasi-equilibrium conditions. The obvious example is that slavery was a cultural norm in the Western world from ancient (Roman and Greek) times to the mid-19th century. Now, the other side of the coin is that it pretty much impossible to get an absolute standard of morality; indeed that's exactly why you asked the question you did.
So I do not think Paul's stance on abortion is contradictory, in fact quite the opposite. His moral conviction, based on his personal philosophical and religious beliefs is that abortion is wrong in (nearly?) all circumstances. But, his political philosophy is content to let the "marketplace of ideas" decide the issue in the legislative arena, and at the state vice federal level.
Kenny | November 10, 2007, 5:29am | #
Brandybuck-There are good ways and bad ways to do back of the envelope calculations.
Your linked site illustrates a bad way.
Never assume more than one standard deviation from the mean, or an order of magnitude jump, for any variable for which you don't have any empirical data.
crimethink | November 10, 2007, 7:48am | #
No sane person would imagine that he personally had the right to go forthwith a six gun and stop women from aborting -- they merely imagine that this
god like being, the state, has the right to do that. Yet everyone realizes
that they have the right to violently stop a murderer with a six gun. Thus, clearly everyone already knows in their heart that abortion is not murder.
Ah, Ron Bailey's favorite circular argument. We shouldn't consider abortion to be murder, because it isn't murder, because we don't really consider it to be murder.
By the same logic, blacks were obviously inferior to whites 200 years ago, since everyone knew in their hearts that blacks were inferior to whites.
SIV | November 10, 2007, 8:56am | #
You left off an important politically related item.Why the hell is Arthur Bremer being let out of prison? The attempted assassination of George Wallace possibly changed the history of this country.
Eric Dondero | November 10, 2007, 9:49am | #
The Democrats "came out looking good" according to the liberal media spin. You gotta look beyond Virginia and Kentucky.In Indianapolis, Republican Greg Ballard won a stunning upset on the property tax issue over the incumbent Democrat Mayor. Newcommer, Ballard was outspend 10 to a.
In Livonia, Michigan, a Detroit suburb, Repubicans beat back the Jennifer Granhold machine to take the Mayorship and 4 City Council seats.
In Mississippi, Haley Barbour easily won reelection. No surprise there. But Republicans picked up 6 out of 7 statewide offices.
In New Jersey, the Repubicans actually picked up State Assembly seats.
In Oregon, the Republican-backed initiative to stop more tobacco taxes went down in flames with over 60% voting against Dem Kulongowski's proposal.
Fred Barnes has a piece this morning over at RCP where he looks at all the races, and concludes that it wasn't nearly as bad for the GOP as the media reports; and that the Republicans are well-positioned for 2008.
Larry Sabato predicts that even Virginia will be solid Red Republican for 2008, if Hillary Clinton is the Dem Nominee.
iih | November 10, 2007, 10:36am | #
prolefeed, sistring, crimethink, and (even!) Edward:Thanks for your insightful feedback. I just thought to drop in this line, think carefully about your responses, and get back with more probably later in the day (that is, if I have something to add). I still have to listen to Walter Block's talk as well.
I have never spent long enough time to think of the issue. My (philosophical/religious) background says that abortion is not absolutely forbidden. If a doctor has choice of saving the mother or saving the child, then the mother's life takes priority. Rape pregnancies, etc, are not legitimate cause for abortion, for how do we know that that child will be the cause of the mother's delight and happiness? Pregnancies out of wedlock (even though extra-marital relations are considered immoral) would still not be a good enough cause for abortion. As prolefeed said, I think the criterion in Islam is a few weeks after conception, abortion would not be considered "illegitimate" (though I am not 100% sure when exactly).
I also find it funny that many of the pro-choicers are left wing, with strong socialist leanings. How can they keep a straight face asking for the right of women to abortion and be against others right not to participate in government programs. I see it as very hypocritical.
Cesar | November 10, 2007, 10:45am | #
Larry Sabato predicts that even Virginia will be solid Red Republican for 2008, if Hillary Clinton is the Dem Nominee.Dondi, it all depends on how well Mark Warner does and if he has coattails or not. He will definitely win the Senate seat, but how much he will help the Dem nominee here is unknown.
Regarding abortion I think the issue is blown out of proportion. Padagonian types would call me a sexist misogynist for saying this, but I don't think its the most important issue ever like ardent pro-choicers and pro-lifers make it out to be.
iih | November 10, 2007, 11:03am | #
Cesar:I agree with you last statement. Are there any statistics? It is not like it (or demand for it) is that widespread, or is it?
