I found this quote on a famous quotes website, I'm curious about the veracity of it.
Quote"Ideologies aren't all that important. What's important is psychology.
The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That's why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.
Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don't have a clue as to political reality.
What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want.
The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic operative instead of a Republican was because there were more Democrats that didn't have a clue than there were Republicans.
Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the truth. If you're smart enough, truth is what you make the voter think it is. That's why I'm a Democrat. I can make the Democratic voters think whatever I want them to."
James Carville
Read Machiavelli. Pretty similar. "Bread and circus", like the Romans used to say. Also, did you hear about Obama's new executive order? Any companies getting contracts through the government need to first disclose their political donations during the bidding process? Interesting....
I'm guessing I'm the only Democrat here?
I was a democrat, switched to independent. I have little trust for political parties. Too much corruption.
Guess that makes me a swing voter now. I think
Living in Europe really gave me a chance to look at things from a different perspective.
Personally I'm a Democrat...We're the Party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson. 'Nuff said.
That said, if this was the 1970s, I'd probably be a Nixon supporting Republican. If the Republicans were more liberal, more sane, less vicious, I'd support them.
In power of retrospect I probably wouldn't have voted
for Rooselvelt or Truman if I was alive back then. they were largely behind quite a few things like ww2 interment camps... And to lesser extent nuclear testing which destroyed livelyhood of many people during he 50s (we still haven't helped the Marshallese as much as we should) Truman was also behind human biological testimg down in south america, infecting guatamalans with various diseases to find out how they affected them. I was trully sickened when i read through these documents and files (of those that have been declassified). But Hindsight is 50/50.
Many of these were complete racists, in case of Lyndon Johnson fought against eisonhower on early version Of civil rights bill, causing it to fail. He only voted on it again while he was a president when it helped him politically, he remained a racist to the end however. At least he got the civil rights going though. Bit seriously not a guy I'd trust especially in modern politics if he was up for election. Still for what good they did they also did alot of bad...
The same can be said for many of the Republicans as well... For example did you know that Lincoln was largely against giving citizenship to the slaves he ultimately freed during the Civil War? He wanted to send them back to Africa. Obviosly we are all aware of the good and bad of recent Republicans...
Granted people are complicated despite negative traits some good still can be had. I think it's very dangerous to hero worship any individual.
Quote from: Baggins on May 07, 2011, 05:18:14 PM
In power of retrospect I probably wouldn't have voted
for Rooselvelt or Truman if I was alive back then. they were largely behind quite a few things like ww2 interment camps... And to lesser extent nuclear testing which destroyed livelyhood of many people during he 50s (we still haven't helped the Marshallese as much as we should) Truman was also behind human biological testimg down in south america, infecting guatamalans with various diseases to find out how they affected them. I was trully sickened when i read through these documents and files (of those that have been declassified). But Hindsight is 50/50.
Many of these were complete racists, in case of Lyndon Johnson fought against eisonhower on early version Of civil rights bill, causing it to fail. He only voted on it again while he was a president when it helped him politically, he remained a racist to the end however. At least he got the civil rights going though. Bit seriously not a guy I'd trust especially in modern politics if he was up for election. Still for what good they did they also did alot of bad...
The same can be said for many of the Republicans as well... For example did you know that Lincoln was largely against giving citizenship to the slaves he ultimately freed during the Civil War? He wanted to send them back to Africa. Obviosly we are all aware of the good and bad of recent Republicans...
Granted people are complicated despite negative traits some good still can be had. I think it's very dangerous to hero worship any individual.
Well, the internment camps are a black mar on Roosevelt's record, but I suppose times were different then. This is a time when it was on the books that no people from Asian nations were allowed to immigrate here (through the Immigration Act of 1924 passed by Coolidge, which was very discriminatory and designed to keep "unwanted people" like Italians, Eastern Europeans and Asians out). I suppose it was a much less politically correct era, and most of the public supported it. We certainly didn't send them to the internment camps for no reason or to kill them as Hitler did to the Jews, gays and many other groups.
