If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Znet)   Our only political party has two right wings, one called Republican, the other Democrat   (zmag.org) divider line 608
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

16133 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2004 at 6:23 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



608 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-01-26 01:22:14 PM
we have a big enough social problem with inwanted kids. People who adopt mostly want newborns, so if you miss the boat then, you're sorta stuck with foster parents.

There are thousands of children waiting to be adopted in the state of florida. Imagine how many there would be if abortions were banned.

Why don't we focus all of this attention on the babies we've already made, rather than focusing it on cellular development in my womb.

Question for Catholics: Do you oppose oral contraception?(the pill)(I'm asking individually, not asking you to speak for the church.
 
2004-01-26 01:23:18 PM
I had to drop my Satan's club membership, because I couldn't afford the dues.
 
2004-01-26 01:25:09 PM
Satan kicked me out for challenging his authority. Guess he couldn't handle a little of his own medicine.
 
2004-01-26 01:25:24 PM
Republicans - Please, if you are Pro-Choice, take a look at John Kerry. This issue is big enough to put up with a democrat for 4 years. This administration has got to go.
 
2004-01-26 01:28:02 PM
2004-01-26 01:25:09 PM the_pgoat

Dont come crawling to me.
I rule limbo with an iron fist.
And I rule alone.
 
2004-01-26 01:28:34 PM
Question for Catholics: Do you oppose oral contraception?(the pill)(I'm asking individually, not asking you to speak for the church.

Contraception is contraception. The church says that timing or pull and pray is OK. The only reason they're against the pill is because it's more effective and that means fewer little soldiers for them.

OK, I'm more of a disgruntled catholic who views the "Church" as a political organization who serves it's followers as badly as Congress does.
 
2004-01-26 01:30:27 PM
Lebowski78
Honestly, abortion is not as big as an issue to me in 2004, than tax cuts are. Gov't spending is out of control, and GWB has really done not much to bring it under wraps. However, if Kerry, et al, are elected, they will do a worse job than Bush when it comes to government spending. Although, i disagree on enough social issues to not vote for Bush, taxation over the next 4 years will effect me more than the right to abortion. Most likely, if my GF gets pregnant, we will keep the child instead of aborting.
 
2004-01-26 01:31:15 PM
Lament of a Tension Whore After an Ice Storm

I had hope for napalm's balm
Instead it's relatively calm
On all of you I'll lay the blame
That this thread's filled with tepid flame
The generated heat's scarce felt
And so the ice outside won't melt.
 
2004-01-26 01:35:02 PM
there are already plenty of available unwanted kids living from home to home wondering what they did wrong.

I can tell that you feel their pain.

That is a sobering thought, though. I, at least, had my drunken father codependent mother to keep me company.
 
2004-01-26 01:36:24 PM
Emasedawg, the only candidate that wants to completely eliminate the tax cuts is Dean, and he's done. Kerry just wants to lose cooperate tax cuts, especially rewards that are given to comapny's that encourage oversea labor.
 
2004-01-26 01:36:40 PM
SherKhan

Lying Dave Murray says 6" of thunder-snow tonight. Plus high winds. It's going to get colder and whiter before it gets better.

Or, in your parlance:

One half inch of ice
Thunder snow and wind blow hard
Power is no more
 
2004-01-26 01:36:58 PM
Mayoboy: The reason I ask is that birth control pills often prevent pregnancy by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching itself inside the uterus. Here's a bit from Planned Parenthood:

"The Pill" is the common name for oral contraception. There are two basic types combination pills and progestin-only pills. Both are made of hormones like those made by a woman's ovaries. Combination pills contain both estrogen and progestin. Both kinds of pills require a medical evaluation and prescription.

Both pills can prevent pregnancy. But they work differently. Combination pills usually work by preventing a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation). Progestin-only pills also can prevent ovulation. But they usually work by thickening the cervical mucus. This keeps sperm from joining with an egg. Combination pills also thicken cervical mucus.Both types of pill can also prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus.


This bold part seems to me like it would be very off-putting for those who believe life begins at fertilization.
 
2004-01-26 01:38:11 PM
pull and pray

If all in all it's all the same
That that's the key to my golf game
What pray then, of gruntled Papists
disregarding pedo-rapists?

/got nothing and makin' the most of it
 
2004-01-26 01:40:36 PM
wow! I just saw some amazing lightning out my office window.

/irrelevant
 
2004-01-26 01:41:37 PM
I dont think life begins at fertalisation,
I think life began a few billion years ago and has just been rolling along ever since.
 
2004-01-26 01:41:41 PM
My GF has had her tubes tied, so I can knock the back out of it without the worry of any of my seeds crossing the end zone.
 