The Wine Commonsewer | November 10, 2007, 11:04am | #
Hey Dave Weigel! My old buddy the Kosmik Kid will be in the City of Brotherly Shove Saturday for the rally as well. I think he chartered a bus for 50 of his closest friends to show up. You'll know him right off, he's the mouthy one in handcuffs on the wrong side of the barricades. Take pictures. His wife the Hit Babe will get a pass though because she's related to some of the same New Jersey families that Nick is.Sam Grove | November 10, 2007, 11:07am | #
"Ron Paul doesn't have a chance of winning the GOP nomination?"This statement is likely made by either someone who:
A) Would actually prefer a Ron Paul win but is skeptical.
B) Doesn't want Ron Paul to win.
So the reply question is: "Would you prefer Ron Paul to win or not?"
If the reply indicates the person is in the B) fold, then further discussion might reveal why they express that preference.
If the reply indicates the person is in the A) fold, then the question for them is: "What are you going to do about it?"
When it was proposed that the American colonies attempt to overthrow British, there were, no doubt, many who held that there was no chance of doing so. After all, the British were the supreme naval power of the day and were able to field armies of well trained and obedient personnel. There was no way a disorganized mob could resist such overwhelming force.
Fortunately for us, those who believed in possibilities made it happen.
J sub D | November 10, 2007, 11:08am | #
Bush's attorney general nominee was confirmed, and for the first time one of his vetoes was overidden. Enjoy your water! Or, more accurately, enjoy your congressman's pet project!When he had the popularity and political capital to veto wasteful spending, he signed it. Now, when democrats see opposing him a positive, and even red state republicans are trying to distance themselves from him, he decides to ccontrol wasteful spending. How anyone with the slightest libertarian leaning can support this dumbass, accent on the dumb, amazes me.
Full disclosure - I voted for him in 2000, I was wrong. Al Gore would have been a less objectionable president by any reasonable measure. Humble foreign policy, compassionate, fiscal conservative my ass!
pedant | November 10, 2007, 11:09am | #
Thompson sagged into a tie for second with John McCain. (Ron Paul is still running thirdEven if accurate that would make Paul 4th, not 3rd.
tarran | November 10, 2007, 11:13am | #
Regarding abortion I think the issue is blown out of proportion. Padagonian types would call me a sexist misogynist for saying this, but I don't think its the most important issue ever like ardent pro-choicers and pro-lifers make it out to be.I don't agree.
1) Until the 1960's there were draconian laws that were designed to prevent women (and to a lesser extent men) from controlling reproduction, by outlawing birth-control drugs and devices, and even by outlawing communicating the existence of such tools. There are still many people who wish to use the state to go back to those halycon days.
2) Pregnancy carries significant health risks for the mother. These risks are much reduced in this day and age, but they are still there.
Thus, for people who can get pregnant, having the option to evict the person respassing on their property, can be a matter of life or death.
This is a very weighty issue, and it has great import.
Its a weighty issue sure, but right now conservative, rural states like South Dakota don't have many abortion clinics anyway. If it went back to the states and Roe v. Wade was overturned, how different would the situation really become?
althusius | November 10, 2007, 11:21am | #
Why is there no typical Ron Paul supporter?"We all wear masks. Life creates them and forces us to find the one that fits."---V
Dread | November 10, 2007, 11:38am | #
"Parents magazine asks which future leader you'd want to babysit your kids."Some valid answers:
"I'd shoot the first one who tried, and a few more just to teach the rest a lesson"
"I think rabid wolves would do a better job."
"Who here thinks a better question would be 'which one of your kids could do a better job as President than these fucktards?'"
Mr. Nice Guy | November 10, 2007, 11:43am | #
Hey, I'm pretty regular to H&R, and see all the Dondero stuff quite a bit, but I finally stopped and read the post above, and boy does it demonstrate some looking at the world through red-state reality distorting glasses. So the Dems take back the Senate in VA (where they were on the quick decline ever since the 80's but have now won two governorships and the most recent Senate race) and they win the home state of Mitch McConnel in a route, but this was really a good election for the GOP because they won the city council election outside of Detroit...If this is Dondero wisdom, maybe Ron Paul has a chance after all...Mr. Nice Guy | November 10, 2007, 11:46am | #
"Dondi, it all depends on how well Mark Warner does and if he has coattails or not. He will definitely win the Senate seat, but how much he will help the Dem nominee here is unknown."Cesar-with family in VA it strikes me that they could run Superman for Senate and Hillary could still not win there though hanging on to Supes cape. That state is getting purple, sure, but it's far from blue enough to let Hillary slide through. Nationally, I think Hillary's only chance is if the GOP candidate keeps beating war drums (which of course they are doing).
