Did James Carville really say this?

[KatieHal]

Popping in to say regardless of anyone's political preferences and/or affiliations, etc, and whether any one posting agrees or disagrees with those, make sure to keep this conversation civil. Polite discourse and debate is fine even if it's heated (since people tend to get heated about their politics, understandably so), but we expect you folks to keep it civil and not be accusatory, insulting, or rude about it.

So long as that happens, discuss away.

[glottal]

I come from a one-party town (San Francisco).  Yes, the Green party is sort of a second party ... but they aren't nearly as powerful as the Democratic Party.

Fortunately, there are different factions in the Democratic Party of San Francisco, so for elections where Democrats run against each other (such as Mayor) voters actually have a choice.  However, for some offices you do see only one candidate running, so a voter can't vote against the candidate.  And if there is only one Democrat running, that candidate is going to win, period, so from my point of view it's almost as bad as only one candidate running.

And this is why I think anybody who lives in San Francisco and cares about voting should be a member of the Democratic Party, regardless of political opinion.  Even in the elections where Democrats run against each other, the party has a lot of influence over who gets to run and gets the most support.  Thus, the Democratic Central Committee is actually the one of the most important elections in San Francisco, and only members of the Democratic party get to vote.

That is why I am registered as a Democrat.  If I didn't come from a one-party town, I would be an independent, for similar reasons as Baggins.

As far as the national Democratic and Republican Parties ... for all of the heated rhetoric, their *actions* seem to be becoming more and more alike, and not in a good way.  I am disgusted to the point where, in national elections, I am probably going to start voting third party (I don't think the third parties are better ... but at least, by virtue of not having power, they are not nearly as corrupt).

[Baggins]

My dad is lifelong Republican, perhaps more conservative.  My mom has been lifelong democrat, largely more liberal... they get along just fine, they don't have agendas despite disagreeing on different points.

Despite the paranoia politics (accusations of 'agendas') coming out of both parties they aren't out to destroy the nation. There are extreme right and left elements that want to reshape the nation in different directions though.

I'm reminded by an interesting article from a couple years ago that tried to explain POV of both liberals and conservatives and how they thought of each other in politics.
http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/200804/how-ideology-colors-morality



Regardless I chose democrat for years as I felt republicans had too many Newt Gingrench fundamental types... I still don't trust them.

But I don't agree with all elements in Democratic party either. You might consider me more of a moderate.

[glottal]

I have encountered that research before.  You can get a more direct look at the data (and even participate yourself) at yourmorals.org

However, I think neither party at the national level is adhering to a truly conservative or truly liberal position - I think it would be an improvement if, at the national level Republicans were actually conservative, and Democrats were actually liberal.  For one thing, it would mean I would actually have a choice at the polls.

For example, for all that Republicans claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, historically they expand the deficit as much as Democrats, and if you were to look at the records of Clinton and Bush only, then Clinton looks a lot more responsible fiscally (with a Republican congress, yes, but Bush had that too for most of his time in office).  So much for fiscal conservation...

As for the Democrats ... you would think, being liberals, they would have strongly opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or at least become strongly opposed once it became obvious what failures they are, yet for the most part they did not, and when they had power in 2009 and 2010, they didn't withdraw...

And you would think that conservatives would have let the "too big to fail" banks fail as a right capitalist punishment for running a bad business, and you would think that liberals would have broken down and seriously regulated the "too big to fail" banks to protect the financial system and the economy, yet the banks got a bipartisan bailout with no substantial strings attached...

[chucklas]

In some matters, things are very black and white. Right now we're in a battle for this nation's future. The Republicans want to take this country back 100 years and undo every social program and institution put in place, even simple regulatory bodies like the EPA and FDA. Personally, I prefer the world of 2011 to that of 1901.

I am a registered republican, but I would consider myself more of a fiscal conservative more than anything else.  I tend to side more to the left on social issues.  When you say that republicans are trying to undo 100 years of social programs, I find this a bit of a stretch.  If there was money to pay for 100 years of programs, and they were trying to remove them all, I would want to agree with you to a point.  The problem is that there isn't any money to pay for everything that the government is trying to do.  You can't/shouldn't spent money that you don't have.  I am all for cutting programs to try and make it so we are not in debt to other countries (specifically China).  This is why these things are like Blackthorne said, not black and white.  There is so much more to the issues than one group wanting to get rid of programs.

[Blackthorne]

Yes, and if there's anything I hate, it's the sentiment "If you're not with us, you're against us."  That kind of rhetoric is thrown around by both sides, (Left and Right) and it's utter crap.

I mean, earlier in the thread Percival accused Baggins of being a "conservative" when he clearly stated he was a moderate - or at least quite middle of the road.  But that wasn't enough for him, and he started a "witch hunt" to discover who his "political heros" were.  That's utter crap - and both sides do it, and accuse the other of doing it.  Crap crap crap.


Bt

[glottal]

Yes, and if there's anything I hate, it's the sentiment "If you're not with us, you're against us."  That kind of rhetoric is thrown around by both sides, (Left and Right) and it's utter crap.

