Dear People Who Didn't Think It Mattered Who Won the White House

[shereads]

We're about to watch your legacy take shape: a single-party government of the United States for the short term; and for the foreseeable future, no swing-vote to keep bigotry and religious zealotry from controlling the Supreme Court. It's no longer a what-if worst-case scenario, it's real. It's terrifying. There's nothing to slow it down but the minority party's right to stall a vote by filibuster, and there's nothing to stop the neocons from taking that away.

Thank you so f**king much.

Fall Cases on Hot-Button Issues May Hinge on the New Justice

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 5, 2005; Page A04

Abortion. Physician-assisted suicide. Gay rights. How will the Supreme Court handle those issues without Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the centrist swing voter who announced her retirement from the court last week after a 24-year tenure?

Actually, it probably won't take long to find out. The abortion rights of teenagers, administration efforts to override a state right-to-die law, and the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy are all on the docket for the court term that begins Oct. 3.

O'Connor's past opinions show that she would have played a pivotal role in these cases. Now, their outcome may hinge on the views of her successor. Learning those views may prove challenging to senators, if a nominee adheres to the practice of not answering questions about matters that are, or soon will be, before the court.

"One of the fascinating dances in the confirmation process is going to be how much you can get a nominee to answer, even about relatively recent precedents, when the issues are presented in cases that are pending on the docket," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University.

The retirement of O'Connor, who often cast the deciding vote in the court's cases, could portend great change at the court, especially if President Bush replaces her with a steadfastly conservative nominee, as many expect.

If O'Connor's career teaches anything, it is that a justice's initial votes on the court are not necessarily a reliable guide to what that justice will do in the course of a long, life-tenured career. In her first years, she leaned heavily against abortion and affirmative action, only to tack in the other direction later.

Even if O'Connor were replaced by a conservative opponent of Roe v. Wade , the 1973 ruling recognizing a right to abortion, Roe would still have the support of a five-justice majority. Any challenge to its core holding would take years to bubble up from lower courts.

Still, next term will present O'Connor's successor with a chance to answer important questions about the scope of Roe as well as other precedents.

For example, a 1992 Supreme Court decision, co-written by O'Connor, set forth a test for the constitutionality of state abortion regulations, saying they must not impose an "undue burden" on exercising the right to abortion.

The court defined an undue burden as a law that "in a large fraction of cases" puts a "substantial obstacle" in the way of someone seeking an abortion.

At the same time, the court has said that states may pass laws requiring minors to notify their parents of plans to terminate a pregnancy, as long as they permit minors to seek a court's permission when informing their parents is impossible or dangerous.

The court has never clarified whether O'Connor's "undue burden" test means that parental-notification laws, which are on the books in 33 states, must include an explicit exception for cases in which the pregnant girl's health is at risk.

But in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood , No. 04-1144, which is to be argued in December and decided by mid-2006, the court will rule on a New Hampshire law that has no health exception. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, based in Boston, ruled last year that the New Hampshire law is unconstitutional and cannot go into effect.

In its appeal, however, New Hampshire said the 1st Circuit applied the wrong legal standard. It cited a 1987 Supreme Court ruling that suggests opponents of the law must show that the law would limit abortion rights not just in some or most cases but in all cases.

If the justices affirm the ruling of the 1st Circuit, striking down the law, the effect will be to fortify and entrench Supreme Court precedents on abortion rights. If the court rules in favor of New Hampshire law, it will open the door to other states to adopt similar legislation.

Any elucidation of the court's view of its doctrine of a health exception could also affect the federal ban on the procedure critics call "partial birth" abortion. Enacted by Congress with Bush's support in 2003, it included no exception to protect the woman's health. But three district courts have found it unconstitutional under a 5 to 4 Supreme Court ruling in 2000, joined by O'Connor, that said such bans must include a health exception.

The government's appeals are pending, and conflicting decisions by appeals courts could lead to a Supreme Court case in the early years of O'Connor's successor.

In October, physician-assisted suicide will be before the court in Gonzales v. Oregon , No. 04-623. The administration has appealed a lower court's order barring the Justice Department from taking away the prescribing rights of Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of drugs to terminally ill patients who have chosen to die under that state's 11-year-old Death With Dignity Act.

Assisted suicide is an intensely emotional issue, both for advocates of a "right to die," who see it as many people's only means of a dignified death, and for conservative Christians, who see it as a form of murder.

Opposition to laws such as Oregon's was a favorite cause of former attorney general John D. Ashcroft, who issued a November 2001 directive determining that assisting suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" under federal drug-control law -- and that the Drug Enforcement Administration could act against any physician who authorized drugs to help someone die.

