Originally Posted by The Rani

I guess that's a "yes" in favor of a proactive death penalty.
So how many innocent embryonic lives are you willing to terminate as collateral damage in your quest to kill one Hitler?

Hitler apparently was a wanted child. That argument fails.

Just imagine what the child who is the product of rape or incest receives as signals. Much of what most people consider the core realities of human nature prove the consequences of the environment of early childhood. Are adults competent, attentive, and trustworthy? Or do they show no loyalties except to the hedonistic moment?

Originally Posted by The Rani

At least one damn ole socialist seems to think that terminating life is a way of caring for it.

Come on, mercy killing is OK.

Obama Assassination Plotted By American Soldiers Who Formed 'Armed Militia', Court Hears

HOLY SH**!!! I think this would count as treason...

A group of American soldiers formed an armed militia and planned to kill President Obama and overthrow the US government, a court in Georgia has heard.\
The alleged plot emerged during a murder case against four members of the Forever Enduring Always Ready (FEAR) gang on Tuesday.

Prosecutors say the men spent $87,000 (£56,000) on weapons to launch attacks against targets including vehicles belonging the Department of Homeland Security employees and a dam.

They were also accused said to be planning to take over the Fort Stewart military base near to the court in Georgia.

According to the Associated Press, prosecutor Isabel Pauley told the judge: "This domestic terrorist organisation did not simply plan and talk.

"Evidence shows the group possessed the knowledge, means and motive to carry out their plans."

“All members of the group were on active-duty or were former members of the military,” Pauley said.
Isaac Aguigui, Anthony Peden, Christopher Salmon and Michael Burnett are accused of murdering former soldier 19-year-old Michael Roark his 17-year-old girlfriend Tiffany York.

The defendants are accused of killing Roark and York after the pair learned of their hopes to overthrow the government.

The Washington Post reports that Aguigui funded his militia using $500,000 (£315,000) in insurance money he got following death of his pregnant wife a year ago.

Originally Posted by Odin

Obama Assassination Plotted By American Soldiers Who Formed 'Armed Militia', Court Hears

HOLY SH**!!! I think this would count as treason...

Well, this isn't surprising for a banana republic. In the inertia analysis (assuming no significant stimuli changing our national velocity) this is how our next civil war plays out:

As the military grows more powerful and civilian leadership more incompetent, a series of small military rebellions eventually gives way to a more organized coup d'etat coming from higher in the brass.

At first, the military rank and file might support this move as a patriotic purge of corruption and political weakness. However, by using military discipline and order, opportunists can exploit such a situation to create a regime worse than the one that was supposed to be overthrown. In fact, the whole plot might be orchestrated & funded by someone with ties to the current civilian power-structure in the hopes of increasing their relative share.

That leaves two armies: an official army, marked by extreme power and a grim view of hierarchy & order; and a rebel army, fighting instinctively against tyranny and united loosely around abstract populist ideals.

Anyway, it would take a few more decades of inertia to get to that point, and another few decades for it to play out. What I'm trying to figure out is which variables can prevent that kind of outcome without simply delaying it.

Originally Posted by Deb C

For some, the pro-life value stops after birth. Then it's, make fun of, or criticize anyone (damn ole socialists) who wants to provide safety nets after they exit the birth canal. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but being pro-life means a caring about life from cradle to grave.

What this election is about, is that. Are we going to fall for yet another Republican salesman who is going to try and charm us into turning our lives and our society over to our bosses?

The boss just wants to make money, as much as (s)he can, however (s)he can. That is the "bottom line" of our business culture, not life. They wish to shut down the safety nets after birth, and end protections for women from the ravages of patriarchy. It gets in the way of their earnings. They sell us and charm us with talk about "freedom" and "responsibility" and "no new taxes" ("read my lips," remember that one? It worked in 1988). They talk about evil "big government" that "forces" things on us and "interferes" in our lives (as if business is equal to life).

Trickle-down philosophy is a powerful intoxicant, however many times it's been tried as policy and failed and tried and failed and tried and failed again and again and again. That does not stop the bosses from trotting it out again and again and again ad nauseum, because it works in US elections, and very effectively keeps us in the bosses' chains, as Biden so well said.