As for LBJ...He didn't fight against the Eisenhower bill in 1957 as Senate Major leader. He got a very controversial portion taken out--arguably the most important piece of it--to earn support of the bill by the strong Southern Democrats, who would otherwise have totally killed the bill. And passing the various Civil Rights Acts which he passed hurt him politically and he knew it. JFK didn't show much concern for Civil Rights until it was nearly at his doorstep. If anyone in the JFK administration was an advocate of civil rights, it was Bobby, and even Bobby had the telephone of Dr. Martin Luther King, JR tapped because of King's alleged Communist associations. The tapping of the phone was only supposed to last a month, but J. Edgar Hoover (who had made destroying King a personal crusade) kept the tapping going secretly for another 3 years. His insubordination caused both LBJ and Nixon to consider firing him, but they decided not to because it would not only be too politically dangerous but dangerous in general given Hoover's power.
Anyway, notice that in the Presidential election of 1964, quite a few Southern states went for LBJ's opponent Barry Goldwater, whom even most of the GOP had abandoned and whom most of the public felt was a kook? This broke through the Democratic Party's decades long hold on the South (it was called the "Solid South" in that it was solidly Democratic). This was in large measure a reaction to the Civil Rights Act being signed; Goldwater had been vocally against it's passage, and thus quite a few Southern states went GOP despite the incumbent President being a Southerner. And in the election of 1968, the South went even more for the Republicans; The South hasn't been a strong or dependable Democratic constituency since the Civil Rights acts.
Johnson could've stopped advancing the cause of Civil Rights after the election ended, but didn't and keep on with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. He also fought for the creation of programs like Head Start and grants for Education, which helped the less well off, and minorities were among those in the category of "financially less well off" in the 1960s. You should listen to his tapes sometime--He recorded all of his phone calls and bugged his office--The man was aggressive in fighting for Civil Rights legislation to pass. Even after he left office he continued with the cause of Civil Rights. In fact, his last public appearance, a month before his death, had to do with Civil Rights.
He also appointed the first African American to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall, and was the first President to actively speak out against the KKK and have it's members arrested since Grant.
Did I mention Japanese only? Actually look into the Aleutian Islands where the local indigenous people were forced into Interment camps to 'protect' them from possibly invading Japanese... Conditions were quite poor and many became sick or died.
He is turned Jewish refugees from Germany, sending them back, and ultimately resigning them their deaths there. Intellegince knew about the internment camps fairly early on.
Not many people actually bring this up. As for how people might of felt back then that still doesn't justify what he did.
There are still things I like about Roosevelt. But in no way would I consider him perfect and blameless as far as human rights concerns.
As for LBJ let's look at some of his own words;
"This civil rights program about which you have heard so much is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I fought it in the Congress. It is the province of the state to run its own elections. I am opposed to the anti-lynching bill because the Federal Government has no business enacting a law against one kind of murder than another...(And) if a man can tell you who you must hire, he can tell you who not to employ. I have met this head on." Austin, Texas May 22, 1948 quoted in Quotations from Chairman LBJ, Simon and Schuster, NY 1968
"...LBJ biographer Robert Caro notes that prior to 1957, Johnson "had never supported civil rights legislation—any civil rights legislation," including anti-lynching legislation. His private behavior toward blacks was appalling. Robert Parker, LBJ's longtime black employee and limousine chauffeur, claims that Johsnon blasted him daily with a blizzard of bigoted slurs. And even as LBJ was being praised by liberals for his appointment of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, behind closed doors LBJ's cynical brand of "identity politics" became clear. As presidential historian Robert Dallek recounts, LBJ explained his decision to a staff member by saying, ""Son, when I appoint a n***** to the court, I want everyone to know he's a n*****".