The directive overturned a 1998 decision by President Bill Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, that permitted Oregon doctors to assist in suicides.

Strictly speaking, the case does not involve any assertion of a constitutionally protected right to die. The court unanimously refused to recognize such a right in 1997, ruling that it should be left to the states to determine whether legalized assisted suicide is wise policy.

Rather, the case is framed by the parties as a clash between federal power to regulate drugs and states' power to regulate the practice of medicine.

But the practical effect of the Ashcroft directive is to make Oregon's law a dead letter -- and O'Connor might have been sympathetic to Oregon. She vigorously dissented from the court's 6 to 3 ruling last month in which it upheld a federal override of California's medical marijuana law. In the 1997 case, Washington v. Glucksberg , the court was ruling on state bans on assisted suicide. O'Connor was one of five justices who wrote or signed concurring opinions implying that they might not strike down a state law such as the Oregon one that permits assisted suicide.

"Death will be different for each of us," she wrote. "For many the last days will be spent in physical pain . . . some will seek medication to alleviate that pain and other symptoms."

In Rumsfeld v. FAIR , No. 04-1152, to be argued in November, the question is whether some law schools may curb military recruiters' access to their students in protest of the U.S. armed forces' ban on openly gay members.

The court is being asked to rule on the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, a federal law that requires universities to give military recruiters equal access or risk millions of dollars in federal funding.

Legal analysts generally expect a win for the government, but the case will create a high-profile forum in which both opponents and supporters of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy can fight out this particular battle of the culture wars.

 

[Guest]

America can fuck herself in the ass.

 

[mrmgp]

We're about to watch your legacy take shape: a single-party government of the United States for the short term; and for the foreseeable future, no swing-vote to keep bigotry and religious zealotry from controlling the Supreme Court. It's no longer a what-if worst-case scenario, it's real. It's terrifying. There's nothing to slow it down but the minority party's right to stall a vote by filibuster, and there's nothing to stop the neocons from taking that away.

Thank you so f**king much.

But would it be acceptable for you if things were reversed? A left-wing Democrat president, a Democrat-controlled Congress, and a left-leaning activist Supreme Court? Why do I have a feeling you wouldn't be bothered by that in the slightest?

Look, I'm no big fan of conservatism and certainly not a fan of the religious right. But I am a student of history. This country has always been a right-leaning country. It wasn't perfect, but things like the Civil War and women's suffrage and the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s fixed many of the problems left by the shortsightedness of the founders of the country. Despite those things I just mentioned which were overcome in time, there has been a predominate culture and a system of values and beliefs that have made this country work and make it great. Not perfect, but very functional and great. As a student of history, I see that things began to go wrong when left-wing ideas were rapidly thrown into society, and liberals began to dismantle many of the social and cultural foundations of this country. But they were attacking load bearing walls, and things have been in a state of collapse because of these changes which brought about repercussions no one thought would come from a little social tinkering here and there.

So we're down to a war between ideologies. The left, which wants to continue making changes without regard for possible unintended disastrous side-effects that could potentially further erode the traditional foundation of the country versus the right who want to rebuild and repair some of that foundation.

I honestly don't know who has the right idea. But as a student of history, I know that it's preferable to rebuild that traditional foundation rather than make rapid changes based upon emotions instead of logic and have the whole building come caving in. If liberals want to make changes, they need to do things slowly and give society time to adjust instead of wanting to cram more changes down the public's throat. I don't think this country can honestly survive a repeat of 60s counterculturalism. If you want to make changes, make them slowly and give people a chance to catch their breaths. And realize that the changes you make might not be the right ones, and be willing to step up and admit mistakes and be willing to revert back to the way things were before the change was made.

Just some thoughts. I welcome polite, reasonable discussion, but flamers will end up on my ignore list, and your attitude comes perilously close. So no calling voters of Bush stupid or blind. No insults like Nazis or fascists. First and final caution, or into my ignore list you go. No misrepresentation of facts like the filibuster is being completely taken away. No ridiculous insinuations that a conservative supreme court is going to reinstate the Jim Crow laws and mandate that all women return to being barefoot and pregnant and that a theocracy will be established. It's nonsense, and most people know it. I'm sorry, but you just sound foolish when you make such baseless claims.

The people of the country faced a difficult choice in 2004. Neither candidate was really all that appealing as a potential president when you make an honest assessment. But when the nation is at war, they tend not to want to change horses in mid-stream. People who voted for the first Bush or Dole were told to deal with the fact that Clinton was elected president. Now you must do the same now that Bush has gotten a second term. Life will go on.

