"A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics

[Crushed]

i do have to give you credit. unlike the people who actually created the platform and 99% of the people who follow it today, you actually believe it's about the personhood of a blastocyst

[ToxicAdam]

Ted Kennedy is garbage.

A drunken lout that made a career off of the empathy given from the general public (mostly NE WASPs) because of his family misfortunes. A man that never had to work a day in his life and has no concept of what a "working man" is, except for the ones that worked at his Hyannis compound. The flag bearer of a new generation of limousine liberals.


No wonder the "working man" has gotten the shaft in the past 30 years. He was the alleged spokesman for them.


Fuck you Ted Kennedy. Hopefully the next generation of Americans quits listens less to the sons and daughters of rich people and more to the people that made something of themselves within their own lifetimes.

PS. I'm a bit drunk. Sorry for the rant.

[The Fake Shemp]

[Mandark]

Ted Kennedy is garbage.

A man that never had to work a day in his life and has no concept of what a "working man" is, except for the ones that worked at his Hyannis compound. The flag bearer of a new generation of limousine liberals.


No wonder the "working man" has gotten the shaft in the past 30 years. He was the alleged spokesman for them.


Fuck you Ted Kennedy. Hopefully the next generation of Americans quits listens less to the sons and daughters of rich people and more to the people that made something of themselves within their own lifetimes.

RIP


What a shame your voice is lost among the Limbaugh's and Coulter's of the world.

[Human Snorenado]

Fuck you Ted Kennedy. Hopefully the next generation of Americans quits listens less to the sons and daughters of rich people and more to the people that made something of themselves within their own lifetimes.

Like Mitt Romney, Bill Kristol and John Sydney Mccain III.

edit:  ok, Mandark with the true ether per the usual.

[The Fake Shemp]

Search function is like Mandark's superpower.

[Brehvolution]

If you don't like abortions, don't get them.
For someone who deplores regulation yet, in the same breath, preaches about missing human regulation is really hard to take seriously.

Corporate regulation bad
taxes bad

Regulate that vagina!!!!!!!

 

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

What about environmental regulations?  If a company dumps chemical waste into a river that kills children or babies because toxic concentrations are too high in the water.  That is a direct conflict between human rights and economic freedom.

[twerd]

Yeah, it's such a paradox to, on the one hand, support human rights and economic freedom, and on the other hand, to support human rights and personal freedom.

It's all selective though, because illegal immigrants don't require human rights, and the literally hundreds of government-run enterprises that exist in and keep this nation (and its economy) afloat are given a pass. That's what I find hypocritical, that you're so urgent to save that one child from abortion, whilst throwing cash to clowns that spend thousand of lives on economic (Uh oh, the government is getting involved in the economy again!) wars.

I see no wrong in your opinion on abortion (although your insistence of objectivity is ridiculous), but if you truly are a philanthropist, why ignore all the misanthropy that the Republican (AND Democrat, mind you) parties uphold?

[Crushed]

Women's rights and freedoms don't count as human rights and personal freedoms.

EDIT: I know you're not trying to be sexist but your position does more to advance sexist institutions than anything else.

[Mandark]

JD's position on abortion is internally consistent.

It's just based on the assumption that a blastocyst is morally equivalent to a person.  That's an assumption that barely any of the population shares.

A sincere PROTIP to radicals of any stripe:  If your principles are shared only by a tiny minority, you're unlikely to convince the majority by telling them "My beliefs are axiomatically, objectively true!  They are self-evident!"  Cause they aren't self-evident to society at large, and in practice that's what matters.

[Human Snorenado]

and b) "If you don't like (x), don't (y) (pronoun)" isn't the brilliant catch-all you seem to think it is.

Oh my LAAAAAAWD, did an avowed Libertopian just actually say that?  Take his card and any gold he has on him!  He's out of the club!

For a particularly fitting historical reference - "If you don't like slavery, don't buy a slave" kind of misses the point.

For someone who I'm pretty sure thought the civil war was unnecessary (maybe I'm mixing up my wingnuts) that's an argument you shouldn't be making.

[Mandark]

I think it was Ron Paul who argued that the Civil War wasn't necessary, thus creating a fractal pattern of libertarians revising history in order to make his statement defensible.  I know FoC tried it over here.

[The Fake Shemp]

I think the problem is obviously that JayDubya is giving us cold, hard facts and we choose to ignore them.

