I'm not gonna debate you, Jerry! Politics thread.

by **The Red Tornado** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 13:19:06

Im actually watching cspan2- right now they have footage of President Hoover speaking at the 1960 republican convention. (he was age 85)

by **drsmooth** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 13:19:10

gr wrote:I agree with the political standpoint here. While the blogosphere can pretty much say whatever they want, the Obama campaign can't. I seriously doubt they'll make an issue of this. In 04, both Kerry and Edwards tried to politicize Cheyney's daughter being gay and we saw how well that went over.

Also could re-invigorate - and further confuse - discussion of health care/health insurance issues.

Daughter's certainly within bounds of parents health coverage (Alaskan public employees DO have health benefits don't they?), quite likely up to & including the delivery.

But baby's probably not - so a) pray for the baby's bounteous health b) keep a watchful eye out for proposals for some innovative health benefits modifications across the land.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 13:20:47

The Red Tornado wrote:Im actually watching cspan2- right now they have footage of President Humphrey speaking at the 1960 republican convention. (he was age 85)

Uhhh.... SciFi channel?

Sounds more like Hoover (& not J Edgar)

by **The Red Tornado** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 13:21:59

drsmooth wrote:
The Red Tornado wrote:Im actually watching cspan2- right now they have footage of President Humphrey speaking at the 1960 republican convention. (he was age 85)

Uhhh.... SciFi channel?

Sounds more like Hoover (& not J Edgar)

complete and utter brain fart- I was thinking Hoover and typed HUmphrey instead

by **drsmooth** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 13:56:53

The Red Tornado wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
The Red Tornado wrote:Im actually watching cspan2- right now they have footage of President Humphrey speaking at the 1960 republican convention. (he was age 85)

Uhhh.... SciFi channel?

Sounds more like Hoover (& not J Edgar)

complete and utter brain fart- I was thinking Hoover and typed HUmphrey instead

what are you, some sort of a nuclear engineer or something?

by **pacino** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 14:55:20

Bakestar wrote:From a political standpoint, the Dems risk severe backlash (which is on the verge I think) for picking on and demonizing a pregnant teen and her and her family's personal CHOICE vis-a-vis lifestyle/reproduction, which is what women have been fighting for for a long time. The right to CHOOSE, it applies even to REPUBLICAN families!

So the daughter made a personal choice. A choice to keep the baby...that implies there was some other legitimate choice she could've made too, FWIW.

This isn't a screed against the young girl, but it shows the realities of life don't conform to Palin's views. To me this would be a non-story except that it's like the Larry Craig hypocritical crap in that Palin is for abstinence-only education.

edit: Anyway, I really wonder what she brings other than an appeal to identity politics?

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 15:10:15

Also, for a lot of these people, a 17 year old girl getting pregnant and then marrying her father is a good thing. It gets her to submit to the lordly guidance of a husband before she gets any foolish ideas like living independently and making her own way in the world and getting an education. Now, those may not be Palin's values, but they are the values of some of the right wingers the campaign is trying to reach.

by **pacino** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 15:18:00

TenuredVulture wrote:Also, for a lot of these people, a 17 year old girl getting pregnant and then marrying her father is a good thing. It gets her to submit to the lordly guidance of a husband before she gets any foolish ideas like living independently and making her own way in the world and getting an education. Now, those may not be Palin's values, but they are the values of some of the right wingers the campaign is trying to reach.

If those were Palin's values she wouldn't be on McCain's ticket. And why would someone with those values vote for said female? See what I'm saying?

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 15:22:30

pacino wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:Also, for a lot of these people, a 17 year old girl getting pregnant and then marrying her father is a good thing. It gets her to submit to the lordly guidance of a husband before she gets any foolish ideas like living independently and making her own way in the world and getting an education. Now, those may not be Palin's values, but they are the values of some of the right wingers the campaign is trying to reach.

If those were Palin's values she wouldn't be on McCain's ticket. And why would someone with those values vote for said female? See what I'm saying?