 

[elsol]

The funny thing about all of this is...

Alberto Gonzales might actually be the least of evils and the Democrats/Left are going to KILL him if he gets nominated.

This guy is a 'loon' when it comes to International Law, and due processl; but he's voted FOR abortion rights, in some teenage girls not needing parental consent to get abortion.

The 'conversatives' call him a social liberal; and everyone else calls him a moderate.

This might be the worst-case scenario for the Democrats, a moderate (relatively speaking) they will HAVE TO gun down when he might be the most moderate candidate Bush/Rove are likely to put up.

Interesting...

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well,

You have to watch the Court with an eye on keeping your perspective. Oconnor was a Regan appointee. While she has been a swing, she certainly wasn't appointed with the intent of her being a swing vote. The only two you expect to be liberals are Ginsburg and Byers. Clinton's appointees. Yet souter and Kennedy often vote with the left. Neither was put on the court with the intention of them being left supporters.

The point is, judges tend to be fairly independent folks. Once they hit the bench and are free from politics, they tend to develop patterns of voting that can't be forseen.

The only reason I could see to support Kerry was this eventuality. It wasn't enough to win for him and we will have to deal with the fallout of that.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

But would it be acceptable for you if things were reversed? A left-wing Democrat president, a Democrat-controlled Congress, and a left-leaning activist Supreme Court? Why do I have a feeling you wouldn't be bothered by that in the slightest?

Look, I'm no big fan of conservatism and certainly not a fan of the religious right. But I am a student of history. This country has always been a right-leaning country. It wasn't perfect, but things like the Civil War and women's suffrage and the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s fixed many of the problems left by the shortsightedness of the founders of the country. Despite those things I just mentioned which were overcome in time, there has been a predominate culture and a system of values and beliefs that have made this country work and make it great. Not perfect, but very functional and great. As a student of history, I see that things began to go wrong when left-wing ideas were rapidly thrown into society, and liberals began to dismantle many of the social and cultural foundations of this country. But they were attacking load bearing walls, and things have been in a state of collapse because of these changes which brought about repercussions no one thought would come from a little social tinkering here and there.

So we're down to a war between ideologies. The left, which wants to continue making changes without regard for possible unintended disastrous side-effects that could potentially further erode the traditional foundation of the country versus the right who want to rebuild and repair some of that foundation.

I honestly don't know who has the right idea. But as a student of history, I know that it's preferable to rebuild that traditional foundation rather than make rapid changes based upon emotions instead of logic and have the whole building come caving in. If liberals want to make changes, they need to do things slowly and give society time to adjust instead of wanting to cram more changes down the public's throat. I don't think this country can honestly survive a repeat of 60s counterculturalism. If you want to make changes, make them slowly and give people a chance to catch their breaths. And realize that the changes you make might not be the right ones, and be willing to step up and admit mistakes and be willing to revert back to the way things were before the change was made.

Just some thoughts. I welcome polite, reasonable discussion, but flamers will end up on my ignore list, and your attitude comes perilously close. So no calling voters of Bush stupid or blind. No insults like Nazis or fascists. First and final caution, or into my ignore list you go. No misrepresentation of facts like the filibuster is being completely taken away. No ridiculous insinuations that a conservative supreme court is going to reinstate the Jim Crow laws and mandate that all women return to being barefoot and pregnant and that a theocracy will be established. It's nonsense, and most people know it. I'm sorry, but you just sound foolish when you make such baseless claims.

The people of the country faced a difficult choice in 2004. Neither candidate was really all that appealing as a potential president when you make an honest assessment. But when the nation is at war, they tend not to want to change horses in mid-stream. People who voted for the first Bush or Dole were told to deal with the fact that Clinton was elected president. Now you must do the same now that Bush has gotten a second term. Life will go on.

I think I might be the best equipped to respond to this. So let's get the preliminaries out of the way. I'm a conservative. So your postulation of a left wing dominated executive, Legislative and judicial branch is horrifying to me. It's no more horrifying than one dominated by the far right, however. A basic principlal of the running of this country is a separation of powers. All three branches in the hands of one ieology is anathema to me. The ideology they expouse is not germaine, be it mine or one diametrically opposed to mine. It's the principal of there being no check upon the powers that ideology can accrue to itself that is frightening. As a sudent of history, you must accept that such a situation has been the precursor to faschist or dictatorial take overs in the past.

