Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-19 09:26:32

If the Bush admin is seeking to stop that or control it, then yeah...they're no better than the patriarchal repressives in the Middle East.

While I agree that this "abstinence only" stuff is nonsense, the above statement strikes me a s just a little excessive.

American culture is more easily spread with Big Macs and Nikes than JDAMs. But doing it that way means the US government won't have control over the process.

I completely agree. Unfortunately it isn't that easy. If a nation is not a willing participant in this Americanization, if they don't open their markets, this way is barred. Granted we should pursue this to a greater degree than we currently do, but it's only part of the solution. Sometimes we sell them Big Macs, sometimes we buy their oil, soemtimes we drop a few JDAMs. All have their place in molding others.

The pinnacle of western political philosophy includes the rubric "one person = one vote" yet we are 5% of the global population (if combined with UK, Canada and Australia) - - if our "western memes" are to infect the entire world we must accept we cannot establish a traditional Roman-style empire.

However we don't have to let them vote, metaphorically speaking. At least not until they are sufficiently brought around to our way of thinking to vote agreeably.

Numbers are not as important as they once were.

Cobra's posts are so well thought out, logical, concise. I know some folks will disagree with him, but how some people seem to continually misunderstand him puzzles me.

I'm content to be the crazy hermit that wanders out of the wilderness spewing prophecy, unappreciated in my time.

Peace on Earth, goodwill toward man. I'm keeping the stick.

clark · 2005-07-19 09:32:46

Oh, you're spewing alright. :laugh:

BWhite · 2005-07-19 09:43:56

The Islamic terrorists are trying to stamp -US- out. Not just the US, but the West: Western principles and values.

Yes, Cindy.

However the real nut-jobs are few in number and relatively weak. And what power the Saudi Wahabis have is propped up by OIL MONEY!

They also are not the only people trying to stamp out Western principles and values.

BWhite · 2005-07-19 09:53:16

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050719/ap_ … s_bush]New female Supreme Court judge?
*I nominate http://www.judgejudy.com/Bios/allaboutjudy.asp]Judge Judy (Judith Sheindlin). She is so incredibly sharp, no-nonsense, etc. I love it when she yells "You're an idiot!" occasionally to some doofus in the courtroom. :laugh:
Sometimes she's a bit too harsh, but most of the time I agree with her reasoning and verdicts, etc. I -really- would like to see her on the Supreme Court. :up:
--Cindy

Edith Clement?

She helped decided this case:

Planned Parenthood of Houston v. Sanchez: upheld a Texas statute that restricted the distribution of federal family-planning money to any organization that performed abortions or participated in abortion-related activities.

US Congress appropriates money to support family planning. Texas says any group that has any connection with abortion cannot receive the federal money.

Edith Clement votes to uphold the ban.

Exact same scenario as with family planning in Egypt.

= = =
Edit to add:

I guess I missed the double super secret liberal memo on Clement.

Edith Clement is as good a choice as the Left™ can hope for.

<pause>

Waiting for Dobson/Falwell to explode.

Edited By BWhite on 1121789074

Palomar · 2005-07-19 10:26:23

If the Bush admin is seeking to stop that or control it, then yeah...they're no better than the patriarchal repressives in the Middle East.
While I agree that this "abstinence only" stuff is nonsense, the above statement strikes me as just a little excessive.

*My reasoning on this: Abortion is of course legal in the U.S., whether Bush and the evangelicals like it or not. It's a right.

Why deny it this option to women elsewhere?

Sure, they'd like to overturn Roe vs Wade, but it'd be like legalizing marijuana *here*...and then telling people in Afghanistan who want to smoke a joint: No, you can't have any.

I don't believe Bush and his evangelical pals have the right to deprive others of a service we have legalized here (and regardless of the fact that they didn't help to legalize abortion).

It's all about controlling reproductive capabilities. The Islamic nutjobs want to oversee and control it...so do the evangelicals.

Just an explanation; I'm not seeking an abortion rights debate; I've stated my views, etc.