Cesar | November 10, 2007, 11:47am | #
Cesar-with family in VA it strikes me that they could run Superman for Senate and Hillary could still not win there though hanging on to Supes cape.Sure, Obama, Edwards, or Richardson would have a shot in VA though.
Warren | November 10, 2007, 11:50am | #
HEY Tomorrow is Veteran's day. A lot of us veterans will be celebrating by donating to:RON PAUL 2008
You to can show your support for our troops by giving generously on November 11th
iih | November 10, 2007, 11:56am | #
Warren:Looking at http://thisnovember11th.com/ and Paul's campaign website it feels like the quite before the storm (or at least I hope it to be a storm -- a very big storm).
J sub D | November 10, 2007, 12:07pm | #
Its a weighty issue sure, but right now conservative, rural states like South Dakota don't have many abortion clinics anyway. If it went back to the states and Roe v. Wade was overturned, how different would the situation really become?I was a senior in HS when Roe v. Wade was decided. In Michigan, abortion was illegal. The abortion issue didn't affect me at all, yet me and all of my peers were aware that abortion was legal in NY, thus only a Greyhound trip away. If South Dakota outlawed abortion, it should be noted that 6 different states border SD and, IMHO, at least 1 (Minnesota) wil opt to keep it legal. Still a short bus ride away. Is that a hardship for those seeking the procedure? Yes. Is it so difficult that it will "drive women into the back alleys for an abortion". Get real NARAL. Scare tactics like that are obviously lies and do not help your case in the long run.
Summary - Roe V. Wade is bad law and should be overturned. Abortion, like alcohol, prostitution, and age of consent is a state issue. Read the constitution and it's hard to disagree with that. If Roe V. Wade were overturned, the effect on the availability on abortion would be minimal.
On last item, If you've waited 1/2 a year, then decide to terminate a pregnacy, I doubt your morality and suspect your sanity. #-6 months of pregnancty seems a reasonable place to draw the line. I'm not going to do the research right now, but nervous system development might be a more logical starting point than the gut feeling or icky factor.
One more, I promise, last item. I've given this issue a lot of thought over a lot of years. I've discussed/debated the issue all that time as well. It's very difficult and moral people can disagree. The extremists on both sides disgust me and I refuse to even engage them on the topic anymore.
Cesar | November 10, 2007, 12:10pm | #
Is it so difficult that it will "drive women into the back alleys for an abortion". Get real NARAL. Scare tactics like that are obviously lies and do not help your case in the long run.I think even the states that will make it illegal will find enforcement so difficult and costly that they will eventually legalize it after a few years anyway.
One more, I promise, last item. I've given this issue a lot of thought over a lot of years. I've discussed/debated the issue all that time as well. It's very difficult and moral people can disagree. The extremists on both sides disgust me and I refuse to even engage them on the topic anymore.
I' mildly pro-choice and I couldn't agree more. I'm sick of people calling each other amoral baby killers and misogynist women haters.
#-6 months of pregnancty seems a reasonable place should read 3-6 months of pregnancy...
iih | November 10, 2007, 12:20pm | #
I' mildly pro-choice and I couldn't agree more. I'm sick of people calling each other amoral baby killers and misogynist women haters.As I explain above, I am against abortion on a moral/religious basis, but I would be against making it law one way or the other. If I do change my mind, I would realize that taking an extreme position and starting calling the other side baby-killers or misogynist women-haters is certainly a logical non-starter. That may be why this issue is so stuck in this country --the extremists are dominating the field.
And, it seems, that Ron Paul's position is far from being extreme. It sounds like a good compromise. If one does not like the state's law, then move to another state.
iih | November 10, 2007, 12:24pm | #
J sub D:BTW, have you followed up on that discussion regarding Ron Paul and abortion at the Pandagon website? Did your comment get published? Bob Murphy, I was suprised/glad to see, also pitched. I think it is the Bob Murphy.
crimethink | November 10, 2007, 12:28pm | #
1) Until the 1960's there were draconian laws that were designed to prevent women (and to a lesser extent men) from controlling reproduction, by outlawing birth-control drugs and devices, and even by outlawing communicating the existence of such tools. There are still many people who wish to use the state to go back to those halycon days.We were talking about abortion, not contraception. This is nothing more than a red herring.