"I'll have those n****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years." -- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One Ronald Kessler's "Inside The White House"
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference." -- LBJ
Alright. I get it, "Independent" (key word for Tea Partier). You're a conservative. You have your beliefs, I have mine. =
I will go and ahead and guess also that you find no flaws with conservative presidents like Reagan, Coolidge and Harding, and will probably defend (and likely praise) everything they ever did.
Not a tea partier, nor ever have I been. Not do I have interest to do so.
I have little trust for any organized groups and I do not trust that they uphold my own values.
The best I can do is look at whoever is up for election and vote for whoever is closest to my values and less likely to cause damage.
Quote from: Baggins on May 08, 2011, 10:08:40 AM
Not a tea partier, nor ever have I been. Not do I have interest to do so.
I have little trust for any organized groups and I do not trust that they uphold my own values.
The best I can do is look at whoever is up for election and vote for whoever is closest to my values and less likely to cause damage.
Way to dodge the fact that you're a Conservative. You have an agenda. Don't mosey around it.
Not a tea partier, nor ever have I been. Not do I have interest to do so.
I have little trust for any organized groups and I do not trust that they uphold my own values. I especially have little trust for what is probably a Republican organization.
The best I can do is look at whoever is up for election and vote for whoever is closest to my values and less likely to cause damage to Liberty and freedom. I seriously think both institutions Are two sides of the same coin.
Quote from: Baggins on May 08, 2011, 10:12:00 AM
Not a tea partier, nor ever have I been. Not do I have interest to do so.
I have little trust for any organized groups and I do not trust that they uphold my own values. I especially have little trust for what is probably a Republican organization.
The best I can do is look at whoever is up for election and vote for whoever is closest to my values and less likely to cause damage to Liberty and freedom. I seriously think both institutions Are two sides of the same coin.
Give me an example of an American political figure who is closest to your views and least likely to cause damage to Liberty and Freedom
I'm not a conservative either, but nice of you to make things overtly political. I have little trust for concervatives and their fundamentalist ways. They would rule by religion.
In general I try to avoid idealogues...
As an academic (working towards a PHD) I research every point of view and make educated decisions base on that. I have little time for ad homonyms and politic baiting. But I try to verify sources before I'd use them in a project.
I find people and history are far more complicated than politicians try to
Make it out to be.
Quote from: Baggins on May 08, 2011, 10:14:44 AM
I'm not a conservative either, but nice of you to make things overtly political. I have little trust for concertinas and thee fundamentalist ways. They would rule by religion.
You made things overtly political by trying to slam the Democratic Party using the alleged words of a Democratic operative, then managed to dig up things (from mostly conservative sources) which make two of the biggest Democrats look like evil men. I'd say there was an agenda here, and the fact that you still won't answer who you feel best represents your views, which political figure, says something as well.
Just because someone disagrees with something a "Democrat" says, it doesn't make them a conservative or a Republican.
Problem is that the world, and political motives, are not so black and white, yet people are trying to force things into this two-party system, which is essentially labeling things as "black and white".
Bt
Quote from: Blackthorne on May 08, 2011, 10:20:02 AM
Just because someone disagrees with something a "Democrat" says, it doesn't make them a conservative or a Republican.
Problem is that the world, and political motives, are not so black and white, yet people are trying to force things into this two-party system, which is essentially labeling things as "black and white".
Bt
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.
(Posted on: May 08, 2011, 12:22:21 PM)
Quote from: Baggins on May 08, 2011, 10:14:44 AM
I'm not a conservative either, but nice of you to make things overtly political. I have little trust for concertinas and thee fundamentalist ways. They would rule by religion.
In general I try to avoid idealogues...
As an academic (working towards a PHD) I research every point of view and make educated decisions base on that. I have little time for ad homonyms and politic baiting. But I try to verify sources before I'd use them in a project.
I find people and history are far more complicated than politicians try to
Make it out to be.
Yet you still have failed to answer who you feel best represents your views. Suspicious.
