Ok, back to the 2012 elections (of which abortion will be nowhere near the most important issues of the election), an interesting article about how due to the economy has not picked up as expected (in fact we likely are either in a recession or dangerously close to one), it seems the 2012 election may hinge on how dirty Obama is willing to get.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-o...lerates-2011-8

Now that President Obama's political collapse has reached the Jimmy Carter zone, Mickey Kaus asks: Do the Truman analogies come before or after the Call for the Wise Men? Good question!
We have two relatively recent examples: Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
In Bush's case, the Truman analogies preceded the Call for the Wise Men--new experts who can fix the administration's problems. (For Bush, this call never really went out, unless you count James Baker's return to the White House in the summer of 1992).
In Clinton's case, he went Wise Men first (David Gergen!) and then used a variation of the Truman strategy (Clinton argued that the GOP Congress wasn't "do nothing," they were crazy and might do something to you). President Obama, like former President Bush, seems to be skipping the Wisemen and going right to the Truman, at least for the time being.
Reality, however, is pulling the campaign in a much different direction. The collapse in people's confidence in President Obama's ability to "manage" the US economy suggests that the president's "control of the narrative" (as political consultants might say) of the coming campaign is at best diminished and at worst lost. Peggy Noonan has written any number of columns earlier this year saying that the nation's electorate was tuning President Obama out. That judgment now seems prescient. It's exactly what has happened. And it's getting worse.
There are a number of reasons why this is so, but principal among them has been the Obama team's willful misreading of the facts on the ground. Told by the Massachusetts electorate (in the special election to fill the seat of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy) to stop focusing on health care and start focusing on job creation schemes, the Administration went full steam ahead on health care. Told by Jacksonian American voters and his most able and experienced national security advisors to not get involved in Libya, Obama blundered into the "days, not weeks" war. Faced with mounting alarm about the huge increase in national debt (to say nothing of unfunded liabilities), Obama proposed exactly nothing to deal with it; in the short term, the medium term or the long term. It's been a while since we have seen an Administration so completely out of step with the American electorate.
Perhaps most disconcerting of all, reality-wise, the president himself imagined that he was going to run a re-election campaign that reprised the Reagan "Morning in America" campaign of 1984. He really thought that the turnaround would begin in earnest in 2011 and expand into 2012, thus enabling him to say that he had seen us through the worst and was now leading us to a great and glorious future. In this fantasy, he (like Reagan before him) would barely have to acknowledge his opposition. He would float to victory.
All that is out the window now, obviously. Obama running on the Reagan narrative is a complete non-starter. So his options are basically two: he can go scorched earth or he can quit. He himself now says that the economy won't start to improve until next year. So any kind of natural lift will not occur until (in the best case) this time next year. And that's probably another pipe dream. Political professionals will tell you that public perception of "economic improvement" lags statistical "economic improvement" by as much as one year.
So, at a time when the only issue that really matters is jobs and falling living standards, the president will head into the fall campaign next year with not much to say except "it could have been worse." That's not a winning message, obviously. Which leaves him with a campaign based almost entirely on (what Bill Clinton used to call) "the politics of personal destruction."
Such a campaign would leave President Obama stone cold, even if he's perfectly willing to do it to get the job done. He would hate every minute of it. He didn't travel the road he traveled and scale the mountains he climbed, to have the capstone of his political career read: "Mitt Romney is a Mormon weirdo" or "Rick Perry is a psychopath."
In Washington, the "plugged-in" people will tell you gravely that the president isn't enjoying the work. He feels, it is said, "beleaguered" and "unappreciated" and "deeply unhappy" about the state of our politics. The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has been nibbling around this Obama gloom for a while; she's always had great radar for presidential funks. If you read between the lines of her columns, you get an almost tactile sense of Obama's blues.
A long-time Democratic politician told me the other day that he would not be "terribly" surprised if Obama called it quits early next year. When I asked him if he really believed that, he said "no, not really, but you can smell it. It's in the air around him."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-o...#ixzz1VX4Vsxzy

This is what America likely gets if it should elect Texas Governor Rick Perry, give the GOP control of the Senate, and let the GOP hold the House:

Originally Posted by The Nation

Over his three campaigns for governor Perry raised a remarkable $102 million. Perry’s predecessor, George W. Bush, who was no slouch at fundraising himself, brought in $41 million over two campaigns.