I'll dispute your assertion this country has always been right leaning. It was concieved in a revolution and the form of government was about as liberal as the times could support. A check of the roles of the communist and socialist parties in mid to late thirties will show there was not a huge amount of right lean. Labor unions, Income tax, anti-trust laws, the conservationist movement, etc. show times when the country leaned way left. I believe a far more accurate depiction is that this country swings on a pendulum between very conservative values and very liberal ones. Many times that swing is very short and hands near the middle, but there are radical and reactionary swings as well. Certainly you can't term the 60's as anything but a very liberal overall attitude. It's almost certainly a reaction to the fifties, which were a very conservative swing. With each return to the middle, some very liberal or very conservative values from the last swing remain. This gives us an overall moderate complexction, hangin gon to some very conservative values while embraceing some very liberal ones at the same time. It's most easily seen in the fact you have a welfare state superimposed on a capitalist system that embraces material possessions and individual responsibility.

I would like to see your evidence we aren't being routesepped towards a theocracy. Last time I chcked, in the last few years, we have begun to provide federal funds for "faith-based" inititives. Basically federal (read public) support of religious charitites. Congress acted in extra ordinary session, to pass a law that basically removed a case from state jurisdiction, based on religious conviction. If you don't believe it, the house majority leader's comments on punishing the Judiciary for not going along with them is pretty damning. Kansas is about to change the definition of science, so they can deemphasize evolution and teach intelligent design, the new cloak of religion in school since creationism has been so throughly debunjked. Whether you like it or not, the current conservative movement is dependant on the support of ultra right wing religious fanatics. They are quite prepared to impose a theocracy upon us. And in the end, you dance with the guy who brought you. Those politicians who owe their ascendancy to the grass roots votes delivered by that element are passing laws to appease them. The Executive owes it's ascendancy to them as well, so even the most odious of this placating legislation dosen't get vetoed. If you add a Judiciary who is hand picked to refelect that set of values, exactly what protection do you see to keep a theocracy from becoming reality? I see only the federal judiciary, already under attack by elements of the right including the house and seante majority leaders.

As a woman, just exactly what do you see that would lead you to believe they don't want us back to being barefoot and pregnant? I get paid less for doing the same work as a man, the laws that protect me from involuntarily becoming a brood mare are under assault, and the party in power is pushing a traditional values platform, one of those values being a woman's place is in the home.

As to your last assertion, I agree, life will go on. I just question if the life I lead will be significantly altered and if the life I pass on to the next generation will be even less familar to me as the life my parents passed to me.

 

[rgraham666]

Well said, Colleen.

The framers of the Constitution believed, as all democrats do, in balance. That there are myriad forces at work in a society and society works best if all these forces are taken into account, considered and acted upon.

The current administration sees only their own view of things, sees no reason to consider other points of view and acts however it damn well pleases.

As Paul Krugman pointed out, when he drew parallels between the Jacobins and the Shrubbies, the current administration are the revolutionaries. They do not believe in the legitimacy of the current system and intend to replace it with one more in tune with their Marxist and theocratic ideology.

Note 1: By democrat I mean someone who believes in democracy, not a member of the political party.

Note 2: I use the term Marxist because the neo-cons agree with Marx's analysis of how capitalism works. And like him they believe in economic determinism. To them, if economics says a thing should happen, it must happen. No arguments from the cheap seats.

 

[shereads]

This country has always been a right-leaning country. It wasn't perfect, but things like the Civil War and women's suffrage and the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s fixed many of the problems left by the shortsightedness of the founders of the country.

Correction: the civil rights movement dragged conservatives away from some of their most dearly held ideals, kicking and screaming. Decades after Strom Thurmond ran for president on a segregationist ticket, conservatives in Congress were still holding him up as a hero of The Cause.

Would I be happy to give up a balance of powers? No. Would I be happier if people of conscience held power instead of this bunch? You bet your ass.

I'm a member of the ACLU, but I don't support everything the ACLU does. By the same token, I wouldn't expect to support every liberal action of a singularly liberal government.

When you have a terminally ill relative in Oregon who's in unrelenting pain and wants to use his right to die with dignity; when a teenaged girl faces the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth rather than face her parents to ask for an abortion; when you chant "Support The Troops" while supporting people who pretend there are no gay men and women sacrificing themselves in Iraq, give a thought to how many liberal values you might miss if they were taken from you.

And don't give conservative Americans credit for those "corrections" to the founders' original plan for the USA. If the current crop of Republican leaders in Congress had had their way, there would have been no Civil Rights Act, no Voting Rights Act, no women's suffrage, no Clean Air and Water Act. It's simply playing coy when you pretend that those accomplishments were something Americans all pitched in and did together because they were the right thing to do. Bullshit.