Pregnancy carries significant health risks for the mother. These risks are much reduced in this day and age, but they are still there.
Thus, for people who can get pregnant, having the option to evict the person respassing on their property, can be a matter of life or death.
Cases in which it's a matter of life and death are extremely few compared to the number of purely elective abortions. I'll admit that the pro-life position isn't as clear-cut in the case of pregnancies resulting from rape, incest, or truly threatening the life of the mother. But the difficulties in those cases hardly justify allowing the other 99% of abortions, which destroy unborns conceived through consensual sex who do not threaten the life of the mother.
crimethink | November 10, 2007, 12:31pm | #
And the trespassing analogy is inapposite. Trespassers have to enter your property before they can trespass; an unborn doesn't enter his or her mother's body, but begins existence there.J sub D | November 10, 2007, 12:36pm | #
iih, they printed my post, but I didn't discuss the abortion issue because, as you can see from my 12:02 pm post, I don't think overturnig Roe v. Wade is going to change much in America.Damn those Patriots look good this year. My Lions, for a change, don't suck. Still, there's half a season to go. They can embarrass themselves yet.
The Patriots are indeed doing great. So are the Celtics. If it weren't for a loss to Cleveland and the stupid Bruins, it would have been a perfect month for New England pro sports.
iih | November 10, 2007, 12:52pm | #
Ron Paul in NH:"I don't know how it happens that you've put my slogan on your license plates!" -- Ron Paul, 11.7.2007
J sub D | November 10, 2007, 12:55pm | #
Under what handle did you post as? "Gee"?J sub D
November 4, 2007 at 10:51 pm
If I can't post under that anywhere, I use JsubD. It'd be too hard for this less than genius to remember otherwise.
crimethink | November 10, 2007, 1:10pm | #
iih,The strange thing is, when I looked after posting, I noticed they'd put up "PhoenecianRoman's" post but not mine, even though that person had posted after me. So, I thought they were just censoring mine.
The next day I looked, and my post was up...and it was placed before PhonecianRoman's. Weird. I wonder if they only moderate new posters, while long time ones post immediately.
iih | November 10, 2007, 1:15pm | #
crimethink:I think that you're correct. My first post took a few minutes to appear (i.e., it was not immediately/automatically posted). I think because mine seemed benign/naive, they thought it ok to publish. Anyhow, it was entertaining posting there.
The Wine Commonsewer | November 10, 2007, 1:31pm | #
J Sub, I lived in a house that was a toilet a few times.The Wine Commonsewer | November 10, 2007, 1:42pm | #
Just got off the phone with the Kosmik Kid from Philly. He said it's cold but there's a huge, enthusiastic crowd.He has not yet been arrested nor has he spotted Weigel.
robc | November 10, 2007, 1:43pm | #
Mr. Nice Guy,they win the home state of Mitch McConnel in a route
I know a lot about KY, living here. Mitch is the fluke (sort of), not this election. The 7 governors before Fletcher were all Dems. Fletcher lost because he was corrupt [but, speaking only for myself, I have preferred the last 4 years of republican corruption to the previous 32 years of democratic corruption]. No one, except hardcore dem partisans, was excited about this race. There was a lot of close your eyss and point.
Of the 5 or 6 statewide races, The Rs won 2. The norm is zero, although they won 3 last time. The other 2 GOP incumbents (Sec of Ag and Sec of Treas?) won easily.
Also, in Louisville, the Democratic mayor-for-life was thumped on his money grabbing, tax hike plan. 67-33 in a city that went for both Gore and Kerry and kicked out a GOP rep last year.
J sub D | November 10, 2007, 2:00pm | #
I apoligize for the length of this post. Skip it if you want. I'll only be mildly offended.Everybody who is running for president has a website. I just visited John Edwards' campaign site. Some thoughts.
Edwards has proposed a specific plan for truly universal health care that will take on the insurance and drug companies, cover every man, woman, and child in America, and get better care at lower cost.
And it's free. No downsides at all.
Edwards has outlined an ambitious agenda to eliminate poverty within a generation.
And I thought LBJ had already done that.
We must also lead on the great challenges like ending the genocide in Darfur and the conflict in Uganda and fighting global poverty and diseases like AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.
Troops and money. But it's for better casuses than Iraq!