Half of Perry’s haul, $51 million, has come from just 204 sources. Some are political action committees, but most are wealthy individuals. “He relies on a relatively small network of very big hitters, wealthy businessmen and their spouses who want something out of Texas government,” says Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, a nonprofit research group that tracks the influence of money in Texas politics. As the Dallas Morning News reported during Perry’s re-election bid last year, “Perry tapped scores of big-dollar donors—including some who have business before the state or have benefited from taxpayer subsidies,” to vastly outraise his Democratic opponent, Bill White.

As McDonald explains, “Texas is a pay-to-play state.” That means Perry has generously rewarded his contributors with appointments and political favors. Perry has appointed 921 people, who have donated to his campaigns, for a total of $17.1 million, to various jobs and boards. These are not always disinterested public servants. McDonald says, “There are lots of people who have business interests who got appointed to positions with regulatory power over them.”

Perry has also shown an eagerness to do the bidding of his major supporters. Most notably, his second-biggest all-time donor, Harold Simmons, owns a nuclear waste dump. Perry led the charge in 2010, while Simmons gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Perry’s re-election campaign, to allow Simmons to import nuclear waste from thirty-eight states. On June 27 of this year, ten days after Perry signed the legislation, Simmons gave $100,000 to Americans for Rick Perry. Tom Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office, estimates that the rule change will bring upward of $2 billion for Simmons. “If you put money in Perry’s purse, he’ll create policies you need,” says Smith.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/162817...el=emailNation

Such is the Texas "miracle". The Dallas Morning News is a right-wing newspaper.

I fail to see how this is any different from politicians of both political stripes? Politicians who deliver get greased from their financial supporters. This is nothing new.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

This is what America likely gets if it should elect Texas Governor Rick Perry, give the GOP control of the Senate, and let the GOP hold the House:



http://www.thenation.com/blog/162817...el=emailNation

Such is the Texas "miracle". The Dallas Morning News is a right-wing newspaper.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

I fail to see how this is any different from politicians of both political stripes? Politicians who deliver get greased from their financial supporters. This is nothing new.

Texas is extreme.

Remember the "public-private partnerships" that Dubya loved to tout? Basically the state provides the capital and absorbs the risks and the plutocrat draws the profits. Such asks for huge corruption. Whatever you say about the appropriate scope of the public sector, clean government requires a clear divide between the public and private sectors.

When Texas was roughly split evenly R/D, it wasn't particularly corrupt. It now apparently is very corrupt, as befits a state in which one Party has little chance of winning anything significant. I don't know whether Rick Perry could impose Texas-style corruption on a national scale... but if he tried, then this country could splinter much as Yugoslavia did.

I would think that after Bush, America wouldn't be so willing to put another Texan in the WH so soon. Yet...this economy is so tied to Obama and with the 2012 election likely being the most nastiest in recent history...Dems having lost faith in Obama.

It is likely that the right could turn out even more and elect Perry despite his flaws.

I guess I thought as recently as a month ago that Obama would likely win re-election. Recent events have me doubting this. As the article I copied states:

Perhaps most disconcerting of all, reality-wise, the president himself imagined that he was going to run a re-election campaign that reprised the Reagan "Morning in America" campaign of 1984. He really thought that the turnaround would begin in earnest in 2011 and expand into 2012, thus enabling him to say that he had seen us through the worst and was now leading us to a great and glorious future. In this fantasy, he (like Reagan before him) would barely have to acknowledge his opposition. He would float to victory.
All that is out the window now, obviously. Obama running on the Reagan narrative is a complete non-starter. So his options are basically two: he can go scorched earth or he can quit. He himself now says that the economy won't start to improve until next year. So any kind of natural lift will not occur until (in the best case) this time next year.

Basically Obama may find himself in the same situation as Bush senior. The economy may be getting better by election day, but it will be too late.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

I would think that after Bush, America wouldn't be so willing to put another Texan in the WH so soon. Yet...this economy is so tied to Obama and with the 2012 election likely being the most nastiest in recent history...Dems having lost faith in Obama.