And don't accuse my side of having the same greed for power, power at any cost, that drives the Karl Roves and Dick Cheneys of the world. We respect the balance of power because we don't expect to own all power; we don't have it in us to steal it.

Liberals are and have always been the conscience of this country. Paul Wellstone's legacy will have less influence than Jesse Helms', but I'm proud that Wellstone, a man whose political career was a matter of conscience and compassion, was on my side.

Edited to add: It won't be conservatives in Congress or the Supreme Court who defend your right to be here, by the way. It'll be what's left of the Left. Your right-leaning friends are fighting to protect you from pornography as we speak.

 

[shereads]

So we're down to a war between ideologies. The left, which wants to continue making changes without regard for possible unintended disastrous side-effects that could potentially further erode the traditional foundation of the country versus the right who want to rebuild and repair some of that foundation.

Golly. When you put it that way, it's a lot easier to embrace your ideology than mine. I take it all back.

 

[cantdog]

But would it be acceptable for you if things were reversed? A left-wing Democrat president, a Democrat-controlled Congress, and a left-leaning activist Supreme Court? Why do I have a feeling you wouldn't be bothered by that in the slightest?

You impute an opinion on your opponent here. No harm done, so far, since all she has to say is, "Well, no, and your feeling is mistaken, if insulting."

Look, I'm no big fan of conservatism and certainly not a fan of the religious right. But I am a student of history. This country has always been a right-leaning country.

Nope. Go hit the books again. In my lifetime, it has been largely so, but even in that short span, not always.

It wasn't perfect, but things like the Civil War and women's suffrage and the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s fixed many of the problems left by the shortsightedness of the founders of the country. Despite those things I just mentioned which were overcome in time, there has been a predominate culture and a system of values and beliefs that have made this country work and make it great. Not perfect, but very functional and great.

And these values and beliefs are...?

As a student of history, I see that things began to go wrong when left-wing ideas were rapidly thrown into society, and liberals began to dismantle many of the social and cultural foundations of this country. But they were attacking load bearing walls, and things have been in a state of collapse because of these changes which brought about repercussions no one thought would come from a little social tinkering here and there.

But you aren't a conservative. No big fan, you said. You read the history of America in this way, just the same.

So we're down to a war between ideologies.

It is flashy to speak of an ideological war. Most of us, though, would choose no ideology, but rather look to see the Constitution upheld and people's rights preserved. We want to live well, be left alone. We want less intrusion from authorities telling us how to live.

Each of these people, in all branches of government, took an oath before almighty God to uphold and defend that Constitution.

Windowpeepers have license now to poke their noses into every aspect of a citizen's life, without due process, without even the lukewarm protection of judicial oversight. This includes, prominently, what the citizen chooses to do with his or her reproductive organs. Indeed, the public's sexual proclivities are a priority.

The left, which wants to continue making changes without regard for possible unintended disastrous side-effects that could potentially further erode the traditional foundation of the country versus the right who want to rebuild and repair some of that foundation.

"Repairing the foundation" is hardly the term for empire building, establishing religion, gay-bashing, seizures of library records, sending middle eastern and south Asian people overseas to be tortured. I thought you said you were a student of history?

I honestly don't know who has the right idea.

This one I believe. Honestly, though (if you were being honest), you certainly know which you are willing to argue for. It is not conservatism, either, but the Republican party line of this generation. A true conservative would be able to discern that, far from "repairing a foundation," these people are tearing it up.

But as a student of history, I know that it's preferable to rebuild that traditional foundation rather than make rapid changes based upon emotions instead of logic and have the whole building come caving in.

That is exactly my objection to these people. It would indeed be preferable to repair the foundation. I would love to see some attention paid to the Constitution. But they are making rapid changes based on greed and religious ideology instead of logic.

If liberals want to make changes, they need to do things slowly and give society time to adjust instead of wanting to cram more changes down the public's throat. I don't think this country can honestly survive a repeat of 60s counterculturalism.

There are many things wrong with these two sentences. First, liberal countercultural people are not making any changes. Not fast ones, not slow ones. They have no voice in this current run of insanity. They are being held up as some sort of vast and powerful conspiracy by the pundits. But the people who are running "Will and Grace" and "Queer Eye" are only a few media giants, each of which supported, corporatively, this administration. The people at the top of those media corporations supported this administration personally.

Yet they continue to run the shows. Perhaps they like profit? I don't think that's in doubt. Perhaps they make corporate decisions based on the bottom line? I imagine that's normally the basis for them. Then maybe those shows sell well? I daresay they do, or they'd have cut them long since. Well, then, I'd suggest, since these ideas sell well, that they have broad popular support. If they have broad support, then we have to conclude people are catching their breath just fine.