Edwards will restore our energy independence by asking Americans to be patriotic about something other than war and building a new energy economy based on clean renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Because intervention in the energy business has produced such sterling results in the past! And if we just grow enough corn and build enough windmills, we'll never need fossil fuels again. Note, NO mention of nuclear or hydroelectric power. Can't piss off the Greens y'know.
To give every child an opportunity to get ahead, Edwards will invest in our teachers, educate our children for the challenges of the 21st century, and make college more affordable through College for Everyone.
From the link - It helps pay for the first year of tuition, fees and books for college students who agree to work part-time. Students must also complete coursework that prepares them for further education, stay out of trouble, and enroll in a participating public university or community college. Emphasis added.
One year of tuition assistance for those that follow the rules. Revolutionary thinking there.
Edwards will repair our sacred contract with America's military families and veterans.
I have no idea what that means. It sounds great though.
J sub D | November 10, 2007, 2:01pm | #
J Sub, I lived in a house that was a toilet a few times.Haven't we all?
The Wine Commonsewer | November 10, 2007, 2:04pm | #
Haven't we all?Yes, but one on mine didn't have a handle. :-)
At the http://thisnovember11th.com/ website, the number of contributions is actually going down! It went from 1916, to 1915, to 1914 now. Hmmm!?!
J sub D | November 10, 2007, 2:15pm | #
Yes, but one on mine didn't have a handle. :-)No offense, but I believe that is defined as a shit-hole. Been there,doner that. ;-)
Lavinia Weissman | November 10, 2007, 4:41pm | #
Which candidate would I want to babysit my kids?Dennis Kucinich who came out lead in Democratic online polls. He has figured out how to run a low cost grassroots campaign. Now if only the grassroots would go to the polls.
The Wine Commonsewer | November 10, 2007, 4:59pm | #
....I believe that is defined as a shit-hole.....Yep. :-)
J sub D | November 10, 2007, 5:07pm | #
Which candidate would I want to babysit my kids?That's too easy.
Hillary.
It's women's work.
iih | November 10, 2007, 5:17pm | #
Which candidate would I want to babysit my kids?RP having 5 children, 17 grand children and one great grand child qualifies him for the job. You see, he THE candidate.
crimethink | November 10, 2007, 5:26pm | #
Which candidate would I want to babysit my kids?Sam Brownback...he'd have no trouble putting them to sleep. Of course, as Dan T would say, I'll understand differently when I have kids of my own.
James Anderson Merritt | November 10, 2007, 5:47pm | #
Another data point: My family and I attended an evening with Salman Rushdie at San Jose State University the other night. As we were returning to our car around 10pm, we were approached by someone handing out fliers -- for Ron Paul. I looked over the flier, looked to the RP Revolutionary, smiled, and said, "Go Ron Paul!," as the light changed and we went on our way. He seemed cheered by that.What stayed with me was that the fellow wasn't in the general vicinity of the lecture hall, where hundreds of people were gathered. Instead, he was directly on the path people would take, coming from the lecture as well as the nearby campus library, to emerge into the SJ downtown area in search of restaurants, bars, movies, shopping, or their parked cars. It was a spot that would maximize both city foot traffic and university foot traffic at 10pm: intelligently, strategically chosen. And the guy was moving those fliers as fast as he could hand them out. I didn't notice too many people tossing them away. Go Ron Paul, indeed.
crimethink | November 10, 2007, 6:16pm | #
Here's a Dallas Morning News article about Ron Paul quoting Nick Gillespie using the word "bullshit".The thought just occurred to me, and is more a chestnut for intellectual discourse as a matter of hypothetical, but if Ron Paul, by chance were to win the Republican nomination, something very interesting would happen. In the debate between the Democratic nominee and Paul, there would be roughly the same opinion on the direction the war needs to take (ROUGHLY). Now that both candidates would have a relatively similar view that an end would need to be brought to the war in Iraq, there would be a truly hard debate on domestic issues, and the conservative voice for the first time in a while being a sharp economic mind. It would be refreshing to see a debate that was free from the polarizing Hawk/Dove false dichotomy of today's liberals and neocons.
David E. Gallaher | November 10, 2007, 7:12pm | #
"It was a spot that would maximize both city foot traffic and university foot traffic at 10pm: intelligently, strategically chosen. "James Anderson Merritt,
You have hit upon why hopes should not get overly high about Ron Paul's chances.
When it comes down to it, democracy is a game played by the hoi polloi, and they will never take kindly to the intelligensia.
Imagine trying to promote chess at a Bingo party.
Look at what happens to the intelligensia time and time again throughout history, when the hoi polloi form mobs: France, Russia, Cambodia, China...
