We may see a shift in the US political landscape.

[Count Duckula]

Huh?
Stop trollingt the conspiricy theories already.
[right][snapback]90999[/snapback][/right]

You open your mouth and it's considered trolling, sparky. At least when I post smarmy, people become agitated from my words, not my lack of spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. You can just post a topic and, whatever that topic might state, you word it in such a way that people (such as myself) can't help but a) wish you'd do something flagrantly against forum rules and b) whip out the scorecard and prepare to count the hypocrisies. There's a way to present an idea without inciting the masses to flame your ass to a crisp, and you'd think after at least two years with this little happy family, you'd figure it out.

But anyway...

I think the war in Iraq and the national economy will be the two key factors in 2008, with abortion and "family values" flung about as a decoy (as it always has been and always will be) and both parties plagued by scandals, past (Clinton) and current (DeLay/Blount). I doubt gun control will be a big player; when Heston finally goes to the great gun show in the sky, unless there's somebody with clout taking his place, the NRA won't count for much in the way of stance or support.

As for immigration...I don't think anybody really knows the situation well enough to say one way or the other...and that goes for the government as well as the Lounge. ;)

[Munkay]

You open your mouth and it's considered trolling, sparky. At least when I post smarmy, people become agitated from my words, not my lack of spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. You can just post a topic and, whatever that topic might state, you word it in such a way that people (such as myself) can't help but a) wish you'd do something flagrantly against forum rules and B) whip out the scorecard and prepare to count the hypocrisies. There's a way to present an idea without inciting the masses to flame your ass to a crisp, and you'd think after at least two years with this little happy family, you'd figure it out.

In all honesty Count Duckula, I have to side with Ghostiger on this one. Indeed his accusation that it is a troll may be slightly far fetched, but not entirely off base either. The issue itself is a core issue, abortion is not just a facade for something else. It could be argued that the politicians, media, government as a whole, is blowing the issue out of proportion, though I believe even that is a stretch. Abortion is a hot button topic and has some meat behind it.

In respect to Doc's recent posts, there have been a number of conspiracy theories on the lounge with his name on it. The accusation that is trolling with it is the stretch.

At the same time I must note Doc's posts about conspiracy theories appear to all be made with the best interests in mind. And at the very least leave loungers with a provoking thought.

Cheers,

Munk

[Guest]

I wish some stuff about you missy(and 2 other people here.) But I cant say it. I cant even say what I think of you. Suffice to say I dont find you impresive.


Any way Doc has been attaching consiricy theory to everything this last couple of weeks and its getting old. He keeps diverting every hot topic to this.

[Doc]

Problem is with me running my mouth about "conspiracy theories" is that I have an annoying habit of being right.

"Hey man... Nixon is doing some dastardly."

"Hey... Reagan and his administration seem to be up to no good. Have you heard about this Ollie North character?"

"LBJ hasn't been telling the whole truth about the Viet Nam situation."

"The Clintons have been doing some shady real estate dealings. Look out!"

"There is a new kind of republican that is really a facist in a business suit. People are calling them Neo-Cons."

"There is something in the works called the Patriot Act. It's the end of civil liberties as we know them."

"Hey, I just heard over my band scanner that they are illegally taking weapons from the citizens of Nawlins."

I hate being right all the damn time. <_<

[Guest]

No the problem is you dont even seem know whatn is and isnt a conspiracy by definition.

[whyBish]

No the problem is you dont even seem know whatn is and isnt a conspiracy by definition.
[right][snapback]91083[/snapback][/right]

Why am I reminded of Statler and Waldorf?

[whyBish]

Criminal law has nothing to do with morality.
[right][snapback]91053[/snapback][/right]

"has" or "should have"?

If it isn't based on morality, then what is it based on? Religion? Science? Some particular philosophy? Custom? Something else?

How does the above selection justify that:
- new laws get created
- murder is a crime or not
- abortion is legal or not
- Sex with a 17 yr old is legal or not depending on which side of the state line you stand on, and what your own age is
- (Looking at / trading) pictures of a crime is illegal or not based on what the content is
- etc.

[Griselda]

Remember kids, knowing is half the battle!

