They Had a Dream

[miles]

Suffice it to say I have little patience for those that make their voting decisions based on gender, genital, abortion, or marriage identity. Hormonal voting at it's basest.



Ishmael

You left out race.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In the interests of bandwidth and brevity I didn't quote the above even though the heart of it is quotable.

Suffice it to say I have little patience for those that make their voting decisions based on gender, genital, abortion, or marriage identity. Hormonal voting at it's basest.

The fate of the Republic will not be decided by those subjects, or rather the fate of the Republic may very well be sealed by the fixation on those subjects to the exclusion of the very real problems.

Ishmael

I could so go on a Federalist quoting spree...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You left out race.

You left out baiting.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

http://der-stuermer.org/julius_streicher1.jpg

You rang???​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

According to Byron, they should all be rounded up.

 

[Ishmael]

I could so go on a Federalist quoting spree...

Why bother? Just a bunch of dead, old, white guys blathering non-sense. Just ask the Oiks.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Why bother? Just a bunch of dead, old, white guys blathering non-sense. Just ask the Oiks.

Ishmael

There's an app for that; we've Googvolved...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Nobody really wants to be part of the dream...

http://mises.org/daily/6759/Inside-Venices-Secession-Movement

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

“As a political realist well in line with Mises ... Rothbard, Hoppe, and the Italian libertarians Carlo Lottieri, Marco Bassani, and Alessandro Vitale, I envisage a (near) future world of small states, free to interact in a global, free market.”
Paolo Bernardini

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Every Dream Cloud has a silver lining...

PB: A tiny majority of Veneto people are in favor both of the EU and of the Euro as a currency. So I envisage a little, rich state, playing a major economic and political role in the EU, a stabilizing role. It will interact naturally with other rich and similar states, Bavaria (still part of Germany), Austria, and the Netherlands. It will be a Finland in the Adriatic. In general, however, new little states entering the EU in a position of economic privilege (Scotland, Catalonia, Veneto) should also be able to recondition the EU policies and even its nature.

The EU is dangerously approaching the status of a dictatorship, it should go back to be a loose confederation of states providing the guarantee of a free market, a free economic space really open to the East. And nothing else. It is worth remembering that the Ukraine disaster is partially due to the EU sealing off its borders, its protectionist policies: and I refer especially to the Polish-Ukraine borders, and its acting with the cold-war mentality that is at the very origins of the creation of the European Community. It is also worth recalling that the best performing European economies are those of Norway and Switzerland, both independent states, without the EU or the Euro. Mr. Van Rumpuy does not like them, but the international markets do.

MI: What steps has the Italian state taken in the wake of the vote to prevent Venetian secession?

PB: Mr. Alfano, the Italian Minister of Interior Affairs, recently came to Veneto and stated: “Veneto is a major problem and needs a very advanced form of federalism.” What he meant is not clear, nor has any political action been taken so far, at the central level, to address the problem. Every time I hear the word “federalism” I am dismayed. A state is born federal, not turned to a federal commonwealth after it has been born centralistic. This is what history tells, and teaches. Look at the US. They were born free, for some happy years they were 13 free colonies, then they had the Constitution, the Civil War, the New Deal, the Wall Street collapse, all steps that made it more and more centralistic. Look at Switzerland. Until 1848 it was a real confederation. Then its 1848 constitution made it more centralistic, provided for a capital city, Bern, and some of the original freedoms of the Cantons (honestly, just a few) were forever lost.

Italy was born stubbornly centralistic, it might have been different, there were champions, such as the Milanese Carlo Cattaneo and Giuseppe Ferrari, of a pure form of federalism. They lost. Now the time is approaching for the redde rationem. In comparison to Italy, the other major state born in the 19th century, Germany, is much less centralistic. Look at Bavaria, they keep most of their revenues at home. There is no separatism in Bavaria, at least no movements comparable in size and support to those in Veneto, or Lombardy, or Catalonia.

When he was arrested and almost immediately executed, Robespierre was discussing with his team how to design the new letterhead of the official paper to be used by the Convention. I think of this when I see both mainstream newspapers and Italian politicians referring to us as “folklore,” to diminish us, without realizing what’s happening.

 

[Ishmael]

“As a political realist well in line with Mises ... Rothbard, Hoppe, and the Italian libertarians Carlo Lottieri, Marco Bassani, and Alessandro Vitale, I envisage a (near) future world of small states, free to interact in a global, free market.”
Paolo Bernardini

We aren't immune to the same motivations, the symptoms are already showing.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

We aren't immune to the same motivations, the symptoms are already showing.