[The Fake Shemp]

(Off topic: I'm watching a repeat of Bill Maher, and Jeremy Scahill is doing his best to make Chuck Todd angry. )

[Human Snorenado]

Scahill came off as kind of douchey (as opposed to when you guys think Jon Stewart comes off as douchey) but he was essentially right- the media sucks ass and covers a bunch of frivolous nonsense.

[huckleberry]

Scahill came off as kind of douchey (as opposed to when you guys think Jon Stewart comes off as douchey) but he was essentially right- the media sucks ass and covers a bunch of frivolous nonsense.

Didn't see the episode...but apparently Todd whined like a little bitch backstage that Scahill had made him look bad on tv 

According to Scahill (via email), Todd approached him after the Maher show and the following occurred:

    Right as we walked off stage, he said to me "that was a cheap shot." I said "what are you talking about?" and he said "you know it." I then said that I monitor msm coverage very closely and asked him what was not true that I said on the show. He then replied: "that's not the point. You sullied my reputation on TV."

Media stars are so unaccustomed to being held accountable for the impact of their behavior -- especially when they're on television -- that they consider it a grievous assault on their entitlement when it happens.

[Human Snorenado]

he actually said "sullied", what a little bitch.

Chuck Todd is a pretty smart dude- he's very knowledgeable about congressional races, for instance- but a journalist he is not.  I swear, they must have a filter that gets anyone who is naturally skeptical and doesn't want to kiss ass out of that business, which is a shame because that's really what anyone who wants to do the job right NEEDS TO BE LIKE.

[Mandark]

The overwhelming majority of nations around the globe ended the practice peacefully.

Has there been even one case where slavery was as large and fundamental a part of a nation's society and economy as it was to the South's, and the ruling class decided peacefully to reform it without the threat or use of violence?

Also, considering the South's track record in the century that followed, why would we expect any reforms that weren't imposed on them by an outside force?

[huckleberry]

Slavery in the South was quite unique and needs to be separated when it comes to comparisons with how slavery was a dying institution in the 19th century....to argue otherwise is to not understand the institution and how it related to our economy and society as a whole.

The way in which the Civil War was fought, while abhorrent, was not out of the norm for any nation at the time...this also is a sad, but sorry truth.

It would be so wonderful to think that the Civil War was not necessary....but, like so many other things, is pure utopian fantasy. 

[Brehvolution]

If you don't like abortions, don't get them.

Well a) I can't have one, which is of course what this is all about, me hating womyn.  A-yup.

and b) "If you don't like (x), don't (y) (pronoun)" isn't the brilliant catch-all you seem to think it is.

For a particularly fitting historical reference - "If you don't like slavery, don't buy a slave" kind of misses the point. 

For someone who deplores regulation yet, in the same breath, preaches about missing human regulation is really hard to take seriously.

Corporate regulation bad
taxes bad

Regulate that vagina!!!!!!!

Yeah, it's such a paradox to, on the one hand, support human rights and economic freedom, and on the other hand, to support human rights and personal freedom.

Silly me.

I applaud you for what you think is right and sticking up for that. I just denounce your view that it should be institutionally implemented because it infringes on personal rights. A woman's decision > a zygote's decision since it never had a choice. We are just going to have to agree to disagree. 

[ToxicAdam]

Like Mitt Romney, Bill Kristol and John Sydney Mccain III.

edit:  ok, Mandark with the true ether per the usual.

Well, I was thinking more like the Bushes, but whatever works for ya.

[OptimoPeach]

he actually said "sullied", what a little bitch.

I like that word

[Phoenix Dark]

[youtube=560,345]e3jwhLcW_c8[/youtube]

smh

[Brehvolution]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/74415.html

It's not a loving God I worry about, it's you rightwing sociopaths who parade around as Christians while allowing pain and suffering, poverty and oppression, greed and narcisism to prevail because you kneel before the false gods of conservatism, social dariwnism and greed. You CANNOT be a Christian and a social conservative. They are mutually exclusive. You make Jesus and the Mother Mary weep. There's a special place in Hell for the likes of you."

Things that make you go "boom".

[The Fake Shemp]

[youtube=560,345]e3jwhLcW_c8[/youtube]

smh

The look on the faces of the people in the crowd when she starts.

We don't need health care - we need good neighbors! What the fuck?!

[Mandark]

There has to be a ton of conservatives who don't trust or like to deal with insurance companies.

But there's a weird disconnect between what they'll say about their own experiences with those companies and how they react to it in a political context.  A lot of people have no problem just shunting reality to the side.  It's depressing.

[Phoenix Dark]

ehhh I couldn't get past a couple minutes

[Brehvolution]

If I was at that sermon, I would have gone and grabbed the gas can and torched the place. Clearly it is no longer a place of worship but a place to spread hatred and fear.