But this is a simple decision. Free-will charity does not meet the need; rich people don't donate enough. And charity is not our only need; infrastructure, investment, education, organization, protection, etc. are needed too. Government works, and is necessary. It is up to us, as members of a democratic society, to choose whether to pay the taxes that are necessary to fund these things. We are not individuals only, but individual members of a larger community. We don't have tyranny; we have taxation with representation. We need to vote to pay taxes for the things we need, and not for the things we don't need.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Well, this isn't surprising for a banana republic. In the inertia analysis (assuming no significant stimuli changing our national velocity) this is how our next civil war plays out:

As the military grows more powerful and civilian leadership more incompetent, a series of small military rebellions eventually gives way to a more organized coup d'etat coming from higher in the brass.

At first, the military rank and file might support this move as a patriotic purge of corruption and political weakness. However, by using military discipline and order, opportunists can exploit such a situation to create a regime worse than the one that was supposed to be overthrown. In fact, the whole plot might be orchestrated & funded by someone with ties to the current civilian power-structure in the hopes of increasing their relative share.

That leaves two armies: an official army, marked by extreme power and a grim view of hierarchy & order; and a rebel army, fighting instinctively against tyranny and united loosely around abstract populist ideals.

Anyway, it would take a few more decades of inertia to get to that point, and another few decades for it to play out. What I'm trying to figure out is which variables can prevent that kind of outcome without simply delaying it.

Use the power, or lack of same, granted by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 of the US Consitution, that prohibits the funding of a standing army for more than two years at a time. We can't create a permanent army today that we can't eliminate entirely in two years by simply doing nothing.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We can't create a permanent army today that we can't eliminate entirely in two years by simply doing nothing.

But we've already created a permanent army and there's no way we could even come up with a plan to bring them all home in two years time. If by some freak accident the funding just suddenly dried up, the excess stock of weapons, ammunition, and man-power would be more than enough to re-establish the supply lines by force.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

But we've already created a permanent army and there's no way we could even come up with a plan to bring them all home in two years time. If by some freak accident the funding just suddenly dried up, the excess stock of weapons, ammunition, and man-power would be more than enough to re-establish the supply lines by force.

I don't see the Army acting outside the law to preserve its funding; there have been cuts (HUGE ones) in the past that provoked no such response. That said, the Constitutional provision requiring no funding for the Army for more than 2 years at a time means nothing. Military budgets are renewed annually, let alone bi-annually. Even the Navy gets its funding on an annual basis, and there are no limitations on that funding in the Constitution at all.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Well, this isn't surprising for a banana republic. In the inertia analysis (assuming no significant stimuli changing our national velocity) this is how our next civil war plays out:

As the military grows more powerful and civilian leadership more incompetent, a series of small military rebellions eventually gives way to a more organized coup d'etat coming from higher in the brass.

At first, the military rank and file might support this move as a patriotic purge of corruption and political weakness. However, by using military discipline and order, opportunists can exploit such a situation to create a regime worse than the one that was supposed to be overthrown. In fact, the whole plot might be orchestrated & funded by someone with ties to the current civilian power-structure in the hopes of increasing their relative share.

That leaves two armies: an official army, marked by extreme power and a grim view of hierarchy & order; and a rebel army, fighting instinctively against tyranny and united loosely around abstract populist ideals.

Anyway, it would take a few more decades of inertia to get to that point, and another few decades for it to play out. What I'm trying to figure out is which variables can prevent that kind of outcome without simply delaying it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpZ3jPMM5Ac

Originally Posted by The Rani

Killing to end suffering is fine. I've done that myself.
Killing to prevent an impossible-to-quantify amount of future suffering is a different story entirely.
Especially when you're speaking in general terms, beyond an individual woman's "choice."
I also know several people who were adopted as babies because they were unwanted by their birth parents. The world is undoubtedly a better place with them in it.

I completely agree. I think killing to end an assumption of future suffering is completly wrong. I know some very good adopted kids as well.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I completely agree. I think killing to end an assumption of future suffering is completly wrong. I know some very good adopted kids as well.