Ishmael

NewMexiFornia sure seems hell-bent on going its own way...

We won't fight them the way we did the South. All of their separatists are in the protected political super-groups.

 

[LadyVer]

Let me break this down at a sixth grade level.

I do not want to tax your little mind.

"Abortion" was not being mentioned in context with the topic at hand.

"Abortion" has nothing to do with the topic.

"Abortion" has everything to do with you.

You told me that you would never, ever vote for a Republican because they are, in general, opposed to abortion.

I hope that you are still able to follow me, because the next part might be to complex for a mind that unsophisticated.

Once you identify a "Republican" on the board, you then have identified one of the enemy.

In simpler terms:

A_J hate "Abortion"
A_J a "Republican"
"Rebublican" is the enemy of "Abortion"
∴ "A_J" is my enemy

Now that you have an enemy, the topic no longer matters, but you know that each post, each comment, each idea has to be deeply flawed.

The enemy is just plain always wrong.

LadyVer is always right.
She is a good person.
She would never tell a woman what to do with her body.
A_J would.
He is not a good person.
I do not have to pay any attention to his ideas, it is enough to mock him.
LadyVer will then act too stupid to understand a complex sentence.
LadyVer will then think that is is okay to simply dismiss A_J as incomprehensible.
(That means hard to understand, doll)

That is why I said that I would not break it down for you into very simple words so that you could counter with the usual Democratic mantras and bumper sticker key phrases all of which are meant to indicate that the argument is over because you have typed a very simple and profound a priori fundament truth which cannot be denied.

(A priori means so obvious that you do not even have to prove it, like when you say, you cannot tell me what to do with my body.)

The tragic thing about it is that those you have denigrated to the status of enemy of "Abortion" are those who run to the fire, the ones who throw themselves of others to protect them, then ones who value your life so much that they will put themselves between you and a gunman. You cannot see that we are not trying to tell you what to do with your body, but acting according to our nature which is to protect and defend life.

I am sorry to get so complex there, but after a lifetime of reading complex sentences penned by complex thinkers, I have been somewhat trained to get beyond argument by bumper sticker and why I will not mollycoddle your lack of effort in understanding the thoughts and motives of your "enemy."

Love and Kisses,
A_J

No, what I said was I will nevev vote Republican because of their current and only issue they believe they have to win votes, to outlaw abortion, and because of attitudes by men on the right who express themselves so eloquently as you do towards women and about women whose issues you think is completely under your domain. I do appreciate that you were able to cut back on your usual rhetorical bullshit and say what you really think without hiding behind big words and unnecessary verbage which stops the flow of reading.

 

[RobDownSouth]

This thread serves as a valuable reminder to the double-standard duplicity and intellectual bankruptcy of 4est_gump.

He's lectured us for years about how his positions are morally superior because he states them in plain black/white terms, no shades of gray, no ambiguity whatsoever. He's above the fray like that.

Enter Lady Ver.

Lady Ver also feels very strongly about HER pro-life position. Her position is uncompromising as well.

Now, you'd think 4est_gump could at least acknowledge someone with a position that has no ambiguity as well.

But if you did, you don't know 4est_gump very well. Lady Ver's position is diametrically opposed to 4est_gump's position, so we're subjected to a bitter, self-serving whine from him about her inflexibility.

Bottom line? Once again, situational Native American AJ speaks with forked tongue.

 

[Que]

I have never understood single issue voters of any stripe.

Deciding that absolute unfettered right to terminating one's young is the most important thing above all others obviously involves circumstances and experiences far outside my realm of experience.

I don't think any candidate believes they can roll back the clock to a time when no abortion is legal anywhere at any time. It reminds of the anti-gun wackadoodles that a)think we could pick up the existing guns when there is what? roughly one for every man woman and child in America, and b) protest that if they weren't ever-vigilant the NRA would make owning personal nuclear devices legal.

If one assumes that one or one's loved ones will need frequent, low cost access within your immediate proximity to on-demand abortion, having delayed making that decision for MONTHS, until AFTER the child is viable outside of the womb, not only should you strongly consider sterilization for either or both of the sexual partners....you are in my view a hopelessly irresponsible and, arguably, a selfish person.

Why would you want to put even your healthcare professional through that?