It is likely that the right could turn out even more and elect Perry despite his flaws.

I guess I thought as recently as a month ago that Obama would likely win re-election. Recent events have me doubting this. As the article I copied states:



Basically Obama may find himself in the same situation as Bush senior. The economy may be getting better by election day, but it will be too late.

There was an economist that I heard on a radio show, I believe it may on NPR?, who was trying to explain why the politico-economic establishment doesn't get it.
His argument was basically that as he put it the economy is in a contraction. He described a contraction as being somewhat worse than your garden variety recession. He would not use the "D" word-depression, but that's what he meant.
And I agree. I believe that we have gone into a depression since the bank meltdown of 2008. The only reason why it doesn't seem as bad as the post 1929 period is because we still have most of the new deal era safety nets in place--the same safety nets that our elite seems determined to tear up. There will be no recovery for Mr. Obama next year--Nor for his GOP successor. We, or at least our policy elite seem determined to deal with this the 19th century way, and such will take over 20 years just as it did from 1873 to 1897. They may well get their way unless they get too greedy and stupid and bring the hole rotted structure down, such is a possibility. But if they to paraphraise Marx and Lennon "boil the frogs" just right then by sometime in the 2030's this thing will end and we will default into a 1T of exhaustion and austerity.

At least that's the way I see things happening right now.

Now, specifically as to the 2012 election, the enthusiasm gap returns for the Democrats.

Originally Posted by Public Policy Polling

Only 48% of Democrats on our most recent national survey said they were 'very excited' about voting in 2012. On the survey before that the figure was 49%. Those last two polls are the only times all year the 'very excited' number has dipped below 50%.

In 13 polls before August the average level of Democrats 'very excited' about voting next year had averaged 57%. It had been as high as 65% and only twice had the number even dipped below 55%.

It had seemed earlier in the year like Democrats had overcome the 'enthusiasm gap' that caused so much of their trouble in last year's elections. But now 54% of Republicans say they're 'very excited' about casting their ballots next year, indicating that the problem may be back.

The debt deal really does appear to have demoralized the base, and the weird thing about it is that this is one issue where if Obama had done what folks on the left wanted him to do, he also would have had the support of independents. The deal has proven to be a complete flop in swing states where we've polled it like Colorado, North Carolina, and Ohio. And in every single one of those states a majority of voters overall, as well as a majority of independents, think new taxes are going to be needed to solve the deficit problem.

In short the GOP now has about a 5 point enthusiasm gap on Obama.
And given Obama SOP for "doing business", this will grow after the gang of six dictates to him in what ways he is to kick down his voter base again.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Duh. Opposing its use and trying to get it banned are two different things.
I know plenty of pro-life Catholics, and sorry if you don't like it but I still take their word over your speculations.

I'm aware of that, but your assertion is that no one who opposes the use of contraception would support a ban, which is ridiculous. (Also this assertion is known to be false in the case of any contraception that even might work as an abortifacient.)

Originally Posted by PBrower

Texas is extreme.

Thank you.

That's the best one liner or quip that I've read on this forum since TnT made the observation that if you get sick in his town that one healthcare insurance conglomerate sends you to East Jesus to get "healed" whereas its competitor sends you to West Jesus to get "healed."

Who says that there's not humor in a 4T?

A what-if question for the right wing: who do you want as your presidential candidate if we have another Lehman moment in September, 2012?

Not Perry, not Palin. Maybe Huntsman or Romney.

James50

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I'm aware of that, but your assertion is that no one who opposes the use of contraception would support a ban, which is ridiculous. (Also this assertion is known to be false in the case of any contraception that even might work as an abortifacient.)

Militaristic, exploitative regimes usually oppose contraception. Busy maternity wards supply plenty of cheap labor for the "dark, Satanic mills", cannon fodder for the war twenty years later, and settlers of conquered lands in the wake of conquests. Recreational sex -- especially homosexuality -- 'fails' to serve the purpose of overpopulation. I think of those right-wingers who calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme -- but population growth is the ultimate Ponzi scheme. It's the youth that pay in economic exploitation and personal frustration. Maybe that is the Thirteenth curse -- being the last generation of 'surplus births' and being the ones who get underpaid for their qualifications on the job and overpay for real estate as later generations don't.