My understanding of what the Rani was saying was that she was disagreeing with the idea that unwanted children affirmatively should be aborted, i.e., that it would be wrong not to abort them. She was not saying that aborting them would be wrong, only that not aborting them would also not be wrong.

I agree with her, but I disagree with you.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I guess that's a "yes" in favor of a proactive death penalty.
So how many innocent embryonic lives are you willing to terminate as collateral damage in your quest to kill one Hitler?

Well, this is why it is called "pro-choice" and not "pro-abortion". The decision is left up to the woman carrying the child. If the pregnancy is the result of rape their are a number of outcomes.

1) The mother could decide that she can't tolerate the situation and considers the embryo/fetus a parasite.

2) The mother could be indifferent to the embryo/fetus.

3) The mother could love it anyway as it IS her child.

It is the first situation that most of the discussion is about. Most people seem to believe (right or wrong) that most women would consider the fetus a parasite and it should be her choice whether or not to bring it to term. Pregnancy is not a bruise that will heal over the following week, it is a nine month long constant reminder of something that she would rather forget followed by a life-long responsibility that she did not choose.

In the second and third situations, the mother could bring the child to term and either raise it or put it up for adoption with somewhat less angst. Does this make her better than a traumatised woman that does not feel she can cope with bearing her rapists child? Are pro-lifers willing to assist in medical care for woman and child? If the woman decides to raise it, does she get any help?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I don't see the Army acting outside the law to preserve its funding; there have been cuts (HUGE ones) in the past that provoked no such response. That said, the Constitutional provision requiring no funding for the Army for more than 2 years at a time means nothing. Military budgets are renewed annually, let alone bi-annually. Even the Navy gets its funding on an annual basis, and there are no limitations on that funding in the Constitution at all.

Right, but if under an extreme circumstance like M&L described, one where the funding just suddenly and completely vanishes on a shorter time scale than we can even withdraw stationed troops, we'd be left with a bunch of well-armed and well-trained soldiers scattered across the globe. History doesn't suggest that they'd just peacefully hitch-hike back home. Nor could a civilian threat of funding cuts stop a coup that was already taking place.

Basically, yeah, that constitutional provision and all of its judicial interpretations is meaningless in the face of real life power imbalances.

Originally Posted by The Rani

My concern was that someone (a dude no less) was implying that pregnancies resulting from rape SHOULD be aborted, because of unknown future consequences.
Then he expanded it to include unwanted children/pregnancies.
It's an inaccurate generalization to characterize kids resulting from unplanned/undesired pregnancies as more screwed up than others.

Ok, thank you, I was hoping you would clear up your position. I would pretty much disagree wholesale with the assertion that anyone be compelled or encouraged to abort a child merely because he/she was a product of rape. Conservatives love to deride the term "pro-choice", but that is what it really is. It is a decision that only a woman in that situation should make. I am less sure about my stance on "plain old abortion" used as a prophylactic. In this case, there is a dude (to use your term ) involved that may very well want the child whether the woman wants it or not. In that case, I think that he should be able to make his case for compelling the woman to bring the child to term and let him adopt it. Alternatively, if he doesn't want it, but the woman does ... where does supporting the child financially come into play? For me, supporting the born child has always been a more important issue than abortion. Until we figure those issues out, "pro-choice" is seems to be the proper stance.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If a dude can compel the woman to bring the child to term if he wants it but she doesn't, I'd say it's only fair that the woman can compel the dude to pay child support if she wants it and he doesn't.
It's kind of sad (to me) that we even have to talk about "compelling" people to do anything to care for their own children.

Yep, that was my point in a way. The fact is, the dude can't compel her to have the baby, but in most jurisdictions, he WILL be paying child support if she decides to have it. If he refuses to pay he can be thrown in jail. Sure, he shoulda kept his pants on if he didn't want a child, but one sided decisions are unfair and eventually something will have to give. This is why we have creepy old men carrying on about "legitimate rape" and "no exceptions". They are sick of not having a voice and "no exceptions" gives them that voice. The rules are then set up fairly. You WILL have the child and the guy WILL have a say. This is of course, whether dear ol' dad wants a say or not. This is one of the things I saw coming, but I didn't really think it would be on such hard lines. I pictured two people that barely know each other showing up before a judge when the guy wants the baby. The judge could have the power to allow the guy to adopt the baby if he met certain criteria. Yea, it sounds cold, but abortion issues are pretty cold. At the heart of it is a child that at least one parent doesn't want.