Wait, that's not right. Let's see here. Oh, yes:

"Attack the idea, not the person"

Please try to keep that in mind, *everyone*, because this one looks like it's headed downhill fast.

[DeeBye]

Remember kids, knowing is half the battle!
[right][snapback]91087[/snapback][/right]

This thread needs a serious DANCE-OFF!

[kandrathe]

Actually read before you quote from now on ok?
[right][snapback]91058[/snapback][/right]

Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. I did READ your FGIN post. But, after this I think I'll refrain from wallowing in this mud pit with you.

I didnt over generalize&nbsp; - I said a "key portion". In closely divided US politics 10% is more than enough to be "key". I really dont know if the number is closer to 5% or 40%, I just know its considered vital group of voters by Carl Rove types. If I had meant a larger number I would have said so.
You should actually pay attention to the words I use before disputing them.
[right][snapback]91058[/snapback][/right]

You DID over generalize in MY OPINION. KEY means significant, as in Keystone. You attempt to paint a large category of individuals with a broad stroke implying they are myopic in focusing on TWO friggin issues.

I specifically said these people cared more about abortion than economic issues.
You inserting racism was inteelctually dishonest - for shame.
[right][snapback]91058[/snapback][/right]

I did not insert racism, I contrasted two extremes of people that have labeled themselves as Republicans. Duke also ran as a Democrat so other than a power hungry white supremicist, I'm not sure what he is. He lost his bid to be Governor of Lousiana against a Democrat, Edwin Edwards, reknowned for being dirty, and popular bumper stickers during the election were "Vote for the Crook. It's Important." and "Better a Lizard than a Wizard."

Also if you dont belive there is core group fanatical against abortion I suggest you are simply uninformed. It centered in Christian radio and evangelical/babtistic churches. Please dont argue the sematic of church groups either - what ever you choose to call them they exist.
[right][snapback]91058[/snapback][/right]

I never disputed that there are special interest groups, and some are large like the NRA. But, the NRA is not a Republican special interest group. Neither is the Catholic Church. But the leadership of either the NRA, or the Catholic church are not able to control how their members think or vote. Are you trying to suggest that all the millions of people who listen to christian radio or belong to Baptist (and I'll toss in Catholic) churchs are solely focused on TWO issues? Should we then also generalize and suggest that all members of the AFL/CIO or unions would vote only about jobs? Or, maybe the Green Party only is focused on the environment?

This group obviously wasnt enough to get Bush elected, but there is no way he would have been elected with out them. Many people voted for him mainly because they only cared about packing the court to change abortion laws.

And, you support this conjecture with what evidence? How big is "this group" and which study was it that determined "the only reason I voted for GW"?

No, I think my hunch that you were over-generalizing may be accurate.

[kandrathe]

Just a quick point: who thinks otherwise?&nbsp; Do you really believe that welfare liberals advocate their agenda simply because they like government?&nbsp; No, they, too, feel that the normative elements of the constitution demand that the government take a certain role in the welfare of the citizenry.
[right][snapback]91046[/snapback][/right]

I think there are clear differences between those that "try" solve problems by building more government, and those who do not. Both sides do it. DHS anyone? I see nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government a role in education. There are many, many other examples of bulky ineffective beauracracies built to "solve" one problem or another.

[Guest]

You want evidense.

Look at election returns.

<1% magin of victory.


The fact the recent elections have been so clase all shows that I was riht on the early point that a "key" group can be small. Yes its signifigant(that synonomous with key which it seems you just learned since you mentioned it) but it could easily be a small amount like 5%.


Also the medium we are using here is rather transparent, why dont you actually figure out if someone is generalized before calling them on your "hunch".
I would be embarased to say I used "hunch" when critiquing the substance what some one wrote- it basically means you cant figure out what you read. A "hunch" is more appropriate if you are talking about the persons motives for writing.

[kandrathe]

You want evidense.

Look at election returns.