It is easy and perhaps hysterical to compare the contemporary Hard Right to fascists of past times, especially those of the last 4T... but no people in American history have had so many resemblances while approaching complete power. Sure, we have had our pitiable and contemptible Kluxers and neo-Nazis, but they have been more preposterous than menacing. They can't attract campaign contributions and they are unelectable. See also "Black Panthers".

One of the salient characteristics that Lawrence Britt found in his infamous "Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism" was



5. Rampant Sexism

The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

http://ratical.com/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

Fascist regimes infamously promote of aggressive heterosexuality and the subordination of women with the intention of fostering rapid population growth. Irrespective of culture, fascist movements have had relatively few women in the high ranks of any hierarchy, with the most powerful role for women being resembling Lady Macbeth (example: Magda Goebbels). This rarely arises in non-fascist regimes (maybe Romania under Ceausescu). As an contrast, China is extremely repressive and inegalitarian, but it has a one-child policy contrary to creating any 'need' for Lebensraum; it tolerates homosexuality and contraception much as does a liberal democracy.

I can make a sharp contrast between the Tea Party and Dubya -- Dubya wasn't particularly sexist.

Originally Posted by TnT

I would actually be interested in having you flesh this out a bit more...

-As...

You...

Wish!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The US government did not exist in 1775, but the US Constitution clearly establishes some powers that the Federal Government did not then have -- such as the right to print money and do diplomacy as the States did before then and as the States were precluded from doing afterwards, the ability to assume all debts of the States related to the Revolution, the ability to issue patents and copyrights, and of course effective prohibitions of the States establishing any religion. It even abolished the importation of slaves...

Originally Posted by TnT

...For example, the final form of government after the revolution followed the Articles of Confederation, a failed, weaker government attempt. And PB is right, you would have to compare and contrast our initial federal government with Great Britain or something like that...

-I think you're both confusing the middle of 4T with the beginning of 4T, although TNT comes close. In 1773 (the beginning), we were ruled at the "national" level in an arbitrary fashion by King and Parliament. At the end, we had a government based on the theory of limited government under the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The ones who couldn't handle that fled to Canada. We were definitely freer in 1795 than they were in 1772.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The US government did not exist in 1775... and of course effective prohibitions of the States establishing any religion...

-FWIW, states could and did establish religions under the USC. You sort of allude to this later with your reference to the XIV Amendment. IIRC, MA maintained the Congregational church with taxpayer dollars until the 1820s. But that was no different than 1773, so my thesis holds; not more freedom, but no decline, either.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The US government did not exist in 1775... and of course effective prohibitions of the States establishing any religion. It even abolished the importation of slaves...

-A slight increase in freedom, perhaps...

Originally Posted by TnT

...In the ACW case, the Union had certainly demonstrated its ability to hold the country together, however messy that turned out to be. That's a LOT stronger, that what was in place before it seems to me.

-The key word is "demonstrated"; the ability obviously existed before then. Think 1832.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Abraham Lincoln got powers that no prior President had ever had -- and he needed every one of those...

-As part of a 4T Crisis War, not as a permanent change for society. You yourself allude to this in your next paragraph.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments abolished slavery without compensation to former owners, effectively prohibited States from violating the Bill Of Rights (effectively preventing the States from becoming dictatorial police states ), and establishing that former slaves were now citizens with full civil rights (on paper, that is)...

-An increase in freedom, don't you think? In this case, there was a slight increase in Federal authority, but an decrease in state authority.

BTW, slave owners in DC got compensation, up to $300.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...By the way -- do you have any problems with the GI Bill of Rights, the Marshall Plan, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

FWIW:

1) The CRA of 1964 was simply an exchange of power from one level of government to another;

2) The GI Bill of Rights is a matter of military compensation. Personally, I think it was silly to create a hefty compensation and then apply it to people who are already in (i.e., retroactively). Now, as part of a contract for future enlistees (I was an example), it makes sense. The 1944 GI Bill was basically a guilt trip pay-off. Maybe we should have simply compensated them better up front;

3) The Marshall Plan was a dud. Germany recovered before it had a chance to take effect.