--Cindy

::EDIT::

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050719/wl_ … CUl]Damned doctors! :angry:

They ABANDONED their patients. This is inexcusable.

About 30 doctors staged the strike, leaving around 100 bewildered patients behind, including a young boy of about 10.

Unprofessional, unconscionable!

BWhite · 2005-07-19 11:01:23

http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-i … -emergence of the veil, in Iraq.

Just to show how nuanced, how complicated this stuff all is.

= = =

Having broken Iraq, we cannot leave. Having given the rest of the world our middle finger, no one will help.

This is why I was against regime change, at least the way we did it.

= = =

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, … 0.html]And this:

As the divisions between Shia, Sunni and Kurd take shape at government level, the effects are being felt in the military. Both Iraqi and American officers say that the Ministry of Defence in Baghdad has fallen under the control of Kurdish political parties, and that this now affects all decisions taken by the ministry.
One Iraqi officer also speaks of the influence of the Badr Brigade, the armed wing of the biggest Shia political party which now controls the National Assembly and the ministry of the interior. "The Badr Brigade is the biggest terrorist group and they run the interior ministry. The Kurds are running the MoD. The first thing they ask you when you want to become an officer is, 'Are you an Arab or a Kurd?' " Most Arab applicants, he maintains, are now being turned down for officer status.

By the way, some amongst our friends the Kurds may be starting their own terror campaign against Turkey.

Edited By BWhite on 1121793377

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-19 11:21:16

Just an explanation; I'm not seeking an abortion rights debate; I've stated my views, etc.

I concur. Therefore I'll just clarify my own position. The reason I stated that saying the present Administration is "no better than the patriarchal repressives in the Middle East" is because it ignores the degrees of difference.

American evangelical loonies aren't calling for women to be stripped of their right to vote, compelled to obey their husbands in all matters and generally be chattel. Perhaps it's only because they are legally unable to implement such things, but still it remains. Their MidEast religious wacko counterparts are very much of that opinion.

And just for the record, I'm pro-choice by default. Generally I don't care if someone has an abortion or not. Were it my call I'd introduce a cutoff point, within the first three months or so unless other health concerns came up. It would be rather arbitrary, but no more so than the current approach.

I'm of the opinion however that it remains such a heated issue largely because its supporters, rather than convincing the voters of it and getting legislation passed instead opted to bypass that process and have the courts legislate it from the bench.

Palomar · 2005-07-19 11:28:22

Just an explanation; I'm not seeking an abortion rights debate; I've stated my views, etc.
I concur. Therefore I'll just clarify my own position. The reason I stated that saying the present Administration is "no better than the patriarchal repressives in the Middle East" is because it ignores the degrees of difference.
American evangelical loonies aren't calling for women to be stripped of their right to vote, compelled to obey their husbands in all matters and generally be chattel. Perhaps it's only because they are legally unable to implement such things, but still it remains. Their MidEast religious wacko counterparts are very much of that opinion.

*Whoops. We have a communication gap here, and it's my fault. I didn't clarify enough.

I meant this only on the point of abortion/reproductive capabilities.

Otherwise, of course you are right/I agree with you.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-07-19 11:32:22

I'm of the opinion however that it remains such a heated issue largely because its supporters, rather than convincing the voters of it and getting legislation passed instead opted to bypass that process and have the courts legislate it from the bench.

Well that's a nice twist. Roe v. Wade wasn't about doing an end run around the legislative process, it was about declaring exsisting legislation as unconstutional on the grounds of personal rights, as codified by our bill of rights.

We don't need an extra law to protect a woman's control over her own body. The fact that you think so explains a lot.