John-David | November 10, 2007, 7:14pm | #
Peter,That's a truly fascinating observation. Ron Paul debating Clinton/Obama/Edwards would be a pure domestic debate, which might be exactly what this country needs to wake up from its slumber.
Too bad it'll never happen. I just don't have enough $$$ to give to Dr. Paul (my $50 I gave on Guy Fawkes Day might be the extent of it).
David E. Gallaher | November 10, 2007, 7:24pm | #
John-David and Peter,It's the journey, not the destination.
More people are enjoying the journey.
That's good enough for me.
John-David | November 10, 2007, 7:34pm | #
By the way, I'm going to throw out an insane idea here:Should (and can he, from a principled standpoint) Ron Paul accept matching public funding for the primaries? This idea has popped into my head, and the more I think about it, the more I think it could lead to Dr. Paul really raking in the cash, with every donor knowing that his donation would be matched by the idiots who check that little box on their tax forms.
John-David | November 10, 2007, 7:39pm | #
Now that I've investigated, I see the the question I asked has been written about already:Let us conclude by now directly addressing the questions posed at the outset. Should Ron accept government matching funds? He would be very unwise to do so, despite the fact that there is nothing in the libertarian legal philosophy that would be violated by such an action. Should the rest of us stop availing ourselves of government "services"? Not at all. The problem is not when the government returns wealth to us; the rights violation occurs when the state seizes our income.http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block86.html
CharlesWT | November 10, 2007, 7:57pm | #
2008 SelectSmart.com Presidential Candidate SelectorKenny | November 10, 2007, 8:04pm | #
So, the water bill override is supposed to be an example of Congress finally asserting its prerogatives contra the Executive Branch.But check this section of the passed legislation out:
(Sec. 2004) Directs the Secretary [of the Army] and the Chief of [the Army Corps of] Engineers (Chief) to prepare a compilation of U.S. laws related to water resources development enacted after November 8, 1966, and before January 1, 2008.So I read this as Congress saying:
"YEAH!!, SCREW YOU, UNITARY EXECUTIVE, RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!!...oh, by the way guys, when you get a chance, could you please tell us whatever the hell we've actually told you to do over the last forty years, because we have no frickin' clue anymore. Can you please? you can? Great! Ok thx, bai!"
Kenny | November 10, 2007, 8:26pm | #
Charles WT-Well your little quiz got me to this guy at 71% of my views.
But being a Hokie alumn, I cannot possibly support someone who is objectively pro-tomahawk as his banner indicates, so I probably will continue to support Paul in the primaries.
(Incindentally, while the list that spit out has Paul (64%) in second, it had John McCain (62%) in third, Bloomberg (60%) in fourth, and Dodd (5450 in fifth, so I am leary of its ability to pick politicians whom I actually agree with)
John-David | November 10, 2007, 8:39pm | #
Heh. I got Kent as my first choice (below "ideal candidate") and Dr. Paul at second as well. Hagel came in at 3rd, with McCain (!) in 4th.CharlesWT | November 10, 2007, 8:48pm | #
1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)2. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (85%)
3. Ron Paul (83%)
4. Alan Keyes (69%)
5. Chuck Hagel (not running) (62%)
6. Tom Tancredo (61%)
Guy Montag | November 10, 2007, 9:06pm | #
OT: n that California oil spill that has "killed" at least 60 birds, is that more birds or fewer than have been killed by electron pumping windmills?CharlesWT | November 10, 2007, 9:26pm | #
But for just as long, massive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors.[...]
The size of the annual body count — conservatively put at 4,700 birds — is unique to this sprawling, 50-square-mile site in the Diablo Mountains between San Francisco and the agricultural Central Valley because it spans an international migratory bird route regulated by the federal government. The low mountains are home to the world's highest density of nesting golden eagles.
Wind turbines taking toll on birds of prey
David E. Gallaher | November 10, 2007, 10:31pm | #
Oh! the aviananity!Good subject as we approach Thanksgiving.
I'm a bird watcher, but also a bird muncher.