2004-01-26 01:45:49 PM
This bold part seems to me like it would be very off-putting for those who believe life begins at fertilization.

Maybe that's where they came up with the "life begins when the fertilized egg is attached" theory. That "can" is a big part of the quote and goes more to intent. Are you taking the pill to prevent life or to destroy it? Taking 3 or 4 pills as a morning after remedy speaks to intent of trying to destroy a life that is now there.

I see it as an angels on the head of a pin argument.
 
2004-01-26 01:46:36 PM
As C. S. Lewis wrote in A Grief Observed: Is God the great vivisectionist?

Classical haiku
Often dealt with the seasons
Classy 'ku Mayo.

;-)
 
2004-01-26 01:47:46 PM
Occam: First, I think the government should play zero role in sex education. So really the idea of "are your for abstinence education" is a null question to me. However, I understand that about half the country concedes to the far worse notion of "government knows best" and so I accept sex ed, but supplement it with a call to include abstinece education as well as the option to "opt out" of sex ed altogether.

Things I don't buy are the flower children has beens of "Free love theory" and ways to support it. But I'll settle. Let's just get rid of public education altogether so government doesn't fark it up like the founders said they would.

the_pgoat: As a Catholic, my view on contraceptives is liberal to me. I don't think government should finance contraceptives at all, but if some rich whorebiatch wants to pay for condoms and birth control then so be it. If you want them, leave it up to the individual to get them.
 
2004-01-26 01:52:01 PM
It really is the haves vs. the have-nots. The have-nots do everything they can to steal from the haves. Just in most cases they try and use the government to do it. Taxation in the name of redistribution is theft.
 
2004-01-26 01:59:38 PM
property is theft.
 
2004-01-26 02:01:34 PM
I see it as an angels on the head of a pin argument.

Billy Collins answered that son
his solution's there is but one
In stocking feet she's slowly swaying
To Heavens jazz band while it's playing.

/pardon the condescending "son"
but rhyme insisted so t'was done
 
2004-01-26 02:11:40 PM
It really is the haves vs. the have-nots. The have-nots do everything they can to steal from the haves. Just in most cases they try and use the government to do it. Taxation in the name of redistribution is theft.

So you think homeless children should just starve instead of 'stealing from the haves'?
 
2004-01-26 02:12:37 PM
What I am saying is that fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterus with both pills. It is a built-in function of both types. Presumably this is sort of a second net, if you will, that will prevent pregnancy even if the BC fails to prevent the sperm and egg from joining. I would argue that any person who believes life begins at fertilization, must necessarily oppose oral contraception. Many people don't know that is what happens with the pill, but it most certainly is.
 
2004-01-26 02:15:55 PM
sateenbomb: I have yet to see a sex ed program that doesn't include abstinence. Even Planned Parenthood addresses it on their website.
 
2004-01-26 02:19:31 PM
I should invoke Godwins to end this mess since we are talking about abortion, welfare and taxes while quoting poetry.

This thread is a mess lets put it to bed. I will invoke Godwins before I see red. Remember, liberals love hitler, so let's stop this thread dead. Please so I can go ride my sled, that's red, that's out in the shed. I named it Ed, so before I die in my bed I'll be saying Ed.

/rambles on to self with no talent.
 
2004-01-26 02:20:04 PM
and I messed up your name, setaanbomb! Sorry about that. (:
 
2004-01-26 02:21:54 PM
This one's for you, Deaner!



Theres a place in the world for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
Hes always at home with his back to the wall.
And hes proud of his scars and the battles hes lost,
And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

Give a moment or two to the angry young man,
With his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand.
Hes been stabbed in the back, hes been misunderstood,
Its a comfort to know his intentions are good.
And he sits in a room with a lock on the door,
With his maps and his medals laid out on the floor-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

I believe Ive passed the age of consciousness and righteous rage
I found that just surviving was a noble fight.
I once believed in causes too,
I had my pointless point of view,
And life went on no matter who was wrong or right.

And theres always a place for the angry young man,
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand.
And hes never been able to learn from mistakes,
So he cant understand why his heart always breaks.
But his honor is pure and his courage as well,
And hes fair and hes true and hes boring as hell-
And hell go to the grave as an angry old man.
 
2004-01-26 02:25:17 PM
Wintermute

You forgot the YEEEEAEEEEAAAHRRRRGHGH! At the end.

Funny as hell tho.
 
2004-01-26 02:27:59 PM
Do you oppose oral contraception?

Doesn't "oral contraception" sound redundant?
 
2004-01-26 02:35:49 PM
All this silly wrangling about compulsary voting.

How about this, put a $200 tax deduction value on voting.

There, problem solved, either you vote or you pay the reverse poll tax.
 