BWhite · 2005-07-19 11:34:39

Just an explanation; I'm not seeking an abortion rights debate; I've stated my views, etc.
I concur. Therefore I'll just clarify my own position. The reason I stated that saying the present Administration is "no better than the patriarchal repressives in the Middle East" is because it ignores the degrees of difference.
American evangelical loonies aren't calling for women to be stripped of their right to vote, compelled to obey their husbands in all matters and generally be chattel. Perhaps it's only because they are legally unable to implement such things, but still it remains. Their MidEast religious wacko counterparts are very much of that opinion.
And just for the record, I'm pro-choice by default. Generally I don't care if someone has an abortion or not. Were it my call I'd introduce a cutoff point, within the first three months or so unless other health concerns came up. It would be rather arbitrary, but no more so than the current approach.
I'm of the opinion however that it remains such a heated issue largely because its supporters, rather than convincing the voters of it and getting legislation passed instead opted to bypass that process and have the courts legislate it from the bench.

We all agree. A Christian patriarchy is infinitely better than an Islamic patriarchy.

Woo-Hoo! Break out the champagne!

= = =

Concerning Islamic nations, wearing the veil is a terrific barometer of how free that society is.

If we declare victory because the oil is flowing and yet Iraqi women return to wearing the veil, then I submit that is proof Bush never gave a "flying bleep" about freedom & democracy.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-19 11:36:01

We don't need an extra law to protect a woman's control over her own body. The fact that you think so explains a lot.

Dude, just prior to that sentence I stated I didn't care one way or the other.

You're really reaching lately. :hm:

clark · 2005-07-19 11:36:52

I would think a better guage is the consquences of not wearing a veil. You can wear a veil and still be free.

clark · 2005-07-19 11:38:15

Sure, you said you didn't care, yet offer your opinion of the matter. Your opinion is flawed.

BWhite · 2005-07-19 11:41:30

I would think a better guage is the consquences of not wearing a veil. You can wear a veil and still be free.

True. Freedom to chose, veil or no. That's what I meant.

C M Edwards · 2005-07-19 11:43:36

You don't win a war by making new enemies faster than you can defeat the old ones.
*That could also apply to the Islamic terrorists.

I hope so. How ironic (and extremely likely ) to have them vanish from the earth because they forgot the lessons of Crusades.

The Islamic terrorists are trying to stamp -US- out. Not just the US, but the West: Western principles and values.
How is that -not- clear by now? ???

Well, that depends...

This current conflict with terrorst guerillas really is us against them. However, if we never take the time to determine who "them" is, we're gauranteed to be on the losing end.

How is -that- not clear by now? ???

Cobra's posts are so well thought out, logical, concise. I know some folks will disagree with him, but how some people seem to continually misunderstand him puzzles me. :hm:
--Cindy

Alas, Cassandra had the same problem in the Illiad!

Hmm...

Perhaps I did malign Cobra unnecessarily with that last bit. Okay then... two cultures. :bars3:

clark · 2005-07-19 11:44:34

haha.

Freedom to choose. Abortion, veils, nailpolish, whatever.

Kodos: "Abortions for All!"

Booooooo!

Kodos: "Abortions for none!"

Boooooo!

Kodod: "Abortions for some, minuarture American flags for others!"

Yeah!

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-19 11:50:46

Sure, you said you didn't care, yet offer your opinion of the matter. Your opinion is flawed.

As is your analysis apparently. Reading in what isn't there based on expectations.

We'll make a neo-con of you yet.

Perhaps I did malign Cobra unnecessarily with that last bit. Okay then... two cultures.

:laugh:

Gonna need new boots then. :hm:

BWhite · 2005-07-19 11:53:55

http://www.gawker.com/news/angelina-jol … zITM]Great poll!

Jolie versus Novak!

clark · 2005-07-19 11:59:08

As is your analysis apparently. Reading in what isn't there based on expectations.

The Roe v Wade deicison was based on the 9th ammendment, which we derive a right to privacy from.

It upheld that women could seek an abortion without any legal restraint by the government in the first trimester. the decision further allowed for limited governmental interference if the restrictions were designed for protecting the health of the mother when they were beyond the first trimester.

I used to work with women, of all ages and walks of life, seeking abortions. You present an incredibly narrow view by suggesting that women need laws allowing them to have a right to self determination and privacy that is already enumerated in our Bill of Rights.