<1% magin of victory.
The fact the recent elections have been so clase all shows that I was riht on the early point that a "key" group can be small. Yes its signifigant(that synonomous with key which it seems you just learned since you mentioned it) but it could easily be a small amount like 5%.
Also the medium we are using here is rather transparent, why dont you actually figure out if someone is generalized before calling them on your "hunch".
I would be embarased to say I used "hunch" when critiquing the substance what some one wrote- it basically means you cant figure out what you read. A "hunch" is more appropriate if you are talking about the persons motives for writing.
[right][snapback]91118[/snapback][/right]

Um... If you want to devolve this into a discussion involving my ability to read, or comprehend your complicated post, then we are done. I take it then you were just forum trolling, so I will not take anymore of your bait. Good day.

P.S. A dose of reality for your ruminations.

[Drasca]

This thread needs a serious DANCE-OFF!
[right][snapback]91088[/snapback][/right]

Anyone here want to swing dance (Lindy hop, or Jitterbug)? Two-step? Foxtrot? Maybe even tango, but I'm rather rusty.

Better swing dance, than swing vote!

[Any1]

I would be embarased to say I used "hunch" when critiquing the substance what some one wrote- it basically means you cant figure out what you read. A "hunch" is more appropriate if you are talking about the persons motives for writing.
[right][snapback]91118[/snapback][/right]

Ghostiger,

I've said this before and I'll say it again. You have absolutely zero tact when discussing points of contention with people. Adopting such an abrasive "style", only hurts your credibility.

Cheers,
Any1

[Occhidiangela]

You want evidense.

Look at election returns.

<1% magin of victory.

The fact the recent elections have been so clase all shows that I was riht on the early point that a "key" group can be small. Yes its signifigant(that synonomous with key which it seems you just learned since you mentioned it) but it could easily be a small amount like 5%.
[right][snapback]91118[/snapback][/right]

Margin of victory in which election? 2000? 1960?

2004 was a > 1% differential.

As to core groups of actively interested people being the catalysts for change or leading a movement, that was true for the American Revolution, and has been the rule rather than the exception since. A relatively small percentage of people who give a hoot tend to lead any change or movement.

I disagree with you that abortion is central to the issue. The right to choose or not, under the law, is a smoke screen for the reaction to the 1960's 1970's liberation movements. A key matter is a resource issue:I'll summarize part of the position as "I don't want my tax dollars being wasted on the care and feeding of your illegitimate child, you careless moron." Ironically, as I noted above, an abortion is a far more cost effective way to prevent long term waste, but the argument contra includes "it's a free pass to engage is stupid behavior without personal consequence." Not if you have to pay for the abortion yourself.

The abortion issue is about dealing with symptoms, when the root causation is people making stupid decisions in an era of free love. I have been there, done that.

The shame and social norms that influenced behavior toward less irresponsible sexual behavior were upended (thanks to the Pill, which of course if you don't take won't help you . . . ) in the "let in all hang out" and "free love" themes of various liberation movements. The theme that sexuality was of primary importance in one's life took a while to catch on, and then in caught on with a vengeance. For better and worse.

There were plenty of babies out of wedlock before the "Sexual Revolution." The key difference in the before and after is that before, unwanted pregnancy was "your problem to solve, you moron, not everyone's problem to solve" when one engaged in irresponsible sexual habits. Many feminists felt this was unfair. But they wanted to participate in "free love" it seems. Having one's cake and eating it too is another root. When the Pill came along, men were more able to have their cake and eat it too . . . starting at least in 1969, I think. :lol: Sorry.

This alleged unfairness is based in biology. You can't sue or fight biology, so why not attack "the system?" Acidental pregnancy assigns an unbalanced burden of dealing with consequences of error on the participants: woman has the load to carry. The man has only his morality and honor to convince him to do the right thing, or a paternity suit.

In a society that was trying to break down old morality, free love and various other cultural icons, the message was "you can get a free pass without consequences." It took some decades for the feminists to get the Deadbeat Dads legislation passed, and for what it's worth, a lot of that legislation seems an attempt to treat a symptom rather than a cause.

Since the "liberation" of both men and women from the "constraining social norms" resulted in increased unwanted pregnancies, a corrective device that was once provided for by morality, or by a doctor with a coathanger, or a friend who knew a doctor in another state, or other private means that allowed remedy without shame, those without access to enough dough for an abortion were stuck. And since their bills were paid by "the state" via taxes, everyone else took an interest.