I have a feeling I know who a couple of them are.
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on May 08, 2011, 10:22:21 AM
Quote from: Blackthorne on May 08, 2011, 10:20:02 AM
Just because someone disagrees with something a "Democrat" says, it doesn't make them a conservative or a Republican.
Problem is that the world, and political motives, are not so black and white, yet people are trying to force things into this two-party system, which is essentially labeling things as "black and white".
Bt
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.
We're always in a battle for this nation's future - always. It's not like the Republican and Conservative agendas have actually changed much in the past 50 years. Society, however, is a fickle mistress and she sways and moves towards whatever suddenly feels like the "next best thing". Because people are often wholly unsatisfied with life, even when things are good - people will often flock to something that they feel will affect change. Hence, the swing towards popular conservationism. The pendulum will swing again - and you'll probably have a period of mass "hedonism" (and I use the term sarcastically) again, much like the late 60's to the early 80's.....
Bt
Quote from: Blackthorne on May 08, 2011, 10:26:54 AM
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on May 08, 2011, 10:22:21 AM
Quote from: Blackthorne on May 08, 2011, 10:20:02 AM
Just because someone disagrees with something a "Democrat" says, it doesn't make them a conservative or a Republican.
Problem is that the world, and political motives, are not so black and white, yet people are trying to force things into this two-party system, which is essentially labeling things as "black and white".
Bt
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.
We're always in a battle for this nation's future - always. It's not like the Republican and Conservative agendas have actually changed much in the past 50 years. Society, however, is a fickle mistress and she sways and moves towards whatever suddenly feels like the "next best thing". Because people are often wholly unsatisfied with life, even when things are good - people will often flock to something that they feel will affect change. Hence, the swing towards popular conservationism. The pendulum will swing again - and you'll probably have a period of mass "hedonism" (and I use the term sarcastically) again, much like the late 60's to the early 80's.....
Bt
The Republican Party was once a sensible organization, and now it's full of nutbags like Malkin, Palin, Glenn Beck, etc. Eisenhower was a Republican and he expanded Social Security, called for higher wages, and protected unions; Nixon created the EPA, OSHA, SSI, SSDI, imposed wage and price controls, and called for Universal Healthcare in 1974. Going further back you have TR, who created the FDA and fought against the excess of big businesses and placed regulations on them. Since the 1980s, however, the Republican Party has become increasingly the home of anti-intellectuals, extreme John Bircher types, and theocrats.
All of the above men today would be called Socialists, Communists, anti-American, the same things the Democratic Party and our current President are being called.
Perceval, you're not the only democrat here. While I am registered as an independent, I swing more to the democractic side, and that's probably because both of my parents are hardcore democrats.
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.
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).
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.
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...
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on May 08, 2011, 10:24:31 AM
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.
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
Quote from: Blackthorne on May 10, 2011, 06:23:03 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. QuoteWith 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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/us/politics/18parenthood.html?_r=1)
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.
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. :P
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.
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.
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.
Sources?
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.
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.
Quote from: KatieHal on May 11, 2011, 09:20:26 AMTrue--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.
Quote from: KatieHal on May 11, 2011, 09:20:26 AMAs 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.
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.
Quote from: KatieHal on May 11, 2011, 10:18:37 AMI 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.
Here's an example (http://www.narth.com/docs/kits.html) of some facts about a conference PP gives annually at a high school.
Quote from: Enchantermon on May 11, 2011, 10:22:33 AM
Sometimes responsibility means doing something you don't want to do or not doing something you want to do.
I think this line in particular is a great one, and IMO is something that the people who want to defund PP should think about. The responsible thing to do is have health and education resources available to everyone, especially those in low-income and at-risk demographics. So why take away such a huge source of it, just because they also do one particular thing (abortion) that you don't want to have happening? Doesn't the good of what they do outweigh the "bad"? (and yes, I use quotations there because that is a subjective opinion)
Baggins: I wouldn't really support that idea either, and if it was a local area only issue, that does change things. Also, my searching did bring up the definition of that word on the PP site, which...is more broad than one might think, suffice to say, and without going into gritty details on the forums.