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/436448.aspx

Remember, you're applying things like rationality and coherence. These people would argue that a triangle has four sides if Dr. Dobson told them to.

by **Bakestar** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 16:02:16

pacino wrote:This isn't a screed against the young girl, but it shows the realities of life don't conform to Palin's views. To me this would be a non-story except that it's like the Larry Craig hypocritical crap in that Palin is for abstinence-only education.

The analogy would be slightly more accurate if it were an unmarried Governor Palin herself who was having the child. Although it is a pretty strong indictment of the efficacy of abstinence-only.

... adding, in the end, I don't see any reason to harp on this story endlessly. It really just speaks for itself.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 16:05:32

Bakestar wrote:
pacino wrote:This isn't a screed against the young girl, but it shows the realities of life don't conform to Palin's views. To me this would be a non-story except that it's like the Larry Craig hypocritical crap in that Palin is for abstinence-only education.

The analogy would be slightly more accurate if it were an unmarried Governor Palin herself who was having the child. Although it is a pretty strong indictment of the efficacy of abstinence-only.

... adding, in the end, I don't see any reason to harp on this story endlessly. It really just speaks for itself.

This story is getting a lot of harping by the right.

by **pacino** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 16:16:01

I would only add in a general sense about hte idea of being 'pro-life', from the link you put up tv:

This is the pro-life choice

That was right near the beginning. Now, I'm not a biblical scholar, nor do I know much about religion. However, I thought the whole idea was that there WASN'T a choice, and that it was a moral imperative to always keep a child? By framing the pro-life opinion as a 'choice', don't they invalidate their entire opinion, or am I missing something? Is this simply a way to morally elevate themselves(CBN) as choosing the 'right' way when so many in our world choose the 'wrong' way? Instead of simply doing it because it's the only thing they know, they are CHOOSING to be above the fray and to be chosen by god, whereas the rest of society is lost.

That's just a rambling thought that came to me while reading that blog post TV.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 16:36:49

pacino wrote:I would only add in a general sense about hte idea of being 'pro-life', from the link you put up tv:
This is the pro-life choice

That was right near the beginning. Now, I'm not a biblical scholar, nor do I know much about religion. However, I thought the whole idea was that there WASN'T a choice, and that it was a moral imperative to always keep a child? By framing the pro-life opinion as a 'choice', don't they invalidate their entire opinion, or am I missing something? Is this simply a way to morally elevate themselves(CBN) as choosing the 'right' way when so many in our world choose the 'wrong' way? Instead of simply doing it because it's the only thing they know, they are CHOOSING to be above the fray and to be chosen by god, whereas the rest of society is lost.

That's just a rambling thought that came to me while reading that blog post TV.

I do think among many on the right the primary motivation is to obtain a sense of moral superiority. It's much like the way many on the left like to assert intellectual superiority.

by **dajafi** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 16:48:41

The crackdown on protesters in the Twin Cities that doc mentioned sounds pretty horrific:

Protesters here in Minneapolis have been targeted by a series of highly intimidating, sweeping police raids across the city, involving teams of 25-30 officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons drawn, entering homes of those suspected of planning protests, handcuffing and forcing them to lay on the floor, while law enforcement officers searched the homes, seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets. Last night, members of the St. Paul police department and the Ramsey County sheriff's department handcuffed, photographed and detained dozens of people meeting at a public venue to plan a demonstration, charging them with no crime other than "fire code violations," and early this morning, the Sheriff's department sent teams of officers into at least four Minneapolis area homes where suspected protesters were staying.

Today's Star Tribune added that the raids were specifically "aided by informants planted in protest groups." Back in May, Marcy Wheeler presciently noted that the Minneapolis Joint Terrorist Task Force -- an inter-agency group of federal, state and local law enforcement led by the FBI -- was actively recruiting Minneapolis residents to serve as plants, to infiltrate "vegan groups" and other left-wing activist groups and report back to the Task Force about what they were doing. There seems to be little doubt that it was this domestic spying by the Federal Government that led to the excessive and truly despicable home assaults by the police yesterday.