Originally Posted by The Rani

It's an inaccurate generalization to characterize kids resulting from unplanned/undesired pregnancies as more screwed up than others.

There are dozens of studies backing up strong correlations between unplanned pregnancies and poverty, abuse, criminality, low education, etc. Now, the causation could be reversed in that disadvantaged people are more likely to have poor access to health care and/or poor sex education. But the goal should be to break that cycle and promote availability of, and knowledge of, contraception and abortion in such communities.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Hmm ... not entirely "fair," because you can't put a dollar amount on being forced to carry a pregnancy in your body for nine months.
But I do see your point.

I have always had a problem assigning numbers to qualitative data because I always want to be "right". You can calculate the cost of a pregnancy, but you can't accurately calculate the toll on a woman's body, especially if there are complications. You also can't accurately calculate weird things like drug and alcohol consumption, which a woman forced to carry a child might not pay any attention to. She may not pay attention to pre-natal care. So, you are right that you can't put a solid dollar amount on it.

When you don't factor in Dad's rights, there is still an increased risk of black markets in babies -or- babies that can't find homes. When we were adopting our son, we found out that it is somewhat of a myth that there are orders of magnitudes more adoptive parent than babies. It only took us two years from start to finish and we took a six month 'mental health' break from the process. It just take moneys paid to adoption agencies. Women that choose to have a baby and put it up for adoption actually care about the outcome. Women forced to bear the child may or may not.

All of this to say, leaving the decision up to the woman has been the easiest for society, but leaves out any consideration for the child. That understandably offends some people. I only take offense when people don't acknowledge that there are really serious issues involved with forcing women to bear children that they don't want.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Right, but if under an extreme circumstance like M&L described, one where the funding just suddenly and completely vanishes on a shorter time scale than we can even withdraw stationed troops, we'd be left with a bunch of well-armed and well-trained soldiers scattered across the globe. History doesn't suggest that they'd just peacefully hitch-hike back home. Nor could a civilian threat of funding cuts stop a coup that was already taking place.

Basically, yeah, that constitutional provision and all of its judicial interpretations is meaningless in the face of real life power imbalances.

This is the curse of having a very old and quite short and brief constitution that is very difficult to amend We have been forced to "interpret" and stretch the meaning of the various clauses to the breaking point just to keep our modern society functioning.

Originally Posted by Odin

This is the curse of having a very old and quite short and brief constitution that is very difficult to amend We have been forced to "interpret" and stretch the meaning of the various clauses to the breaking point just to keep our modern society functioning.

What made it work was not so much that it is foolproof (if you don't believe so, then consider that the 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union is heavily a plagiarism of ours with some Marxist-Leninist claptrap thrown in and the endorsement of the dominance of the one Party that broached no external opposition or internal dissent) but instead that those people who know its seams either pretended not to know them or out of some moral vision refused to exploit them. (Paradoxically the Soviet system depended upon a weak formal government but an all-powerful Party whose leader was the source of all power including the ability to decide life or death over millions. So much for the desirability of weak formal government).

The Republican Party of our time has become a cadre party. That it espouses a hands-off approach to the power of economic elites (who really dominate the Party) except as endorsement of the power of those elites suggests that it believes in eventual single-Party, or at least dominant-Party government at the first opportunity for the indefinite future. That is, of course, until a revolution of some kind (at best as in central or southeast Europe in 1989, at worst a revolution by fanatics as in Russia in 1917 or Iran in 1979) or some catastrophic war in which sovereignty goes to some foreign general at best like Lucius Clay or Douglas MacArthur.