[Oblivion]

can we start referring to abortion as 'redistribution of death' from now on please

[FlameOfCallandor]

There has to be a ton of conservatives who don't trust or like to deal with insurance companies.

I fucking deplore insurance companies. I think they are scum.

The only people i don't trust more than insurance companies are politicians. And to me the biggest fucking mind boggling thing would be for the government to run its own health insurance company. I know you guys are going to bring up medicare and medicaid, but even most doctors hate all the bullshit that it brings.

If you guys really think that "profit" its the problem with the health care crisis then I really envy your naivety. Perhaps one of you guys should start a "non-profit" health care company and let it flourish.

[Flannel Boy]

Perhaps one of you guys should start a "non-profit" health care company and let it flourish. 

fixed

[The Fake Shemp]

I know you guys are going to bring up medicare and medicaid, but I don't want to hear a counter argument that makes my talking points irrelevant.

Double fixed.

[Oblivion]

Hoooly shit, Michael Steele is AWESOME.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/27/steele-gets-testy-with-np_n_270332.html

[The Fake Shemp]

Michael Steele

[Phoenix Dark]

They sure hate medicare.

[Van Cruncheon]

holy fuck, i take a couple days to resolve some work issues and HOLY HELL WHAT HAVE I DONE

[Van Cruncheon]

No semantics?  Semantics is unfortunately at the root of much of this.  The very thing you're taking issue with is what words mean.

"Life" is a phenomenon, but it is also a property with a valid and agreed-upon-through-consensus "textbook" scientific definition based on an established set of criteria (all of which are met by the human organism at any point in its growth and development, from conception to death).

"Organism" is a description of a particular living entity.

"Human being" is synonymous with "a member of the species H. sapiens"

so you're admitting it's all SEMANTICS, which is by its essential nature subjective? well, guess there's no need for step 4, then.

[Flannel Boy]

Drinky, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

[Van Cruncheon]

blame my job!

[Mandark]

JD's next move is to tell you that he doesn't buy all this wishy-washy descriptivist BS, and that words have objective, immutable meanings.

[Flannel Boy]

You took issue with "aggressive" and "homicide," both of which, again, are objectively true, entirely appropriate labels for the abortion act.

hom·i·cide  (hm-sd, hm-)
n.
1. The killing of one person by another.
2.  A person who kills another person.

Very few people believe that a zygote or a fetus is a person.

[Mandark]

JD's next move is to tell you that he doesn't buy all this wishy-washy descriptivist BS, and that words have objective, immutable meanings.

Words get do make phlahoogen flagen SHAMALAMADOO nark-nark.

It somewhat helps in communication when people agree to use the same language and the same syntax.

Hey, apart from you we do agree that "zygote" isn't a subset of "human".

So if the meaning of words are determined by people, we're set!

[The Fake Shemp]

Geez, that's pretty harsh to be both stupid and wrong.

[Barry Egan]

The trouble is that you're both ignorant and wrong to do so since it objectively is a subset of human.

Human
Noun
a human being, esp. a person as distinguished from an animal.

It is not a subset of "person"

spoiler (click to show/hide)

attack of the infinite differal!

[close]

[Mandark]

Geez, that's pretty harsh to be both stupid and wrong.

It's the cross I have to bear, sadly!

Honestly, many of you get hung up on the basics before the actual debate can even begin.

I'm reading "hung up on the basics" as "refusing to believe things only on my say-so."

Like I said before, if you actually want to convince people then you should try another tack.  Repeating over and over "It *is* so!  It's obviously, objectively true!" doesn't work if it's not immediately apparent to other people (which of course it isn't, otherwise you wouldn't be yelling at them in the first place).

[Van Cruncheon]

hey, i'm leading somewhere, but i gotta make sure i feed the rope to the proper length. however, you're telling me that i'm too caught up in semantics out of one side of your mouth, and you're lecturing me -on- the semantics and telling me that they're essential to our conversation out of the other, and i'm thinking that my whole tack has been derailed by completely unanticipated CRAZY.

but let's continue on and pretend that the above never happened. explain to me the specific criteria that separate homo sapiens from other living things, in wholly objective terms, such that the differentiation is necessary when considering the act of terminating a "life". no homo sapiens == humans false tautologies, please, and let's stay away from citing the dictionary, since we've taken semantics off the table, here!