Liberals are entirely disenfranchised, and are making no changes at all.

As to surviving another bout of '60's counterculture: first, no such phenomenon is even remotely threatening. If this is your fear, belay it. That isn't going to happen, it isn't even waiting to happen. You can stand down from the barricades about that.

Secondly, these people are far better armed to quell such a phenomenon now than they were then. Then, the hippies made the news. The stuff they did was written about. Now, the news refuses to cover whatever they know the government won't like. That's the first line of defense. For an example, how about the half million people who shut down the center of Manhattan in an anti-war protest, before Shock and Awe was launched? One media source estimated a few thousand, and pretended to have interviewed organizers to the effect that they were very disappointed at the lack of response. That was the Times. People in the City knew better, but the Times published it anyway.

The next line of defense to co-option. Not reporting a new cultural movement is nice, but you have to take its nuts. So right away, the phrases and clothing, language and look of any new cultural movement are used in ads, parodied in television shows. Dobie Gillis made the beats look ridiculous, and the same thing can be done with any such movement. These techniques are known, used deliberately, since the havoc of the '60's. They work if your media is in line. Punk was nutted this way. Hippie was nutted this way. Grunge was made irrelevant like that, even though it established its own outlets and had a period of influence.

So even in the incredibly remote case of another '60's countercultural movement, they will weather it very well.

If you want to make changes, make them slowly and give people a chance to catch their breaths. And realize that the changes you make might not be the right ones, and be willing to step up and admit mistakes and be willing to revert back to the way things were before the change was made.

Become a police state slowly? Too late for that one. They're moving along as tight as they can go. Build an empire slowly? Dismantle the system of checks and balances slowly?

Those are the changes which are being made. Some are slower than others, because some are so radical they have an uphill fight. But they aren't showing restraint in the pacxe of them. With all three branches in their pocket, plus the media, they don't have to.

Just some thoughts. I welcome polite, reasonable discussion, but flamers will end up on my ignore list, and your attitude comes perilously close.

Shereads never flamed you. You hadn't spoken.

So no calling voters of Bush stupid or blind. No insults like Nazis or fascists. First and final caution, or into my ignore list you go. No misrepresentation of facts like the filibuster is being completely taken away. No ridiculous insinuations that a conservative supreme court is going to reinstate the Jim Crow laws and mandate that all women return to being barefoot and pregnant and that a theocracy will be established. It's nonsense, and most people know it. I'm sorry, but you just sound foolish when you make such baseless claims.

Plus we could be ignored, too.

The people of the country faced a difficult choice in 2004.

Not really.

Neither candidate was really all that appealing as a potential president when you make an honest assessment.

Those two weren't, for sure.

But when the nation is at war,

Which we are not. A student of history would know better. We changed horses during the War on Drugs. This is just as much a war as that one was. Check the history of Colombia.

they tend not to want to change horses in mid-stream. People who voted for the first Bush or Dole were told to deal with the fact that Clinton was elected president. Now you must do the same now that Bush has gotten a second term. Life will go on.

 

[Guest]

You should listen to Colly. She is well-studied in history, not just a student.

And please forgive my Tuesday morning sarcasm, but upon reading this paragraph:

Just some thoughts. I welcome polite, reasonable discussion, but flamers will end up on my ignore list, and your attitude comes perilously close. So no calling voters of Bush stupid or blind. No insults like Nazis or fascists. First and final caution, or into my ignore list you go. No misrepresentation of facts like the filibuster is being completely taken away. No ridiculous insinuations that a conservative supreme court is going to reinstate the Jim Crow laws and mandate that all women return to being barefoot and pregnant and that a theocracy will be established. It's nonsense, and most people know it. I'm sorry, but you just sound foolish when you make such baseless claims.

I find myself wanting to question rampant voter blindness, growing fascist ideals and complain about my soon-to-be barefoot and pregnant days.

 

[cloudy]

Cantdog, you're wonderful.

Gee, I might be ignored, how horrible. Funny, that attitude is the same one that the current administration seems to have.

 

[Guest]

Cantdog, you're wonderful.

Gee, I might be ignored, how horrible. Funny, that attitude is the same one that the current administration seems to have.

I really wish my sister and her husband would wake up from their Fox News-induced political dream.

Still, we managed to get through the holiday weekend with the extended family without bringing up politics. Well, let me rephrase that. They tried, but we wouldn't bite, because we didn't want to spend time arguing.