So here we have a massive assault led by Federal Government law enforcement agencies on left-wing dissidents and protesters who have committed no acts of violence or illegality whatsoever, preceded by months-long espionage efforts to track what they do. And as extraordinary as that conduct is, more extraordinary is the fact that they have received virtually no attention from the national media and little outcry from anyone. And it's not difficult to see why. As the recent "overhaul" of the 30-year-old FISA law illustrated -- preceded by the endless expansion of surveillance state powers, justified first by the War on Drugs and then the War on Terror -- we've essentially decided that we want our Government to spy on us without limits. There is literally no police power that the state can exercise that will cause much protest from the political and media class and, therefore, from the citizenry.

Beyond that, there is a widespread sense that the targets of these raids deserve what they get, even if nothing they've done is remotely illegal. We love to proclaim how much we cherish our "freedoms" in the abstract, but we despise those who actually exercise them. The Constitution, right in the very First Amendment, protects free speech and free assembly precisely because those liberties are central to a healthy republic -- but we've decided that anyone who would actually express truly dissident views or do anything other than sit meekly and quietly in their homes are dirty trouble-makers up to no good, and it's therefore probably for the best if our Government keeps them in check, spies on them, even gets a little rough with them.

After all, if you don't want the FBI spying on you, or the Police surrounding and then invading your home with rifles and seizing your computers, there's a very simple solution: don't protest the Government. Just sit quietly in your house and mind your own business. That way, the Government will have no reason to monitor what you say and feel the need to intimidate you by invading your home. Anyone who decides to protest -- especially with something as unruly and disrespectful as an unauthorized street march -- gets what they deserve.
...
Just review what happened yesterday and today. Homes of college-aid protesters were raided by rifle-wielding police forces. Journalists were forcibly detained at gun point. Lawyers on the scene to represent the detainees were handcuffed. Computers, laptops, journals, diaries, and political pamphlets were seized from people's homes. And all of this occurred against U.S. citizens, without a single act of violence having taken place, and nothing more serious than traffic blockage even alleged by authorities to have been planned.

Emphasis mine. More and more, I'm coming to believe that the Chinese model, which we might call "just-in-time authoritarianism" where the government doesn't come after you until you do something to upset someone in power, is more or less the template for our country as well.

This isn't a partisan issue, as I'm not at all convinced that the Democrats would be any more accommodating of peaceful dissent than the Republicans have been. Paranoia (on the part of the state) and apathy (on the part of the citizenry) know no party. But I think it's something that basically should scare the shit out of you whatever your political leanings.

by **threecount** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 17:18:57

Doesn't look like the Palin pick gave McCain any kind of initial bounce.

The new CBS poll out today has Obama up eight points while Gallup and Rasmussen still have Obama ahead as well.

Of course, the real polling matters on election day, but what is interesting, is that the polls are showing Palin's support is stronger among men and not women.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 17:20:17

Bakestar wrote:Although it is a pretty strong indictment of the efficacy of abstinence-only.

She got pregnant without having sex :shock:

by **Woody** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 18:06:16

Some people think that's possible, ya know!

by **mpmcgraw** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 18:08:53

i blame those people for most of the problems in the world

by **TomatoPie** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 20:53:26

drsmooth wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:Coming from the guy who's become the biggest troll in this thread, I'm not really rattled.

XOXOX *SMOOCH*

it's the cicadas - they're driving me CRAZY

Rillly?

I love the sounds of summer, cicadas and all. If I can hear a cicada, I can eat a Brandywine tomato sangawitch.

by **Philly the Kid** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 20:58:06

VoxOrion wrote:Katrina killed the Bush presidency?

That perspective seems only possible if you're looking out from the inside left... or a PTK style paranoid.

Hey... no need for that. :-)

Not paranoid Vox, wary and distrustful in total of the Reagan and Bush White Houses.

Archived

I'm not gonna debate you, Jerry! Politics thread.