We now have political figures like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist who would exercise power as party bosses to whom all are responsible but who are beyond scrutiny. These two have no problem with unelected lobbyists representing corporate power and dictating the behavior of politicians who need only be re-elected -- surely by dishonest means, if necessary, to maintain power.

When a political party becomes itself a branch of government -- similar in practice to the 'leading role' of the old Communist Party in the mercifully-defunct Soviet Union -- then democracy is dead. The checks and balances necessary for responsible government no longer exist. Weak formal government does not itself imply freedom.

I am deeply sorry I missed Clint Eastwood talking to an invisible chair.

Originally Posted by annla899

I am deeply sorry I missed Clint Eastwood talking to an invisible chair.

I wish that I had missed it. What a waste of time.

Originally Posted by annla899

I am deeply sorry I missed Clint Eastwood talking to an invisible chair.

You should be - it was highly entertaining. I had a great laugh at his quips. He definitely should have been scripted though - that was a major mistake in not having a prepared script for him as I'm sure he would have hit it every line perfectly as he had a couple awkward pauses (I could just imagine the conversation of: "Hey guys, Eastwood is here, let's get him up there before Mittens comes on! What? Who needs a script?!"). Eastwood is a cultural icon and I absolutely think it was great to have him at the convention, but even with the humor he presented I do have to ask the wisdom in presenting him just two speakers before Mittens and not on the first or second night. And he should have been scripted and better prepared as opposed to fly on the spot.

It would have been a bit like having Frank Sinatra do an opening speech (with no script) in introducing Reagan in '80 or Dana Carvey introducing Bush Sr. in '92 (well, Dana Carvey isn't exactly on the same level as Sinatra or Eastwood but you get the point). While it's always great to see a cultural icon - I'll even admit it's probably not the best idea to have them right before the nominee to steal fire from them. Especially not scripted.

I enjoyed it for what it was and had a great laugh - but I still have to question the wisdom of doing it when they did it - and my God, no script again!

Wait, what, you want Clint Eastwood to do what with himself? I don't think he's going to do that.

j.p.

I've never been a big fan or supporter of Mitt Romney, but I have to give him and the Republican Party credit for the way the convention was pieced together. They managed to take the two most important political constituencies out there right now - the Tea Party movement and disillusioned Obama supporters - and weld them together seamlessly into a unified message. If Romney can perform well throughout the rest of the campaign, it could produce a powerful winning coalition.

We're in a familiar situation. In 1960, after a very popular Republican presidency, the Democrats elected a relatively moderate, even conservative president in John F. Kennedy. We all know what happened after that - he was assassinated by a communist, and the far left started charging to the extreme, dragging the Democrats with them. By 1980 that had produced chaos and a crippled economy. All of a sudden the "extreme" views of Ronald Reagan didn't seem so extreme anymore. For the next 12 years, the Democrats had the living daylights stomped out of them by voters, until they finally caved in and nominated a relatively moderate/conservative candidate in Bill Clinton (albeit he was a crook, and one of the most corrupt, dishonest presidents in American history). We're now on the verge of 1980 happening again, even though Mitt Romney is no Reagan. The Democrats and the far left sense this, and they're panicking. But they can't change course right now and moderate their positions, so they're just lashing out with increasingly hysterical charges of racism, sexism, etc. slinging mud furiously and playing identity politics harder than ever, despite the fact that it always ends up destroying them.

The rep of the Democrats as an extreme party that's toxic to the economy, that drove them farther and farther from power over the last 30 years, could be on the verge of being cemented again. Someone at the RNC (I forget who) asked the most pertinent question for voters right now. If Obama is re-elected, how will the next four years be any different from the last four? That's this election's version of "are you better off than you were four years ago?". And that could very well be what causes a repeat.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

They managed to take the two most important political constituencies out there right now - the Tea Party movement and disillusioned Obama supporters - and weld them together seamlessly into a unified message.

No, they didn't. Disappointed Obama supporters are mostly progressives; moderates don't have the same problem with him. Disappointed Obama supporters will NOT be voting for Romney; the question is whether they will be voting for Obama, voting third party, or not voting. Appealing to them and at the same time to Tea Partiers is a logical impossibility.