We even instructed our children (though young, they are becoming news junkies and have developed strong opinions themselves) not to say a word on the topic until we were at our own home.

*sigh*

 

[cloudy]

I really wish my sister and her husband would wake up from their Fox News-induced political dream.

Still, we managed to get through the holiday weekend with the extended family without bringing up politics. Well, let me rephrase that. They tried, but we wouldn't bite, because we didn't want to spend time arguing.

We even instructed our children (though young, they are becoming news junkies and have developed strong opinions themselves) not to say a word on the topic until we were at our own home.

*sigh*

I can't even bring it up at home, because my dimwit husband thinks things are just fine and dandy. Of course, as part of the indigenous population, I'm quite used to being ignored.

*double sigh*

 

[Guest]

I can't even bring it up at home, because my dimwit husband thinks things are just fine and dandy. Of course, as part of the indigenous population, I'm quite used to being ignored.

*double sigh*

Mmmm.

You know how hot you make me whenever you say indigenous.

Can we find a quiet corner together and ignore everyone else for awhile?

 

[cloudy]

Mmmm.

You know how hot you make me whenever you say indigenous.

Can we find a quiet corner together and ignore everyone else for awhile?

indigenous, indigenous, indigenous.....



Which corner seems the most likely?

 

[Guest]

indigenous, indigenous, indigenous.....



Which corner seems the most likely?

One with a big fat bed.

Or a pillow.

Or even a blanket.

Ah, hell, let's just throw down a tarp.

 

[cloudy]

One with a big fat bed.

Or a pillow.

Or even a blanket.

Ah, hell, let's just throw down a tarp.

works for me. Come visit my longhouse, baby.

 

[Guest]

works for me. Come visit my longhouse, baby.

I'm on my way.


With humble apologies to she for yet another sexual thread hijack. Please go back to your regularly scheduled program. For some of us, apparently, the demise of freedom and the erosion of individual rights makes us horny. Who knew?

 

[shereads]

Cantdog for president.

Thank you, dear one, for pointing out that liberals have had no real voice in the government of the United States in a coon's age. People who called John Kerry a liberal made me laugh - when I wasn't crying over the ones who diverted attention from GWB's draft-dodging by disparaging Kerry's service in Vietnam, pitting veterans against veterans in the most shameful and cynical act since they ran TV spots calling Max Cleland's patriotism into question.

Kerry was liberal compared to the current crop of Republican leaders. So was Richard Nixon, who created the despised Environmental Protection Agency (responding to pressure from environmental organizations backed by science, aka "liberals" and "alarmists.") GWB has had to waste valuable time undoing Nixon's pinko eco-terrorism, by rendering the EPA impotent, as he has other regulatory agencies including the one that used to keep cow excrement out of your July 4th hamburger.*

I love how GWB used his Earth Day photo op to remind Americans that our air and water are cleaner than they were 20 years ago. He failed to mention that his administration has rolled back or eliminated the regulatory measures that made cleaner air and water possible. He has taken the measure of a majority of his supporters and found them blindly loyal. What a rush that must be!

Ignore away, friend. Without your willingness to ignore, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz and Company would have had to find a more intelligent monkey for their circus two campaigns ago. GWB's political career would have imploded years ago under the weight of his tragic incompetence, willful ignorance and inexcusable arrogance, of which the shameful "Navy fighter pilot" photo op is a perfect symbol.

P.S. As a Clinton voter, I apologize for your suffering during those eight nightmarish years of prosperity and adultery.

*Eat hearty! Fecal material is still considered a defensible reason for a USDA meat inspector to halt or slow a production line at a beef packing plant, provided there is "visible fibrous matter" in the feces. Otherwise, the gov't inspectors are considered derelict in their duty to their "clients," the meat packers. That was one of your boy's first moves as president. I bet you ignored it.

 

[Pure]

A couple questions:

Colly said,

As a woman, just exactly what do you see that would lead you to believe they don't want us back to being barefoot and pregnant? I get paid less for doing the same work as a man, the laws that protect me from involuntarily becoming a brood mare are under assault, and the party in power is pushing a traditional values platform, one of those values being a woman's place is in the home.

Much of your analysis of pendulum swings, I agree with, though I think 'right leaning' is predominant, as mrmgp said. From our perspective the 60s and 70s loom large, but they are rather exceptional I think. But your above complaint, Colly, one I think shared with shereads, seems to be based on a couple beliefs one might question:

[Mightn't one question...]
1) That things [e.g. US History] are proceeding toward ever more 'freedom' and 'civil rights.'
2) That the universe wants it thus. [That that's how it should be.]