One of my brothers is an OB/Gyn his area of emphasis is high risk deliveries. By this point in his career he has saved thousands of babies and often their mothers as well. Not all of them make it. These are heart-wrenching experiences. I have no idea whether he has terminated pregnancies in the course of his practice, but I would imagine at times that is tough but medically necessary choice. I know him well enough to know though he is fairly liberal on a host of issues it isn't something he would undertake without significant discussion of options, motivations and having an honest discussion about the emotional, psychological and medical concerns such a procedure entails.

...and he sure as hell wouldn't do it casually for the money, as if the life extinguished meant nothing.

I provided some emotional support for a friend making that choice. She, herself was the adopted child from a mother who, obliviously, made the choice to carry her to term. That added to her emotional concerns.

When she found herself with her first unplanned pregnancy after her divorce and worried about her ability to support her self, her daughter and her son, she chose to carry her son to term and is grateful to have him in her life despite the financial hardships. I had met her while pregnant with the second child, but she had already decided that she was going through with the pregnancy.

A year or so later she found herself with yet another unplanned pregnancy. She anguished at length about the feasibility of raising three kids on her own... She reluctantly after a lot of soul searching chose abortion. I was as neutrally supportive as I knew how to be. I feel a bit responsible for not skewing my support towards life, but I felt she needed support either way. In her deliberations she felt it was a grievous sin, that she would "sin" and choose to simply block it out of her mind thereafter. That has not gone so well for her, but she has her good days by now, a year and a half later.

From a theological point of view I would have to believe that that child is loved. Perhaps if there is a god of some variety, he sends the child on the next bus to earth, or welcomes the child into some heaven if such a place exists. But dont kid yourself. "It" was a child.

 

[LadyVer]

What gets lost in the abortion debates are three issues. One, abortion is not all about morals. Two, abortion, like any other health issue, needs sane and reasonable regulation. Three, there is no sane or justifiable reason that women undergoing high risk pregnancies should be forced into a position where their health is jeopardized because of laws established to satisfy someone else's religious or political beliefs. Until men themselves experience this kind of retribution, it is wishful thinking to assume they fully understand the issues of abortion and the choices women make in reproductive healthcare.

 

[Que]

What gets lost in the abortion debates are three issues. One, abortion is not all about morals. Two, abortion, like any other health issue, needs sane and reasonable regulation. Three, there is no sane or justifiable reason that women undergoing high risk pregnancies should be forced into a position where their health is jeopardized because of laws established to satisfy someone else's religious or political beliefs. Until men themselves experience this kind of retribution, it is wishful thinking to assume they fully understand the issues of abortion and the choices women make in reproductive healthcare.

Nothing is "lost" in the debates. Your opinions (not issues) are shared by a lot of people.

1) "Not all about morals." Partially about morals? Not in conflict with your morals? There is most determinately a moral component to the debate. Including people of good conscience on your side of the debate that articulate this with much more honesty. It is a moral question for example as you allude to later as to whether limiting abortion in some cases might well put women in various forms of peril. These are valid debate points and only valid for the moral questions they raise.

2) I call bullshit on your side. I have heard no one that that thinks allowing abortion is the most important issue of our time has pushed for increasing in any way the regulation of the procedure, starting with Roe V Wade where SCOTUS made up a (reasonable) right to privacy between a patient and her doctor. No one on your side is calling for accuracy in determining viability, or even in the event that a child survives whether basic care can be with-held. No one on your side is wanting clinics inspected, or even willing to discuss a horror show like Gosnell... His practice was far more dangerous to mothers than any fictional back-alley abortion. Abortion is nothing more than a D&C. If you and your doctor think it is for the best no one is going to be able to reverse all of the precedence that now enjoys.

3) Huge pile of horsehit... NO ONE is "forcing women undergoing high risk pregnancies into a position where their health is jeopardized". Talk about moving the goalpost. No one is suggesting that or anything even close to that. High risk pregnancies are ones where the BABY is at risk, and the MOTHER chooses (you OK with that choice?) to carry the baby to term.

Lots of mothers are encouraged to abort "defective" babies. That is why testing is done for example Down's Syndrome" Personally, I find that and aborting say..... female babies because you wanted a boy.... to be pretty morally abhorrent, but they are not at all illegal reasons.

You conflate morality with religion. A non-religious person could have moral objections to abortion on any number of grounds.

People that avoid meat on moral grounds and encourage others to do the same are not pawns of the evil Hindu lobby.

The thing that is really dumb about this being a bellwether issue for anyone is that nothing is going to change on this one way or the other. The only issue legitimately raised in a viable way lately has been late term abortions (how close to infanticide are you morally Ok with?), Planned Parenthood abortion mills wanting to continue to get fungible funds that they lower their overhead with enabling them to kill in high proportion black babies with, and your side wanting to force YOUR morality on conscientious objectors like the Catholic Church all through ObamaCare, where the only sacred wall between a Doctor and Patient is for abortion.