I mean, earlier in the thread Percival accused Baggins of being a "conservative" when he clearly stated he was a moderate - or at least quite middle of the road.  But that wasn't enough for him, and he started a "witch hunt" to discover who his "political heros" were.  That's utter crap - and both sides do it, and accuse the other of doing it.  Crap crap crap.

I completely agree with this - thanks for saying what I couldn't find the right phrases for myself.

And I think the way the Republicans are handling the fiscal issue in Congress now is a perfect example of how they are not fiscal conservatives at all.  They make a lot of noise about making drastic cuts to small programs, such as federal heating assistance, yet they aren't trying to cut the huge expenses, such as the war in Afghanistan (I think if we haven't accomplished our objectives there by now, we aren't going to ever achieve them, so we should cut our losses).  I remember reading a snarky comment along the lines of "We're cutting heating assistance, even though some Americans will freeze to death without it.  But they can take comfort in the fact that those cuts will allow us to fund one more week in Iraq.  Actually, only half a week, when you consider the future costs in veterans benefits" (I don't actually remember whether the comment was referring to Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya).

Actually, I retract my previous comment about liberals being anti-war.  It was often liberals who favoured interventionalist wars in the previous 50 years (who got us into Vietnam?). Both liberals and conservatives have their anti-war and pro-war traditions.  Which is further evidence that things are not black and white.

[KatieHal]

One of the proposed cuts they keep trying to push that I'm particularly against and incensed by is the funding for Planned Parenthood. Talk about witch hunts. The misinformation that they keep giving (90% of their business is abortions? Um, NO!) is atrocious, and the thing is, the cuts are basically going to form a vicious cycle. Most of their business is providing healthcare and family planning--which is includes a LOT of things, and does not merely mean abortions--to women under the poverty line. Who, if they can't have access to these sorts of services, will be lacking healthcare, and more likely to have children they can't afford to raise. Meaning they will be even further below the poverty line, and last I checked, the Republicans were also not so in favor of more welfare assistance or healthcare for everyone, either.

Which is only one section of what feels like a war on women's rights lately, but I'm trying to get into that--just saying that yes, I agree, the way in which they try to propose cuts does not make sense.

[Baggins]

Glottal this is a particulary interesting site that has an interactive map that breaks down all the U.S. involved wars by party from the beginning up to the present. It's at least up to date up to Bush's term.

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/american-wars.html

I mentioned before Truman administration and unethical human syphillis testing; here is a link that talks about the study;

http://www.examiner.com/infectious-disease-in-national/guatemalan-syphilis-experiment-the-name-of-public-health

Obama and various politicians even apologized to Guatamala on America's behalf.

As soon as I have access to my bibliographies again, I'll put up the name of the academic studies on America's involvement in human weapon testing and nuclear weapons. This includes a great study done on the impact to the Marshallese people. It's rather tragic really, and not for the faint at heart.

As a anthropologist and historian I'm more concerned in understanding people fully including both good and obvious character flaws. There is still alot I admire about Truman, but I realistically admit he did/allowed some pretty questionable things by modern standards.

I don't know how much people are up on anthropologies' dark past, early twentieth century eugenics studies and theoretical concepts of racial sterilization and genetic purity? It remained largely theoretical in the U.S. (there were only a few clinical studies conducted by some proponents such as Margeret  Sanger if I recall correctly, and sterilization in institutions). But many of the academics supported it were actually thrilled when Germany put it into practice (though as far as I know they weren't aware to the extent Nazi's took things). Much of Germany's racial purification plan was based primarily on American eugenics studies.

Study of the eungenicists is actually required reading for anyone choosing to become an Anthropologist. At least in understanding the history of anthropology and anthropological theory and it's development over time. It's usually discussed in one of the final courses required for obtaining the degree.

Unfortunately, neo-eugenics is actually moving around academic circles... I think it's just as potentially dangerous as classical eugenics.... It's largely based on previous studies along with additional ideas brought on by the advent of DNA studies. If it became politicized (as in used as a basis for laws and regulations) like it it did in Germany and a few other places, it could have devastating results.

[chucklas]

Once again, it isn't so black and white as cut programs to fund militarty.  If the republicans had it their way, they would have gone into Iraq and Afganistan with much more force and perhaps would have been done years ago.  Cutting your losses and leaving isn't always the best solution.  Look at Vietnam.  Was it good that we got out, I would say yes, but it would have been better had we gone in with a much larger force to begin with and our losses perhaps would have been greatly reduced.

As for planned parenthood, I can see when a group strongly opposes abortion and the majority of funds used by the program go towards abortion why they would want to cut government funding of the program.  Thats not to say that they don't do other things, but it is true that most of their money does in fact go to pay for abortions.  I agree that by having abortions the government in the long run will spend less on other services as well.  I also understand why they would want to take away public funding.

Here is an example from my job as to why I think cutting services makes sense.  I am a public school teacher.  The majority of funds in my district come from property taxes.  When the real estate market was doing well there was an excess of funds.  The district began implementing all sorts of new programs that they never thought would be possible.  Needless to say, they spent ALL of the excess.  Not smart.  As we know the bubble burst and the school district was faced with serious deficits.  Instead of cutting the newly created programs, they decided to stop hiring new teachers, increase class size (which is a nice way to say decrease teachers).  Had they just asked the question, "how did we functiopn back when we had less?" they would have known what to do to fix the problems created by over spending.