I think both of you guys are confusing stability with a lack of freedom, and freedom with a lack of stability. By restricting itself to a limited mandate (see Article I Section 8 as an example), a government maintains stability while making it's citizens freer. Freedom and Stability are not mutually exclusive.


---

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Here's a comparison you never thought to consider -



Yep, TX is doing a little worst than my state and that Liberal stronghold of Massachusetts!

-Funny, how many people are flocking to NY or MA? It's not hard to keep the unemployment rate managable when people are fleeing as fast as they can.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Yes, they are adding jobs faster than other states; that's what happens when your population grows faster than other states...

-Uh, Playdude's (or is it Krugman's?) analysis sucks. TX isn't adding jobs because the population is growing, the population is growing because (unlike the Progressive Paradises) they're adding jobs. Much of the popultation growth comes from people fleeing those Progressive Paradises:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...tage-Perry.htm

...Texas is also experiencing a population boom, as people flock there for job opportunities... Texas was by far the top destination for people moving in the country, with a net gain of half a million migrants between 2004 and 2008. The vast majority came from other states.

Why aren't the Progressive Paradises adding jobs?

Originally Posted by playwrite

...that is exactly the type of minimal income jobs TX is adding. Some 550,000 workers last year were paid at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25, more than double the number making minimum or below wages in 2008. That's 9.5% of Texas' hourly workforce, which gives it the highest percentage of minimum-wage hourly workers in the nation...

...and despite that:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...tage-Perry.htm

...the average wage for employees in Texas rose 7.4% between May 2008 and May 2010... For the nation as a whole, average wages climbed 5%.

Must be something wrong with Krapman's analysis. Go figure.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Never, ever doing a lick of your own analysis...

1) I might show an article to start off the discussion, but the analysis is mine. Part of good analysis is recognizing other's good work, and recognizing when other people's analysis sucks.

Hint. Anyone who takes financial advice from the pod person known as "Paul Krugman" is going to be disappointed;

2) An ironic criticism coming from a guy whose every posting is a regurgiatation of the intellectually dishonest Paul Krapman or the unicorn riders of something called MMT...

Originally Posted by The Rani

You sure do like telling people what their assertions are, don't you? Try more listening and less putting thoughts into people's brains.
This is the FOURTH time now that I'll repeat what I said ... please pay attention ...

OK, the hair has been sufficiently split. No one is specifically, clearly and boldly trying to ban contraception. There is just a wave of legislation that puts contraception into a murky legal position being pushed by a political movement full of people who consider the use of contraception immoral. I'm sure that this is pure coincidence, and no one has a desire to actually ban contraception.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Well boys and girls, this is what misogyny sounds like...I rest my case.

Or it could be X-treme communism.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by Ted '79

I also notice most of the people in this discussion are guys. I don't think we should just shut up -- everyone's entitled to an opinion, and we may as well articulate ours -- but still...

It IS interesting to see a bunch of dudes engaged in a hyper-intellectualized discussion which discounts the wishes of the women involved in their plans and schemes.
Perhaps the misogyny label wasn't so far off after all.

I'm pleased that you were able to see that. Because it's important to recognize that deep seated hierarchical thinking such as male supremacy can be disguised in rhetoric often labeled liberal or communal. In a civilized society the responsibility should be to protect the health, needs and rights of the full fledged human (i.e. woman) over and above whatever potential human being her body may be producing. Any attempt to do otherwise -- to call that part of her body that has the potential of being human her equal -- is a subversion. And knowingly or otherwise the debate becomes an issue of property rights. She is no longer an autonomous person, she is the thief of "the womb" whose rightful owner is society (historically her husband). I would give more credence to the political word game they call the abortion debate if those claiming that...

Originally Posted by James50

...[abortion] is the spilling of human blood. It is a carnage. It is destroying life at its most vulnerable....

were bringing up the needs of the woman and what would make it easier for her to allow childbirth rather than abortion. "Society" has plenty of opportunity to support "vulnerable" life once it is born. "Society" can spoil a newborn baby rotten. But calling people names, subtly insisting that...