In the same way that this isn't about abstinence-only education, this also isn't about abortion. It's about people not taking responsibility for their own decisions and actions. Government funding of Planned Parenthood is iffy to me, especially when there are free alternatives that Baggins mentioned, as well as doctors, reputable websites and a person's own brain that can be used.
And I'm also not supporting eradicating Planned Parenthood altogether. If you and many others think that it provides a valuable service to people, that's perfectly fine and I'm not going to try to blindly oppose the organization itself. But if you want it, I think you should fund it. Take the government out of the equation; let them focus on running the country and let you and everyone else who is in support of the organization keep them going with your donations. I believe, as was mentioned earlier, that PP could be supported without government assistance as long as enough people think it's necessary and are responsible enough (there's that word again) to support it themselves. And I think that the necessary number of people does indeed exist.
As I understand it the right is investigating PP on allegations of not disclosing child prostitution? Something about offering abortion and other assistance to underage girls and protecting the pimps? That's their main argument for defunding?
Those are some pretty serious charges. I certainly hope they're not true.
I think you and I will have to agree to disagree, Enchantermon.
Baggins: I haven't heard of that being the reason--largely, the people wanting it cut off make it all about the abortion availability. If it is an issue, I can already see what the differing angles would be on that--patient privacy no doubt chief among them.
To explain further--there are girls who go them for abortions who are not 18, regardless of how they ended up that way. So I can imagine it's quite possibly something that they would not always be aware of if the teen in question is an underage prostitute. On top of that, there is controversy over the legality of prostitution in general in many places, and possible retributions one would earn for admitting to the practice, both from the law and from the pimps, and then from society as well.
Not that I support child prostitution at all, but I'm just illustrating how it can be a complicated issue. And is another example, I think, of why resources like PP should be available--people in situations like that often have no other options of where to go.
I never said that they don't offer important services, but I have a hard time believing their disclosed numbers that only 3% of their services are abortions...then again, it might just be that. 3% of their sevices, but each abortion comes at a significantly higer cost as anything else. 3% of services could account for a much higher percentage of funds. Last year their budget was around 350 Million dollars while performing over 300 thousand abortions. How much does an abortion cost? At $500 a piece it would be 50% of their budget...
I personally do not support abortion. I am also not an advocate against it. Once again, it is not as black and white as people make it out to be. Nothing is black and white. The facts you find in the NY Times are not black and white, the numbers given from PP are not so black and white either. It is easy to make numbers say what you want them to say. If I were given all of their finacial records I could find a way to claim (and back the claim up) that they spent far less or far more on abortion services than they actually did. You can't take anything at face value (on either side). It would be very easy to say that a large amount of an abortion cost was actually "sex education" so long as there was a discussion about sex education prior to the procedure...etc.
Anyway my main point is this, you can't just blindly believe everything you are told (from either side of an issue). Thats the message from the original quote in this thread. According to the quote, the left is more willing to blindly follow. No one should.
Quote from: KatieHal on May 11, 2011, 11:25:39 AMI think you and I will have to agree to disagree, Enchantermon.
Okay.
Quote from: chucklas on May 11, 2011, 11:38:12 AMHow much does an abortion cost? At $500 a piece it would be 50% of their budget...
PP gives the numbers as $350 - $950 in the first trimester. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures-4359.asp)
Katie I understand the murky situation, but 'child molestation' or 'statutory rape' is not protected by patient confidentiality laws in most places. Doctors are supposed to report suspected abuse last I knew. Or risk losing their licenses. At the most they are supposed to report the enablers putting the girl into the dangerous situation, in this case the pimp. In other situations the parents.