Abortion without shame was chosen as a practical and controllable (no more back alleys and coat hangers) medical procedure aimed at increasing access to error correction: treating the symptom, not the cause.

The explicit push for a society that treated sex as recreation was promoted from all ends: commercial, philosophical, and political. The deliberate and explicit marginalization of the American male, in part villified due to the free pass biology allowed and that only morality and honor could curb or mitigate, had begun. The political assummption was that men were not moral or honorable. This them was either advocated on purpose, as a by product of other aims being pursued, or both. Pick your version of how it went down.

I see the anti abortion crowd, which includes men and women, as at core against careless recreational sex, and as having convinced themselves "we have THE solution to this." The feminists, in the spirit of revolution against "the system" played their irresponsible men symbol who "loved 'em and left 'em" every time the game was played, blithely ignoring, it seems, that it takes two to tango. Oh wait, many feminists are all for emasculation (vasectomy) of men to solve the female's "unfair biological problem."

In arguing for legal abortion at the federal level, the sperm spreaders were held to be the fault of society as a whole, so the proposed solution was removing accountability from everyone, in an odd twist of "equal protection under the law" since it was so hard to insist to those truly immoral and amoral men that they act honorabley.

With poor women seeking state assistance when they fell into the cycle of error, who handles the cost? Our tax dollars? The abortion I paid for, nearly three decades ago, came out of my pocket. In cash. The two of us young, libidinous morons faced up to our error. It is not a process I would wish anyone have to go through.

It matters not that the core enabler of the sexual revolution, condoms and birth control pills, are readily available. Nor does it matter that both are pretty good at preventing most unwanted pregnancies. People screw up when screwing is involved.

The despicable social message is that women are somehow the victims of all this, (it takes two to tango) and are thus owed more social compensation to overcome biology. That is NOT equal protection under the law. Equally unappealing is that personal responsibility is still undermined by the continual perpetuation of "The Cult of the Victim" which is an appeal on behalf of sheep, not free citizens.

It took the spread of herpes and AIDS, I think, and a massive PR campaign over the past decade or so, to reconvince a lot of people that the old customs regarding care in embarking on sexual activity were crafted over time, and time tested, for good reasons.

Occhi

[Any1]

"has" or "should have"?

If it isn't based on morality, then what is it based on?&nbsp; Religion?&nbsp; Science? Some particular philosophy? Custom? Something else?

How does the above selection justify that:
- new laws get created
- murder is a crime or not
- abortion is legal or not
- Sex with a 17 yr old is legal or not depending on which side of the state line you stand on, and what your own age is
- (Looking at / trading) pictures of a crime is illegal or not based on what the content is
- etc.
[right][snapback]91086[/snapback][/right]

IMHO, criminal laws are put into place to facilitate a society where people are safe to live, thrive, and contribute (hopefully). They are meant to discourage/punish/prevent anti-social behavior that can unravel the fabric of a community. Activities like murder, rape, and burglary are clearly detrimental to a production and evolution of a group of people living together. There is no morality consideration in this respect. A country, state, or town cannot allow criminal behavior and still maintain its cohesion.

Unfortunately, a lot of nonsense also gets passed as laws in the name of the betterment of the community, when they are only serving the interest/beliefs of one group. Morality is one of the most commonly used excuses for passsing self-serving laws in a society.

[kandrathe]

I'll offer my contest contribution (tongue in cheek of course), "The Dancing Troll". :D

[Guest]

Im not arguing the issue(abortion). Im happy to leave it at we have put ourselves in the absurd position of deciding it through Presidential nomination to the Supreme court rather than legilation.

I stand by my contention that a signifigant and steady group percieves it as a yes/no issue when voting for someone.

[Guest]

On the other hand it doesnt make me more or les wrong on the actual issue.

Personally I took affront at being accused of making generalisations, when I didnt.

I dont really mind if he pouts and quits posting. I find little value in someones opinion who uses "hunches' rather than attempting objective analysis when the objust is appearent in its entirety.