2004-01-26 02:38:26 PM
NathanAllen

I'd rather see a "none of the above" on the ballott.
Like in Brewster's Millions.
 
2004-01-26 02:38:46 PM
I am suddenly aware of two things:

1) Fark's forum software is utter crap. It is folly to assume anyone can follow a "thread" of discussion within this one big long meta-thread.

Yo Drew, either stop green-lighting items that deserve real discussion, or invest in some new forum software. Hell, there is crappy open-source forum software that is better that this mess.

2) Most farkers are sophomoric to the extreme. Here's a clue: read some western history and philosophy. The audacity of the "command economy" contingent here in criticizing economic, political and philosophical systems while demonstrating their abject ignorance of said topics is truly amazing.

Before you Marx-Kucinich-Nader-Mao-Stalin loving, race-baiting, entitlement-demanding, got-it-so-good-you-don't-realize-it pollyannas post another bit of foolish rhetoric, read anything by any of the following folks:

Adam Smith
Francois Quesnay
Aristotle
Socrates
Epictetus
Marcus Aurelius
Rene Descartes
Bjorn Lomborg
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
Bertrand Russell
Ludwig von Mises
Friedrich Hayek

Because without knowing what has philosophically and economically precipitated the system we have in the US, your collective criticisms are but wisps and vapors, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Moreover, no one who actually understands the knowledge I am trying to confer upon you (and therefore is in a position to do something) will ever listen with anything but disdain.
 
2004-01-26 02:40:46 PM
So, the same people who are complaining about "welfare mothers with ten kids" are against public funding of contraception? If you're poor enough to be on welfare, paying for the pill ($30 a month) might be a major difficulty. It is for me, and I don't qualify for welfare.

And as far as your welfare stereotype goes, it makes me sick. I'm married to a social worker. I know how the system works. I've heard his stories, I've seen his clients. THE MAJORITY OF WELFARE RECIPEINTS ARE WHITE, HAVE TWO KIDS, AND ARE ONLY ON WELFARE FOR ABOUT A YEAR. After that, they usually become taxpayers who contribute as much back into the system as they received. Please remove your heads from your asses and stop talking about things you know nothing about.
 
2004-01-26 02:45:02 PM
Malaclypse

You're late and no ones listening.
 
2004-01-26 02:49:17 PM
The504,

I know, but I had to do it.
 
2004-01-26 02:49:41 PM
This should get the tag...

Look at what we get every four years. We get the asshole incumbent, and some asshole from the "loyal opposition." All other candidates and their respective parties are ridiculed, discredited and scoffed at...

There really IS only ONE party in the US, and this needs to change stat.
 
2004-01-26 02:59:00 PM
"Funny, I thought our only political party had two left wings, one Democrat, the other Democrat wannabes. What happened to smaller, less intrusive government and the belief in self-reliance?"

Amen, HenryFnord. Amen.

What I see in this article is an extreme left winger whining and biatching about the negative side of every Democratic administration. He'd like to see us end up as socialist as many parts of Europe are slowly but surely becoming.
 
daz
2004-01-26 03:00:58 PM
Um, actually, it's the other way around.

We have the "Democrats" who are the renewed socialist Marxist from the 50's, and we have the "Republicans", who are the socialist Democrats from the 60's and 70's.

This isn't the right wing you're looking for *waves hand*
 
daz
2004-01-26 03:03:14 PM
And as far as your welfare stereotype goes, it makes me sick. I'm married to a social worker. I know how the system works. I've heard his stories, I've seen his clients. THE MAJORITY OF WELFARE RECIPEINTS ARE WHITE, HAVE TWO KIDS, AND ARE ONLY ON WELFARE FOR ABOUT A YEAR. After that, they usually become taxpayers who contribute as much back into the system as they received. Please remove your heads from your asses and stop talking about things you know nothing about.

Right, and this is because of Welfare Reform of the 80's and 90's (yes, I give Clinton credit for *SOME* things) and a little in the 00's under Bush.

Much of that reform got rid of the career welfare recipients. Welfare as it stands today isn't terribly bad, but it's still a huge chunk of our budget and it probably shouldn't be that way (from a social perspective, not a budgetary one)
 
2004-01-26 03:03:28 PM
Well I enjoyed your post malaclypse as I enjoyed the504's and WinterMute's. A YEEEEAEEEEAAAHRRRRGHGH! ending: ;-)
 
2004-01-26 03:03:45 PM
That will be next: Enforced, regulated voting to "save democracy". AAAAAHAHAHA! The sheer endless stupidity of it all just overwhelms me. All the continuous wars, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on crime, and now the open-ended war on terrorism, ALL of them accomplishing exactly the square root of bugger all. But the government continues to grow in order to make you "safe". Feeling safer yet?