Originally Posted by James50

...[women] look at the pictures of cells/fetus/whatever you want to call something that has arms, legs, head, eyes, and reacts to pain and feel they have committed murder

to make her feel guilty for regulating her own bodily functions is tired, not to mention dishonest. Abortion is a medical procedure that extends the medicine women have been practicing for centuries. That women were dying in the 60's for using wire hangers as abortion tools or went to unsanitary back-alley "specialists" that left them bleeding to death or with lethal secondary infections is part of the reason Roe v. wade was decided in 1973. Since then the law has been weakened (partially because it was never cogently crafted in the first place) with provisos like guardian/spouse/paternal notification, and enough of the religious-based anti-woman rhetoric that has been allowed to dominate the discourse at the expense of more constructive directions of energy, that young women are still resorting to dangerous underground options. That reality is suspiciously absent from this so aptly described "intellectual" debate. And I personally find that more telling than the transparent pleas to save innocent life.

The point of re-framing it as a working-class abortion issue is to reveal the hidden class dynamics in the political word game commonly referred to as the reproductive rights debate. Wealthy people have always been able to buy their privacy (essentially their 4th Amendment rights) and secure whatever services they need.--They don't need medicaid or other subsidized healthcare. So that the debate is really about controlling the behavior of a certain segment of the female population and their offspring by extension. At best, stigmatizing abortion hopes to corral working class women back into the ideally feudal institution of marriage and maintain the exponential population growth of the bottom 80%. At worst, it will sacrafice (with a few dead bodies here and there) the lives of working class women either miseducated or unable able to afford safe abortions. Because wealthy women are rarely if ever controlled in this manner, the political word game known as the controversy over abortion can be seen as an extension of class warfare. Fundamentally, abortion is a privacy right issue. It is a violation of her privacy to bring the State in the middle of a medical procedure taking place between a woman and her doctor. So a more proper slogan than "a woman, her doctor and her conscience" would be "a woman, her body and her doctor" because "conscience" always has been a subtle means for inserting "society" (namely through religion) in the mix. Unfortunately, through seemingly benign discussions like this, women have been trained to alienate themselves from their own bodies. So they tolerate disscusions like this...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

...Personhood shifts the question...So the idea of extending that period of captivity back in time to cover whatever period prior to birth the fetus is determined to be a 'person' isn't really a qualitative shift. It's just an adjustment of boundaries that are already there...So being able to conclusively (or at least as conclusively as epistemology permits ) answer the person/nonperson question would leave us at worst no further from a solution than we are now, and might potentially be the solution itself. And in any case, we'd at least be talking politics and ethics about matters that are directly founded in the two. Which would be a major improvement.

with this...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

...The fundamental metaphysical question, "what is a person?" is the only way we're going to come to a solution to the problem.

this...

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...We have laws requiring parents to support their already-born children...The principle that parents have an obligation to provide sustenance and other support for their children is well established and not really controversial at all. The conflict is over whether to treat an early-pregnancy embryo or fetus in the same way as a born child. If we do, then the mother has an obligation to keep it alive. If not, then her own right to self-determination becomes primary....

or this...

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...A woman's body, like a man's, does not exclusively belong to any one person including herself. I don't buy that argument at all...At some very early stages, a child is inside the mother's body...

coupled with this...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

...the part about the woman['s body] not belonging to society isn't exactly true in the way you want it to be. As mentioned above, a woman is considered to be enslaved to her minor children...[so] if the thing growing inside a woman's body is a person (and further, the class of person 'minor child' who is reliant on her to sustain its life)... then extending the period of her enslavement to the child back to include some time prior to its emergence from her body as a relatively-more-viable entity would be a conclusion perfectly in accord with 'right', defined with respect to the nature of us as humans and as people....

one of my favorites, this...

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

So what? To me, personhood is what matters, and the ONLY thing that matters...As I said, the dependence of the fetus on the mother is, for me, a complete and total irrelevancy signifying nothing at all...

and the one that started it all...

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by James50

It really should not be necessary to say this, but hate to just let it pass. The purpose of limiting abortion is to protect the life of the person in the womb. From that perspective, it has nothing to do with protecting individual freedom, but everything to do with protecting life. This is the great and continuing divide of the abortion debate.

Yep. Not about liberty at all, except on our side. Of course, if we all agreed that what was in the womb in the early stages was a person, then there'd be no debate at all . . .