The Wine Commonsewer | November 10, 2007, 10:58pm | #
Wind turbines are a blight upon the land.The Wine Commonsewer | November 10, 2007, 11:01pm | #
Gratuitous self-promotion but: CNN interviews Ron Paul following the Philadelphia rally.The Wine Commonsewer | November 10, 2007, 11:09pm | #
I did a similar or possibly the same presidential candidate questionnaire and, IMAGINE MY SURPRISE to find out that I was a McCain Man.iih | November 10, 2007, 11:26pm | #
TWC:Thanks a lot. I was starting to wonder how things went at the rally and whether there has been good media coverage. The CNN interview was good.
rm2muv | November 10, 2007, 11:31pm | #
Is there a Heaven? How about Hell? Is the Devil real? When does life begin? These are questions for religion to ponder and propose answers, not government. People who oppose abortion should work like the devil (oops) to see that there are few unwanted pregnancies and do their best to provide support for those who do become pregnant and don't want a child.If a woman (or couple) still wish to have an abortion, then it should be up to them to decide and take the moral consequences within their own heart.
Mr. Nice Guy | November 10, 2007, 11:36pm | #
Where do you guys for your polling data? I look here:http://www.pollster.com/
From their polls Paul doesn't break 4% in any of the upcoming states...
Don't get me wrong, I think Paul has major momentum. In the last few days I have heard a NPR story on him, a CNN, and then saw quite a few bumper stickers/yard signs for him. I'm just unsure how he will do in the real voting...I think he is best to concentrate his efforts in NH which has been good to mavericks.
Someone above said Roe v. Wade is bad law. Do they think Griswold is bad law? Because I think Roe naturally flows from it (as does Lawrence v. Texas).
Lastly, do you think a Dem can win President in an environment in which the top news network is basically an appendage of the GOP? Surely Ailes and Co. can swift boat any Dem candidate...
Mr. Nice Guy | November 10, 2007, 11:40pm | #
"If a woman (or couple) still wish to have an abortion, then it should be up to them to decide and take the moral consequences within their own heart."I can understand the sentiment behind this, but I think it's nonsense literally. We don't let people make up their own minds about infanticide (actual, not pro-life rhetoric) or murder...Pro-life people think abortion is equivalent (and interestingly given the discussion on another thread many animal rights activists think the killing of some animals to be nearly as bad). That there is uncertainty on the issue among the public does not necessarily make it something the government should not bad (there was uncertainty on whether the government should step in and end slavery).
Libertarians seems safer to me asserting something like the non-agression principle and then letting individual libs make up their minds as to whether abortion or animal rights falls within the principle...
iih | November 10, 2007, 11:48pm | #
If a woman (or couple) still wish to have an abortion, then it should be up to them to decide and take the moral consequences within their own heart.I think that puts how I exactly feel about any abortion laws very well. As far as I am concerned, I do not think my heart can take the moral consequences of having my wife abort a potential. I think that with a country as diverse as the US, no laws governing abortion should be made (certainly not on the federal level). More homogeneous communities (district, or state levels) can come up with their own laws.
iih | November 10, 2007, 11:54pm | #
MNG:Libertarians seems safer to me asserting something like the non-agression principle and then letting individual libs make up their minds as to whether abortion or animal rights falls within the principle...
But you are now essentially saying exactly what rm2muv says above:
If a woman (or couple) still wish to have an abortion, then it should be up to them to decide and take the moral consequences within their own heart.
i.e., do not legislate (at least at a federal level).
iih | November 11, 2007, 12:12am | #
CharlesWT:I was starting to get worried about the contributions. The numbers were pretty low today. Starting at midnight, the numbers are going up decently -- just saw $500 on 1 minute. Good sign.
The Wine Commonsewer | November 11, 2007, 12:20am | #
Lastly, do you think a Dem can win President in an environment in which the top news network is basically an appendage of the GOP?I dunno, Reagan won in an environment in which the top three news networks were basically an appendage of the Dems.
The Wine Commonsewer | November 11, 2007, 12:21am | #
iih, the pleasure was entirely mine.Mr. Nice Guy | November 11, 2007, 12:29am | #
I dunno Wino, were any of the presidents of CBS, NBC or ABC former Democratic Presidential Consultants?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ailes#Political_consulting
The journalists who work for the major networks lean left, but are all trained journalists rather than political operatives. Fox is simply an appendage of the GOP (not even "conservatism").
But of course to culture warriors, it's all the same thing, right?
Rick Barton | November 11, 2007, 12:33am | #
I spoke up for Ron Paul on talk radio-Pointed out that he's a vet who respects vets with his approach that they should only be deployed in response to a bonafide threat. A guy who was on after me called RP a "nut job" sans any explanation. After that, another fellow called in and defended Ron Paul.CharlesWT | November 11, 2007, 1:02am | #
$14,943.00 in the first hour.Rick Barton | November 11, 2007, 1:03am | #
Lastly, do you think a Dem can win President in an environment in which the top news network is basically an appendage of the GOP?I sure don't want the FOX's foreign policy approach to speak for my GOP!