So yes these are serious allegations, bordering on libel and slander if not true. The way they got ahold of evidence of it may borders om entrapment (since the undercover individuals were posing as underage girl and the pimp). Almost in the same way To Catch a Predator borders on entrapment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/13/steve-king-planned-parent_n_822548.html
A few articles from PP critics concerning various 'undercover' videos made at PP.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/1/video-shows-planned-parenthood-manager-aiding-pimp/
http://www.lifenews.com/2008/12/16/state-3709/
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/07/20/state-5264/
Another source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/01/AR2011020106135.html) has that PP's response to this stated the following:
QuoteIn a statement Tuesday, Planned Parenthood spokesman Stuart Schear said that immediately after the Jan. 13 visit, the clinic staff alerted the national organization and contacted local authorities about the possibility of a sex ring operating in the area.
In addition to said counselor being fired anyways.
Amazing to see how much Social Darwinism has returned in this country through propaganda, with most being in favor of getting rid of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, any form of welfare, etc. It's very very sad to see the country being hijacked by the Tea Party.
I wouldn't say the country is being hijacked by the Tea Party, but they have gained some popularity. Mostly in the media, though, which likes to point them out because they're out of their damn minds most of the time. Controversy draws more viewers, more viewers brings more ratings, more ratings brings more advertising, and ads bring the money, which it's all about anyway.
And as for "Just saying No" to sex, I only have to throw my head back and bellow with laughter. I know it SOUNDS like the logical and easy choice, but when it comes to sex - nothing is logical and/or easy.
Bt
Quote from: chucklas on May 11, 2011, 06:20:46 AM
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.
Why didn't the Republicans have their way? They had the white house and congress in 2001 and 2003, if I remember correctly. And Obama is the one who sent an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, the largest increase since the start of the war. Anyway, it's a little too late to change what happened in 2001 and 2003. So the question is now, what can we realistically accomplish by staying, and is that worth the cost in soldiers' lives, civilians' lives, and money?
As for Baggins' chart: interesting, but one has to make so many allowances for context (for example, the ideologies of the Republican and Democrat parties have changed over time) that I don't think the final totals are useful. I would have preferred the totals to all have been post-1945.
As for the whole sex education/planned parenthood business, I think everybody should know the basics of contraceptives, STD prevention, STD treatment, as well as the alternatives enchantermon is referring to. There is abundant evidence that quite a few people are not very good at practising abstinence (Bristol Palin comes to mind), and I think it's easier to educate them on contraceptives and alternative ways to have fun than to try to change their self-discipline. I personally think Planned Parenthood has also gone so far in the "sex is a human right" direction that it sometimes leads them towards saying nonsense (even dangerous nonsense, if the part about not telling partners that you have an STD is true). That said, I think Planned Parenthood is a net force for good, and while it's unfortunate that it's getting defunded (especially since it is such a miniscule part of the budget that is has no material impact on the deficit), it has better prospects for alternative funding than some of the other programs getting cut.
I read this yesterday, and recommend it. I had thoughts along those lines in the back of my head, but it was nice to see someone crystalize those thoughts in such a clear manner.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/10/economy-public-finance
As I remember the Republicans were going to ram in a few controversial policies when they last controlled house and senate under W. Bush. They backed off after the Democrats complained. I can't remember what they were though.
QuoteI wouldn't say the country is being hijacked by the Tea Party, but they have gained some popularity. Mostly in the media, though, which likes to point them out because they're out of their damn minds most of the time. Controversy draws more viewers, more viewers brings more ratings, more ratings brings more advertising, and ads bring the money, which it's all about anyway.
The media probably made them more relevant than they should have been. Reverse psychology where people flock to things they are told are verboten to see what it is... This might explain why tea party picks got voted in despite the media pointing out that the tea party numbers were marginal and irrelevent.
Perhaps a little of the idea that giving something negative attention is still attention, that can draw people to it. As some say bad reviews are still good reviews?