No one discusses parts of a man's anatomy (as if it were detached from him) the way woman's anatomy and bodily functions are discussed. "The womb" instead of a woman's womb, right there is the red flag -- these are verbal tricks to associate women's body parts as public property, as possessions of society at large. Babies don't come from out of nowhere. They grow from the flesh of a woman and are indistinguishable from that flesh until pushed or cut out of her. There is no "Hey, I would like to take a visit inside a woman today." Women do not "carry" babies that land there by accident, they "grow" them. And if a woman cannot or will not grow a baby, it does not make her criminal. Not to mention given the number of women the planet over gladly willing to bear children, it does not make her a threat to life either.

P.S. The purpose of stating that everything has thoughts and feelings (yes, including rocks and bacterium) is to remind people that because some religions believe this (and is even beginning to be supported by science even if not conventionally) any emotionally based arguments about personhood is inherently flawed.
...

Now may you resume your highly productive, fair and balanced conversation on the 2012 election.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

P.S. The purpose of stating that everything has thoughts and feelings (yes, including rocks and bacterium) is to remind people that because some religions believe this (and is even beginning to be supported by science even if not conventionally) any emotionally based arguments about personhood is inherently flawed.

Actually, the purpose was to confuse the issue, which is also the entire purpose of your last long-winded post. You have yet to provide an answer to anyone's argument, and instead have engaged in what amounts to a temper-tantrum. I don't feel any of it requires a response, frankly. You've made a lot of statements that are for the most part factually accurate but don't imply what you seem to think they do.

As for your implication about men's bodies and nobody trying to be equally possessive about them in terms of the law, I give you two historical counterexamples: slavery (which was gender-neutral) and conscription (which specifically targeted men only). Now I don't approve of slavery at all, and would support conscription only in emergency situations, but that's beside the point; the point is that the distinction you're trying to draw on the basis of gender with an implication that any views differing from your own in even the slightest degree on this issue HAVE TO arise from misogyny is counter-factual. The principle that people's bodies do, like their minds, have obligations to society remains true for both men and women.

In the end, I have to respond as I did above: so what? And the only justified conclusion you can draw from this is that you don't like me as a person, which is of course your privilege and something I won't lose any sleep over.

EDIT: I also feel I need to point out that calling someone who is mostly on your side ugly names like "misogynist" because he/she disagrees with you about a minor point that has no great practical significance (I mean, how many women even WANT to abort in the third trimester except out of medical necessity?) is not very smart. Not very smart at all. That's the way to lose completely.

Now that I'm back, can anyone update me on what the candidate situation is?

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Now that I'm back, can anyone update me on what the candidate situation is?

~Chas'88

Former MN Governor Tim Pawlenty is out of the race. Congresswoman Bachmann and TX Governor Perry are the ones getting the most attention right now, which is pathetic because both are fundamentalist loons.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...You have yet to provide an answer to anyone's argument, and instead have engaged in what amounts to a temper-tantrum. I don't feel any of it requires a response, frankly...

Then don't. Though you are free to say whatever you like (my position from the beginning) it does a disservice to the women reading these boards to not see anything with the word "woman" in a debate about abortion.

You've made a lot of statements that are for the most part factually accurate...

Well I appreciate the vote of confidence. But I really don't care. As I stated before, this was written for women who might have been temporarily hypnotized by the highly intellectualized debate taking place which suddenly disintegrated into...

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You are an obnoxious asshole.

when someone entered the word "woman" into the conversation. The fact that The Rani responded with some understanding of where this was coming from was really enough for me.

EDIT: I also feel I need to point out...

Ah gee, I wish you wouldn't. I wish you would have kept your promise by not giving any unnecessary responses. I certainly don't want to waste the energy educating you...

...In the end, I have to respond as I did above: so what? And the only justified conclusion you can draw from this is that you don't like me as a person...

Sweetheart, I don't dislike you. And I mean that wholeheartedly, without a tinge of irony. Best...

EDIT: Again, my apologies for interrupting this thread on 2012 election with silliness. Please go back to Pawlenty...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Funny, how many people are flocking to NY or MA? It's not hard to keep the unemployment rate managable when people are fleeing as fast as they can.



