I am sure people have said this before but I never really thought about it. As a person who thinks prostitution should be legal it doesn't really affect how I feel about abortion, but it is a good argument.
There's a rumor that he could become Obama's Treasury secretary. I hope that happens, maybe it will give outsiders like BG7 and 44Thrilla an idea of the crap people in NJ have had to put up for the past several years, and it will further Obama's chances of being a one term President.
Our society if filled with similar inconsistencies. Why is it legal and okay to have a homosexual marriage between two consenting adults, but you end up in prison if two women and one man want to get married? I don't get it. You can smoke tobacco legally, but pot which is much less harmful is illegal. You could argue the impairment, but why is booze legal then? These have more to do with lobbying, but it is still kind of odd.
my aversion to voting republican is that it seems many are closely tied to the military industrial complex. im not a big fan of war profiteers.
What do the Republicans stand for anymore? I always thought they stood for no economic intervention, but all I've seen is McCain running around all week saying how he's going to intervene in the economy.
And for the record, I'm pro-choice. That is the woman has the choice whether to have sex or not, and if she chooses to do so she should except all consequences. Rape is the obvious exception to this, but you can't have that, as people will be going around claiming rape just to get an abortion, even though there was no rape. So the compromise to this, is to make Emergency Contraception Pills more widely available. Educate people, that if they get raped, to go over to Walgreens and get one of these pills. Then you can have the old school abortion exception, for those who were held captive while raped, so they didn't have the chance to get one of those pills in time. There wouldn't be too much faking going on here, as it will be easy to see what is legit, and what is not. Although even in rape cases, I'm still not a big fan of the murder, although I understand it is completely necessary, as you can't have women who've been raped carrying something in their body from that rape. Although in the not too distant future, we can eliminate the abortion part altogether, once we have artificial wombs, transfer the fetus from the real womb to the fake, and then put it up for adoption. Also, I'm not a big fan of abortion when the mother's life may be threatened. Why not rename this from partial-birth abortion to premature birth? Why not try to keep the baby alive? At 22 weeks, it has a 15% chance of surviving, and at 24 weeks, it has a 41% chance of surviving. That makes more sense then shoving a spoon in it's head or throwing it in a bucket of chemicals.
I know a lady who was in that situation and the doctors told her she had to abort to live. She didn't because of her belief in life. I'm glad about that. She was my grandmother and the baby was my mom.
Any of you guys see the Simpsons episode where space aliens impersonated Clinton and Dole? When the public found out they were evil aliens who wanted to take over the world, it was too late. One was republican and the other democrat and the public couldn't see wasting a vote on a (human) independent. Classic. I wish we could do away with the parties and candidates could just run on their platform. You would get a lot more interesting candidates in the race.
I found it. It was in a book written by the UC Berkeley linguist George Lakoff on how political issues are framed by the language that is used to name and define them. Here's a snippet of an interview on the part that is relevant to this thread: Lakoff also has some interesting things to say about the duty to pay taxes (and how the issue is framed), which I'll also include here even though it it OT: I apologize for not locating this earlier.
Interesting, though I am not enamored by linguistics professors' views of philosophy in general. Paying taxes is patriotic. Avoiding paying taxes is even more so. The tax forms we fill out for April 15 do allow people to contribute more than their tax owed; I'd love to see people who are in love with big govt. contribute more. Not shocked that those people don't do so. The problem with this analysis is that it's black and white. MOST people are good. It only takes a few bad ones to ruin things for the rest.
It's hard to vote for any politician anymore. Corporate America is eroded so deep within the political system that you cannot trust what any politician says without questioning their motive. The thing that drives me nuts is that people decide to vote Republican or a Democrat without taking into consideration of whom those people really are. Are they just pandering to your belief system to get your vote? Will they do what they say? You can't take anything at face value anymore. It's sickening and the country is in need of a major overhaul. There's no way to cleanse this mess and I don't want to sound like an extremist, but this country needs a political revolution. I don't know how that would happen, but the people and the country needs it. For the record, I'm Pro-Choice but I struggle with the thought of having an abortion take place after the first trimester. I do believe that abortion shouldn't be some form of birth-control and people should accept responsibility. I'm also pro-death penalty. Unfortunately, too many innocent people get convicted. But if there is undeniable evidence along with DNA linking somebody to a murder, rape, or child-molestation, I say get rid of them.
You are being short-sighted. First, an insightful observation is an insightful observation, regardless of where it originates. Second, this analysis has nothing to do with people being "good." It pretty accurately explains the schism between the two schools of thought of national governance. More importantly, it explains why certain people vote repubilcan (and certain vote democratic) even though those parties do nothing to help them. It comes down to their personal belief on how governments should . . . govern, for lack of a better word. Two different theories, and the number of people subscribing to each one are essentially evenly split.
Anyhow, I don't see much of a difference between the two parties. They're both New Dealers and promote big government. The priorities are only slightly different.