[Oblivion]

Let's take a quick break from the topic at hand to check this out (don't worry, we'll come back, after all, those babies aren't going to eat themselves!) Remember that town hall meeting with Barney Frank that was posted a while back? Here's an extended video with more re-re ownage.


http://crooksandliars.com/dday/exclusive-rest-barney-frank-town-hall-meeting

[Flannel Boy]

I take issue with the concept of restrictive legal personhood itself - if you are a living human being, you are a possessor of unalienable rights and governments are instituted to protect them.

I don't see what you're getting at. Has any state ever given a zygote or fetus the same rights as a born human? How exactly is a zygote supposed to exercise religious, speech, assembly, or mobility rights? If a woman is imprisoned, is her fetus being arbitrarily detained? It is, apparently, a separate person.

[Van Cruncheon]

yes, i am asking just that: what objective attributes do your homo sapiens present that separate it from, say, a cactus, or one of those cute little critters koreans eat?

you can also answer your first question if you like.

[Van Cruncheon]

what are these unalienable rights? do they exist independent of the common agreement of other human beings? if so, what is the manifestation of those rights, and how do they exist as part of your precious homo sapiens? is there some magic combination of thymine, guanine, adenine, and cytosine that spells out the us bill of rights?

see, i'm thinking mandark was wrong: you believe in god, but you just haven't acknowledged it yet.

[Van Cruncheon]

i haven't met a right i couldn't alienate

[Phoenix Dark]

Conservative media figures are blasting Democrats for trying to draw political gain from the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. But on Thursday, it was one of their own -- former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- who went there.

The 2008 Republican presidential candidate suggested during his radio show, "The Huckabee Report," on Thursday that, under President Obama's health care plan, Kennedy would have been told to "go home to take pain pills and die" during his last year of life.

"t was President Obama himself who suggested that seniors who don't have as long to live might want to consider just taking a pain pill instead of getting an expensive operation to cure them," said Huckabee. "Yet when Sen. Kennedy was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer at 77, did he give up on life and go home to take pain pills and die? Of course not. He freely did what most of us would do. He choose an expensive operation and painful follow up treatments. He saw his work as vitally important and so he fought for every minute he could stay on this earth doing it. He would be a very fortunate man if his heroic last few months were what future generations remember him most for."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/28/huckabee-kennedy-would-ha_n_271605.html

Come on Huck, tell me the liberal media is putting words in your mouth  :'(

[Flannel Boy]

I thought Drinky would be the first victim of the Death Panel. 

[Mandark]

You really have to be more specific re: what you're asking for.

I think it was pretty clear.

explain to me the specific criteria that separate homo sapiens from other living things, in wholly objective terms, such that the differentiation is necessary when considering the act of terminating a "life".

[The Fake Shemp]

I'm watching the Ted Kennedy service, and it's weird to see Obama, Clinton and Bush chilling and kind of shooting the breeze all together.

[Van Cruncheon]

really? what is "intelligence"? "sapience?" now you really ARE in completely subjective territory. objectivey, we're meat and chemical reactions, just like a cactus, or a kitten, and the only thing that makes us special is the purely SUBJECTIVE importance we ascribe to our condition -- that the chemical processes and biological configuration what produce our notion of self-awareness is somehow a feature of our species more significant than being able to regrow a tail or smell a deer 10 miles off. OBJECTIVELY, we are a certain configuration of chemicals, like any other organism that we likewise choose to arbitrarily distinguish based on its essential makeup. anything else is strictly magical thinking.

Rights are inherent characteristics.  That's what a right is.  If it's not an independent property, inherent to the being, it isn't a right.  If someone gives it to you, someone can take it away - which means again... it isn't a right.

that's another false tautology. "a right is...a right! if it's not inherent to the being, it can't exist, but they DO, so lol!" prove to me a "right" exists; that it has a tangible, objective existence independent of the participation of others in pretending they exist.

i'm not sure how you can accuse me of being religious -- i'm not the one believing in magical ephemera, here! i don't believe god is necessary for morals -- in fact, i don't even believe morals objectively exist beyond chemical reactions in my brain to specific social stimuli.

[The Fake Shemp]

That's because you're crazy.

[The Fake Shemp]

Why would I argue with a crazy person?

Repeating an argument over and over, expecting a different result. That would pretty much make me crazy.

I'm just here for the cheap thrills as intellectuals try to argue with someone totally detached from reality.

Crazy people are entertaining.

[The Fake Shemp]

It's irrelevant, as I have no desire to discuss the subject matter with someone clearly detached from mainstream society, if not reality altogether.

Drinky is just playing with you at this point. Like a cat with a canary.