How absurd. Might as well declare a 'war on evil'.

It's a ridiculous abstraction they invented to rationalize more war and more government intrusion into your lives.

Nothing more.
 
2004-01-26 03:04:40 PM
This article is a bit ridiculous... To claim that the two parties are the same after seeing the difference is just stupid. If this guy is really interested this perceived lack of difference, perhaps he should consider the main duties that are under the president and how Bush has handled them.

For starters let's look at National Security. George Tenet, was CIA director during the Clinton years. He testified to the Senate before September 11th that his major concern was al-Quaeda and that they were a real and imminent threat. The guy who Condoleeza Rice succeded told her that she would spend most of her time on al-quaeda. when Bush gets in power, the only time that he would mention terrorism was to push National Missile Defense... which really has no bearing in reality when looking at the world realistically since terrorists neither have missile technology nor the silos to launch them from.

What about North Korea, you may ask. They have a missile program... Of course they were about to abandon their nuclear program in exchange for a formal visit to Washington, help with energy sources, and help launching a grand total of 3 satelites a year as they agreed with the Clinton administration. Instead of continuing this diplomatic process once in office, Bush decided to table it. Now the North feels even more estranged and has developed the hobby of lobbing missiles into the Sea of Japan.

What about Iraq, the big issue? I find it a bit hard to buy into the idea that idea that this was about 9/11... After all, top Bush administration officials were signatories in a letter that told Clinton that they wanted to invade Iraq in 1998 (including Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage). The letter was sent by the Project for the New American Century, which also includes Dick Cheney...And if you're interested in the Project for the New American Century you might want to check out Layne and Schwartz's paper on "offshore balancing," which seems to draw a lot of ideas parallel with what Bush is practicing...

What about the nature of international diplomacy? Bush's extreme unilateralism is a pretty far departure from the more traditional diplomacy that would normally be practiced by another politician. 9/11 is not a reasonable cause to "go-it-alone" in everything unless you want to end up isolated and alone, a pariah in the world community. My favorite quote on this one is: "Just as Pearl Harbor awakened this country from the notion that we could somehow avoid the call to duty... so, too, should this most recent surprise attack erase the concept in some quarters that America can go it alone in the fight against terrorism or anything else for that matter (George HW Bush, 9/2001)."

If your going to argue that the Demorcrats are bad too, fine. If your going to argue that they're the same as the Republicans, you're either too far left or right to be able to distinguish them clearly. If you're going to argue that voting for a Democrat (whichever one of the major 4 to likely win) is the same as voting for Bush, then you really might want to look into a lot of the finer details of how bush is running the nation. These 'minor' differences are a huge departure that will bite us in the ass 10 years down the road.
 
2004-01-26 03:16:43 PM
they gave up on me.
 
2004-01-26 03:19:15 PM
It looks like the main page only has one party...

and it's in New York on Friday night
 
2004-01-26 03:21:25 PM
 
2004-01-26 03:21:53 PM
I wish I lived somewhere big, so we could have a fark party. ::pout::
 
2004-01-26 03:39:57 PM
Actually, welfare reform removed a good deal of our society's safety net. For instance, there are Welfare-to-Work programs, in which recipients must work to recieve their welfare money. Sounds great, right? Actually, you have to have dependent children to get welfare, and there are NO PROVISIONS FOR CHILDCARE in Welfare-to-Work programs (and if you have kids, you know how expensive daycare is). The money single parents on welfare make is not enough to cover the costs of daycare, so they're stuck leaving their kids in substandard care (like with the alcoholic neighbor, or with Grandma who's way too old to be chasing a two year old all day).

Welfare-to-work is only one example of what welfare reform did. Welfare "reform" (which was far more like welfare abolition) is one of the worst things Clinton did. Since welfare reform was implemented, 1.2 million children have been pushed into poverty as a direct result of the measure (Trattner 398). Look, you may be mad at women who have children when they can't support them on their own, but we have no federal assistance for birth control or abortion, and people have sex. They do. And the kids who are now living in poverty certainly don't deserve to be punished for the mistakes of their parents, do they?

Cited: Trattner, Walter. From Poor Law to Welfare State, 6th Edition. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1999.

SInce so many people on Fark demand the citing of sources, I've done it MLA style for you.

--Kitten
 
2004-01-26 03:47:26 PM
Also, that statistic I mentioned about the majority of welfare recipients being white, having two kids, and only being on the dole for a year? That was true BEFORE welfare "reform". See Trattner, 1999.

--Kitten
 
2004-01-26 03:52:12 PM
Well no shiat, sherlock.
 
Displayed 50 of 608 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report