Neu Mejican | November 11, 2007, 1:56am | #
iih,no laws governing abortion should be made (certainly not on the federal level). More homogeneous communities (district, or state levels) can come up with their own laws.
Why allow the state government/the city council to intrude on this very personal choice when you recognize that the federal government has no business doing so?
The idea of checks and balances works, partially, by having federal/central power balanced against federal power. In the case of abortion, a federal limit on the rights of local governments in this arena limits the intrusion of government in the lives of individuals.
Neu Mejican | November 11, 2007, 1:58am | #
Oops,balanced against federal power should read...
"balanced against state/local power"
The Wine Commonsewer | November 11, 2007, 2:38am | #
The journalists who work for the major networks lean left, but are all trained journalists rather than political operatives.I just cannot do that little smirky throat thing where you snort something like yeah right without opening your mouth, moving your lips, or rolling you eyes...........my kids know exactly what it means though.
See that long hallway? Walk all the way back and you'll find a ten foot oak door. Open the door. Inside you'll find a really long oak bar. Tell the barkeep, Danny, that TWC sent you and that you really need a couple glasses of decent red. That'll shape you right up.
smartass sob | November 11, 2007, 2:48am | #
a federal limit on the rights of local governments in this arena limits the intrusion of government in the lives of individuals.Neu Mejican,
I suppose this will seem like nitpicking to you and to others, but I would like to point out that strictly speaking, neither the federal government nor any state or local government has any rights under the Constitution; they have only powers. Powers are delegated to them and can be removed. I think it's very important to remember that distinction.
Sparky | November 11, 2007, 3:36am | #
"Tell the barkeep, Danny, that TWC sent you and that you really need a couple glasses of decent red."Can you ask him to set me up with some quality bourbon? Maybe some Pappy or Eagle Rare? I could use a drink.
prolefeed | November 11, 2007, 4:20am | #
No sane person would imagine that he personally had the right to go forthwith a six gun and stop women from aborting -- they merely imagine that this
god like being, the state, has the right to do that. Yet everyone realizes
that they have the right to violently stop a murderer with a six gun.
Clever argument, Brandybuck. Kudos. Now, if your neighbor was killing their six year old child, and the police were prohibited by the Supreme Court from interfering with said killing or prosecuting the killer, and the only one who could stop the killing was you, by taking a gun and stopping them -- would you do it? If so, what if the child was a bit younger, say, one day before delivery? What if, instead of a neighbor you knew, it was some stranger you'd never met, committing the killing far away from your home?
If not, do you then think it is a good idea for society to allow parents to kill their children without any legal repercussions?
Were you finessed this, it seems, is equating personally defending yourself from being murdered -- which everyone who is not suicidal agrees is your right, and something you'd almost certainly do -- with personally defending your neighbor, or a random stranger, from being murdered, which people would be far less likely to risk their own lives to do. Which is why we hire professionals to stop such clearly wrong behavior, since otherwise the random stranger being murdered could be us -- as sixstring pointed out from direct personal experience -- and everyone else might sit around wringing their hands watching and thinking, I sure don't like that, but I'm not gonna risk my life for a stranger.
Ooops, that was Vlad Drac and not Brandybuck, who posted the pro-abortion quote above. My apologies.
prolefeed | November 11, 2007, 4:51am | #
Which candidate would I want to babysit my kids?Unspoken premise: that a person really skilled at telling people with little or no judgment how they should conduct their life -- who is literally a nanny to them and treats them like children -- is precisely the sort of person who should be running the executive branch in this country, and so everyone subscribing to Parenting magazine should go out and vote for the biggest nanny-statist authoritarian possible.
And readers of People magazine should vote for the biggest attention-craving publicity hound ...
And readers of Playboy should vote for whoever has the hottest trophy wife ...
prolefeed | November 11, 2007, 5:15am | #
On CharlesWT's link to the SelectSmart quiz of presidential candidates, I got (after tossing people who've dropped out of the race):1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
3. Ron Paul (80%) Information link
5. Alan Keyes (64%) Information link
7. John McCain (61%) Information link
10. Mitt Romney (58%) Information link
11. Tom Tancredo (58%) Information link
12. Duncan Hunter (54%) Information link
13. Fred Thompson (51%) Information link
14. Christopher Dodd (49%) Information link
15.