So...if you like the whole basket of progressive goodies the Dems offer...give them your vote, by all means. Being enthusiastic about snuffing out life is a bonus feature not the main event.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Queery fixates on late term abortions because it conveniently sidesteps the fact that 88% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester, long before viability is an issue.

 

[Que]

Queery fixates on late term abortions because it conveniently sidesteps the fact that 88% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester, long before viability is an issue.

As they should be...

Are you under the idea that is LadyVer fails to vote Democrat the party of "safe, legal and rare" abortions, that magically the Supreme court is going to flip Roe V Wade? That abortions from Day 1 are going to be outlawed?

The pro-abortion lobby is about easing restrictions on those very issues or preventing what any restrictions in the areas LadyVer called "sane regulations".

You have implied that no fetus is a person, so, I guess it's clear who has the extremist position.

 

[LadyVer]

As usual, Query, we disagree.

 

[Que]

As usual, Query, we disagree.

Which is fine... It is one of the most contentious issues in politics.

The problem I have with "My Side" if there is such a thing, is that even bringing it up, when nothing is going to be done on it for the reasons I state, is it needlessly brings up a lot of emotions in people that have actually gone through it, whatever their decision process was. It's done, it was legal, and arguing about it doesn't change anything.

 

[LadyVer]

Which is fine... It is one of the most contentious issues in politics.

The problem I have with "My Side" if there is such a thing, is that even bringing it up, when nothing is going to be done on it for the reasons I state, is it needlessly brings up a lot of emotions in people that have actually gone through it, whatever their decision process was. It's done, it was legal, and arguing about it doesn't change anything.

Well, I wasn't looking to argue or discuss abortion to begin with. I thought AJ's op was interesting, even though I didn't agree with a lot of what it said. That's why I had asked AJ to clarify his other comment, and neither his op or other comment had anything to do with abortion, that I was aware of. And, for the record, I have a hard time usually with comments made by you and AJ, and it doesn't have anything to do with subject matter. It's an issue of ADD. My intent is not to offend either one of you. I just can't get through many of your comments and AJ's a lot of times because there's so much intellectualism and verbage, so I have a difficult time figuring out what either one of you are trying to say. I will say that your last post was really clear, which is unusual to me, but which I appreciate. And I mean that sincerely. And my original comment was short because I was on my newer droid which is a pain in the ass to use for Lit or much of anything else.

 

[Noor]

The whole academic intellectual thing didn't work too well for Wilson either.

Ishmael

League of Nations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXBNj_3dHNg
Pax vobiscum

 

[Que]

Well, I wasn't looking to argue or discuss abortion to begin with. I thought AJ's op was interesting, even though I didn't agree with a lot of what it said. That's why I had asked AJ to clarify his other comment, and neither his op or other comment had anything to do with abortion, that I was aware of. And, for the record, I have a hard time usually with comments made by you and AJ, and it doesn't have anything to do with subject matter. It's an issue of ADD. My intent is not to offend either one of you. I just can't get through many of your comments and AJ's a lot of times because there's so much intellectualism and verbage, so I have a difficult time figuring out what either one of you are trying to say. I will say that your last post was really clear, which is unusual to me, but which I appreciate. And I mean that sincerely. And my original comment was short because I was on my newer droid which is a pain in the ass to use for Lit or much of anything else.

When I get fully wound up, I tend to add a lot of subordinate phrases, (hence the prodigious use of commas) as well as a lot of parenthetical asides.

I actually have a very pronounced case of ADHD; my thoughts come to me as, essentially, run-on sentences. My edits, (such as they are) usually involve entangling sentences that, technically, might pass a grammar check for run-on, but Mrs. Eller in 6th grade would not be impressed.

So not being a smart ass, but...no, really..... it's not you, it's me.

Vocabulary I can't do much about. From a young age I never had a good feel for which words are obscure and which are commonly used...unless I get all mono-sylabic, and limit myself to only making use of words that have no more than, say two syllables. That sounds odd to my ear.

Weirdly I have always had a second processor for dialog. When I write dialog it is easier for me to step into a different speech patterns.

It is what I do when I use an alt. No one has ever called me on one of my alts.

 

[LadyVer]

@guery Attention deficit issues are a PITA to deal with at times. Especially on an erotica site. Thanks.