Palomar · 2005-07-19 11:59:48

Alas, Cassandra had the same problem in the Illiad!

*According to a Google return:

According to Homer's Illiad, Cassandra was a beautiful young woman, blessed with
the gift of prophecy by Apollo, who was infatuated with her.

Wow. That DOES sound like me. (Now hopefully Apollo looks like a certain Hollywood actor I'm particularly fond of...)

And Apollo is one of my favorites from mythology.

--Cindy :;):

clark · 2005-07-19 12:07:57

Alas, Cassandra had the same problem in the Illiad!
Hmm...

:laugh: You are so mean CM.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-19 12:10:03

You present an incredibly narrow view by suggesting that women need laws allowing them to have a right to self determination and privacy that is already enumerated in our Bill of Rights.

First off, the right to privacy is not "enumerated" in the Bill of Rights, it's inferred. Big distinction.

Second, at no point did I say that I personally believed a certain way, except to say I didn't care.

I'm of the opinion however that it remains such a heated issue largely because its supporters, rather than convincing the voters of it and getting legislation passed instead opted to bypass that process and have the courts legislate it from the bench.

Read it carefully. In my opinion it is an issue because the voters were not convinced. The mainstream of American society was not seeking this, it was handed down from on high with no electoral or legislative process.

But if it makes you feel better projecting at me, continue.

clark · 2005-07-19 12:17:46

The only thing handed down from on high was a limitation og government reach. You are misrepresenting the facts.

The Supreme Court didn't make a law that allowed abortion, they struck down laws that prevented people from seeking abortions on the grounds that government has no right or grounds to interefere in an indivdiuals personal choice.

The government, according to the Supreme Court, over reached its jurisdiction with such laws, and the 9th ammendment protects individuals from such abuse.

From a strict reading of the Constution, this is completely in line with the "founding fathers" (something you go on and on about, so thus my dismay at your sloppy analysis).

The founding fathers did not grant the government the wide sweeping rights it now has, and the Supreme Court is hit or miss in keeping them in check. This is one of the few times where the SC called it right, and limited the reach of government intrusion into the lprivate lives of individuals.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-19 12:22:25

The Supreme Court didn't make a law that allowed abortion, they struck down laws that prevented people from seeking abortions on the grounds that government has no right or grounds to interefere in an indivdiuals personal choice.

My point is not about the legal but the social effects. The court decision in effect created a "right to abortion" that had never existed before.

Again, I'm not opposed to it. I'm not condemning it. I'm merely pointing out why it remains such a point of contention with so many.

Clearly it has struck a nerve.

BWhite · 2005-07-19 12:23:48

If Roe v Wade is overturned on federalism grounds, as Clement might well do, red state & blue state conflict will increase, perhaps significantly.

Can Texas pass a law saying it is illegal for a Texas resident to travel to Illinois for an abortion?

Reversing Roe v. Wade would be explosive.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#326 2005-07-19 09:26:32

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#327 2005-07-19 09:32:46

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#328 2005-07-19 09:43:56

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#329 2005-07-19 09:53:16

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#330 2005-07-19 10:26:23

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#331 2005-07-19 11:01:23

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#332 2005-07-19 11:21:16

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#333 2005-07-19 11:28:22

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#334 2005-07-19 11:32:22

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#335 2005-07-19 11:34:39

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#336 2005-07-19 11:36:01

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#337 2005-07-19 11:36:52

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#338 2005-07-19 11:38:15

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#339 2005-07-19 11:41:30

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#340 2005-07-19 11:43:36

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#341 2005-07-19 11:44:34

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#342 2005-07-19 11:50:46

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#343 2005-07-19 11:53:55

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#344 2005-07-19 11:59:08

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#345 2005-07-19 11:59:48

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#346 2005-07-19 12:07:57

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#347 2005-07-19 12:10:03

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#348 2005-07-19 12:17:46

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#349 2005-07-19 12:22:25

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#350 2005-07-19 12:23:48

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Board footer