[KatieHal]

Not true. 3% of what they do are abortions. Most of their money goes to Medical Services--which includes providing contraception, STD tests and services, and cancer screening and prevention. Additionally, they provide education about all of these topics to teens and adults alike.

And the most overlooked and unmentioned part of all: it's already the law that none of the government funding PP gets be spent on abortion services.

With a total budget of some $1.1 billion, more than a third of which comes from the federal, state and local governments, Planned Parenthood offers family planning, H.I.V. counseling, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screening and other services as well as abortions, mainly to low-income women. Congress has long barred the use of federal money for abortion, but it provides more than $75 million a year to Planned Parenthood affiliates to support family planning for low-income women. Millions more in federal dollars are provided for sex education and, indirectly, through Medicaid and other programs.

Source

So we are talking about a bill that is entirely aimed at defunding efforts for PP's services that are intended to help prevent a low-income woman from ever having to decide to get an abortion at all.

[Enchantermon]

Not trying to get pulled into another argument, but I find it odd that there's so much money being spent on programs teaching people how to try and prevent pregnancy when the easiest, cheapest, most obvious and only guaranteed method is a two letter word that everyone has known since kindergarten.

[Baggins]

I'm sure if their service is needed I'm sure they'll find a way to survive on supporter's donations and charity if they lose government funding, like most 'non-profit' organizations that lose government funding.

I don't know about where you are from, but there are often alternatives. Most local health services offer contraceptives, STD treatments and other services for free. Although as far as I know abortions are not offered as one of these services? So people aren't fully without options. Actually Planned Parenthood advises people to seek out these free services as they can be cheaper alternative to even the services Planned Parenthood offers in certain cases.

[KatieHal]

True--but abstinence-only education is not going to solve the problem.

As well, a large portion of the people who look into family planning are not teens but adults, often in committed relationships or even married.

And let's be honest. People have sex. They like to, they want to, they should be able to, and indeed they do. Does that mean they want to have children? Not necessarily.

Re: funding, perhaps, but $75 million for the most well known and most used family planning and sexual health services provider to low-income women and families is a HUGE difference to make up, from, well, like I said--most well known and used.

[Baggins]

PP does a lot of good things but unfortunately they have promoted some questionable and dangerous things as well. Such as giving courses in how to do 'fisting' which most physicians say is dangerous activity and can cause alot of long term damage. There is really no 'safe' way to do it.

Even more ethically questionable was giving advice to victims of Aids and other STDs that privacy was their right and that sex was also a human right. Thus it was their right to have sex with partners without telling them of their infections. Not only is that dangerous advice since it risks the spread of the diseases to unwilling participants, it's actually quite illegal. Creates modern day typhoid Maries.

Those are clearly poor advice to impressionable individuals.

[KatieHal]

Sources?

[Baggins]

That's the guide with the 'right to privacy and right not to tell partner'. From PP's own website.
http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/B4462DDE-487D-4194-B0E0-193A04095819/0/HappyHealthyHot.pdf

Check out pages 2-7 or so. Note on page 7 that it states that laws in countries hat make disclosure mandatory is said to 'violate' the person's basic 'human rights' to keep their privacy.

Honesty and trust is very important in a relationship.

Knowing details like this would be the most important, since it it has the potential to create victims. If the victim have multiple partners he/she could spread infection before they learn they were infected. Then those partners could spread the disease without knowing.

[KatieHal]

I would personally agree that you should disclose that information, but I can see the point they're getting at about privacy as well. Especially when you face potential criminal charges for having HIV. That is a murky at best, certainly.

Regardless, though, I don't think cutting off a huge source of information on STDs and safe sex will solve that issue.

I tried to look up the "fisting" issue, but I can't find anything on a website that isn't biased against PP to begin with so far.

[Enchantermon]

True--but abstinence-only education is not going to solve the problem.

I'm not talking about abstinence-only education either, really. I'm talking about people using common sense. If you can't afford to have a child, then you shouldn't entertain the risk of having a child. That's not just my philosophy speaking, that's common sense and logic speaking. If everyone would use a little more of that, we wouldn't even need abstinence-only education.

As well, a large portion of the people who look into family planning are not teens but adults, often in committed relationships or even married.

And let's be honest. People have sex. They like to, they want to, they should be able to, and indeed they do. Does that mean they want to have children? Not necessarily.

This goes for everyone, adults in committed relationships or teens on prom night.

Yes, people do have sex. But again, I'm talking about being responsible. Sometimes responsibility means doing something you don't want to do or not doing something you want to do.
And if we're being completely honest, "typical sex" (not saying the actual words because of the forum guidelines) is not the only way to have sex. There are alternatives that do not bring along the risk of pregnancy.

[Baggins]

I'm not sure the fisting kits issue was the entire organization as a whole or just a local member issue.

I only heard about it on news CNN IIRC, they were arguing it was local and didn't represent the organization as a whole.

Still considering the risks involved it's not something I'd personally teach or recommend to children.