-Uh, Playdude's (or is it Krugman's?) analysis sucks. TX isn't adding jobs because the population is growing, the population is growing because (unlike the Progressive Paradises) they're adding jobs. Much of the popultation growth comes from people fleeing those Progressive Paradises:

.. and funny where those jobs were created -



and more funny still, how he created all those govt jobs -

...Texas, which crafts a budget every two years, was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years. It plugged nearly all of that deficit with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act money,...

- that's right, what's behind the Perry's TX miracle is his creating govt jobs paid that cause a siginicant state budget deficit that 97% of which was bailed out by Obama's stimulus package.

This is a t-bagger's wet dream of a candidate? I think this ranks up there with the t-bagger chant that "the socialist government better keep their hands off my medicare!"

But what more would you expect from a guy who was in love with Al Gore?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry

Perry supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries and chaired the Gore campaign in Texas.[19][20]

But that's Texas -

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2010...ived-together/

Poll: 30% of Texans believe humans and dinosaurs lived together

May I suggest that the right thing for you to do is to move to the 'miracle' state of TX - that move would simultaneously increase the average IQ of both TX and TN!

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Now that I'm back, can anyone update me on what the candidate situation is?

~Chas'88

Sure Chas.

Based on the opinions of the Message Board, we have a bunch of wing-nut, whack-job, insane, crazy-minded, extremist, trickle-downer( Hi Eric), Tea-Party(Bagger) Types, and...Mr Obama.

Whoops, I didn't look at the newer posts: Add "fundamental loons".


Prince

PS: As you can see, you didn't miss anything "new"!

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Sure Chas.

Based on the opinions of the Message Board, we have a bunch of wing-nut, whack-job, insane, crazy-minded, extremist, trickle-downer( Hi Eric), Tea-Party(Bagger) Types, and...Mr Obama.

Whoops, I didn't look at the newer posts: Add "fundamental loons".


Prince

PS: As you can see, you didn't miss anything "new"!

You forgot about Mitt Romney. Otherwise you nailed it.

The situation in the Republican Party looks like there will be a long, drawn out fight. Perry or Bachman wil win Iowa. Romney is going to win New Hampshire in a landslide. (A new poll confirms this.) On to South Carolina which will presumably be Perry territory. Then we'll have a weird replay of the Democrats last time out, with Romney in the role of Obama, winning all the states the Republicans are unlikely to win in November, while Perry wins the base states. It seems to me Bachman might lead a third party effort if Romney wins.

Originally Posted by James50

On the other hand, I am insistent about calling abortion what it is - it is the spilling of human blood. It is a carnage. It is destroying life at its most vulnerable. If we can be honest about that, the behavior will take care of itself.

Here, you and I agree completely. I've said before -- abortion is murder (and by extension, I have engaged in murder). But it is a special kind of murder that is purely the business of the people engaging in it. It's not the kind of murder that society at large could -- or should -- expend energy to forbid.

I don't know that honesty will stop it from happening. But I don't think that's what we mean by the behavior 'taking care of itself'.

Imagine if men spent such energy debating other gynecological issues and procedures. I'm sure it would sound just as silly.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Imagine if men spent such energy debating other gynecological issues and procedures. I'm sure it would sound just as silly.

Which is why I say that I am not the correct gender to be involved in the debate. Let women figure out what they want. Every time men have tried to figure out what's best for women it usually blows up in their faces.

~Chas'88

Back to the elections - I heard on TV while in Nevada that Obama was out to destroy Mitt Romney politically. Allowing for hysterical exaggeration, I'm sure Obama is making Romney his primary target.

Unfortunately, I foresee a Perry & Bachmann ticket in 2012. Which of course is a Tea Party ticket in all but name.

Many years ago it was conventional wisdom that a 3rd party would really only arise after one of the major ones became irrelevant and the one that didn't, would split into a radical wing and a conservative wing. Very few predicted it would happen to the GOP, but I'm seeing a Tea Party ticket in all but name.

Obama is down to 38% in the latest Gallup tracking poll. He is getting into Carter territory here and he will need some good news soon to pull out a re-election.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Ga...-Approval.aspx