More in line with your cyclical view, is there any reason to think that women will get better and better access to abortion and pregnancy controlling drugs, say, arrive at the point of just walking to the corner store for some RU 486?

Some of the examples in sheread's posted [Lane] article likewise: Is there any reason to think that younger and younger teens will have abortion access without telling their parents? That soon any grade 6-er will just take off for a 'lunch break' and settle her unwanted condition on her own?

In connection with Literotica, is there reason to think that written and pictured sex stuff is just going to get (legally) raunchier and raunchier; that the 'naked news' will turn up on NBC?

In that sense mr mgp has a point: Lots of people are--as I would put it--going to *perceive* that US foundations are being shaken or eroded, and not surprisingly are going to act accordingly.

In some Lit. people's complaints is a kind of righteous indignation: It *shouldn't* be so! It seems some liberals have problems being *democrats*; problems looking at the map with the ocean of red states, w/o claiming every one was 'stolen.'

So I ask, is it an offense to the universe if the majority of US people vote [either directly or indirectly] strict limits on legal abortion: 1) not after 22 weeks unless the mother's life is at risk, and not after 13 weeks for all other cases except rape and incest.

Is there some reason the world can't end up a patchwork instead of a utopia designed by reason? I.e., the Finns will have their liberal abortion laws (female equality, etc.) and the Americans won't.

These are just totally bizarre ravings that may well be dismissed by every rational person.

 

[mrmgp]

I was going to reply to several points in here, but then I thought, "Fuck it." It's one thing to try to have a debate, but I'm sick of beating my head against the wall trying to have a reasonable discussion with people on the Left. It's actually more difficult than trying to have a conversation with a far-right bible thumper. I've read some outright asinine things in this thread. One thing that stands out is the claim that the Founding Fathers were all a bunch of liberals. Anyone who honestly thinks that liberalism of the late 18th Century is of the same stripe as today's brand is an idiot. Period. If the founders were as liberal then as they are today, why did it take until the 1930s for the birth of the welfare state? Why wasn't slavery abolished right then and there instead of taking another 80 years and a bloody Civil War to end it? Why did it take until the 1960s for all men to truly be considered as created equal in the eyes of the law? Or for religion to start being put in its place instead of permeating our school system and government?

I'm just getting sick of all the uninformed people on this board taking their little insult-ridden political potshots. Most are quite simply either too blinded by their ideology to see anything objectively beyond their narrow viewpoints, or they are just total idiots who have no God damned clue what is going on in the world. I had sworn a couple of days ago that I wasn't going to get involved in any more of these debates, but I saw this thread and just shook my head.

Enough, though. If some people actually want to go around and proclaim the end of the world is coming and that we're all about to have to start learning the Horst Wessel song because Republicans have majority rule in Congress, then you're too far gone to talk to.

And here I was thinking the political right became emotionally and mentally unhinged with Clinton's election back in the 90s. They were actually quite tame considering some of the goofy predictions and proclamations I've heard coming from those on the left.

 

[cloudy]

I'm just getting sick of all the uninformed people on this board taking their little insult-ridden political potshots. Most are quite simply either too blinded by their ideology to see anything objectively beyond their narrow viewpoints, or they are just total idiots who have no God damned clue what is going on in the world. I had sworn a couple of days ago that I wasn't going to get involved in any more of these debates, but I saw this thread and just shook my head.

Isn't this rather like the pot calling the kettle black?

Just for your info, I'm neither a conservative nor a liberal, and don't consider the government 'mine' at all, since I'm working for sovereignity of our own nation, but your ranting about liberals being 'uniformed' and 'blinded' is hilarious. You're just as bad, hun.

 

[rgraham666]

Excuse me?

Although I am a 'liberal', to use your term, I am hardly 'close minded'. If you have something useful to say, say it. I'll listen.

And to describe people like Colleen and cantdog as 'uninformed', 'close minded' or 'just total idiots' is a rather horrible, 'close minded', indeed 'totally idiotic' thing to do.

I'm trying very hard not to flame you. You've insulted people I hold dear. I don't like that, or you very much.

 

[cloudy]

Excuse me?

Although I am a 'liberal', to use your term, I am hardly 'close minded'. If you have something useful to say, say it. I'll listen.

And to describe people like Colleen and cantdog as 'uninformed', 'close minded' or 'just total idiots' is a rather horrible, 'close minded', indeed 'totally idiotic' thing to do.

I'm trying very hard not to flame you. You've insulted people I hold dear. I don't like that, or you very much.

Oh, no, Rob! I bet we've made his ignore list! Mercy me, whatever shall we do?