The same goes for media's competition, they spend so much time complaining about their competition that they drive people to the competition to see what's going on. So they inadvertainly raise their competitors viewership.
Quote from: glottal on May 11, 2011, 10:33:22 PM
Why didn't the Republicans have their way? They had the white house and congress in 2001 and 2003, if I remember correctly. And Obama is the one who sent an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, the largest increase since the start of the war. Anyway, it's a little too late to change what happened in 2001 and 2003. So the question is now, what can we realistically accomplish by staying, and is that worth the cost in soldiers' lives, civilians' lives, and money?
Most likely because they want to get re-elected. The are always more than just the surface reasons for everything.
Another theory is that a political party will try to push through something that's just completley unacceptable--a recent example, a bill only allowing for abortions in the case of "forcible rape" (Hello, it's ALL forcible!) and trying to define that. There was a huge uproar about it, naturally. But the idea is they know no one will support that bill as is, so they have something like that in there so they have something to negotiate with and remove as a show of working with the other side.
exactly. There are always alterior motives to actions. Just becauser they proposed that bill doesn't mean thats what they really want/expect to pass. It is extremely difficult to know what any one person or groups is going for. More often or not, they don't know themselves. Once again back to the quote that started the thread. If you can get people to support what you want them to, then you get what you want, not necessarily what the group as a whole wants (although they might think they do).
Re: wars
If the Republicans thought they couldn't succeed without more troops than they thought the electorate could stomach, then they shouldn't have gone to war, as an unsuccessful war isn't so great for getting re-elected either (or, you know, ethical).
Anyway, back to Afghanistan. As far as I understand, the reasons we are in Afghanistan are to:
1) Stop terrorists
2) Oust the Taliban / create good governance (lately, Obama has dismissed this goal, and said that we are not only working towards #1)
If our goal is #1, I would think that would be best accomplished by spies and a good networks of operatives, such as the team which assassinated Osama bin Laden, not a ton of troops in a full-scale war. Meanwhile, the civilian casualties, as well as the image of a Western power occupying a Muslim territory, is good propaganda fodder for the terrorists to get more recruits. If we only had discreet operations, there would be less to make propaganda out of. I don't see how Obama's 30,000 troop surge, which is mostly inexperienced rookies, is going to be able to do much about this.
Not to mention that the terrorists, apparently, are doing at least as much in Pakistan as in Afghanistan.
If our goal is #2 ... I think that is impossible. At least for the United States - other parties might be able to accomplish that eventually. The Taliban are terrible. But Karzai's government is also so terrible that I think, if our goal is #2, it would be impossible for the United States to reform it into something tolerable. For example, one of the current members of the Afghan parliament, Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, is responsible for crimes against humanity, is a fundamentalist and has been pushing Afghan policy in that direction, as well as pushing laws which pardon people like himself for committing crimes against humanity. To top it all off, he was a friend of Osama bin Laden for a long time. It's pretty clear he became "elected" by a campaign of intimidation and fraud. I think getting decent governance in Afghanistan is going to be impossible until people like him are out of power, and there are some very practical reasons why the United States can't simply remove their power. We can, however, cease to support them.
As far as ousting the Taliban ... they are stubbornly refusing to be utterly defeated. They are on their home turf - which is full of *mountains* - vs. ignorant (of the area) Americans. Again, I don't see inexperienced rookies making a difference here. And one reason that the local people are not doing more to resist the Taliban is that, while they are horrible, the Karzai alternative is not tempting either.
Terrorists don't really have borders. They don't have capitals, they don't really have nations. There are cells almost everywhere.
Quote from: Baggins on May 12, 2011, 09:37:46 AM
Terrorists don't really have borders. They don't have capitals, they don't really have nations. Their are cells almost everywhere.
So we obviously have to occupy the entire world in order to defeat terror [/snark]
Some would say defend our own borders diligently (keep them out), while looking for any home grown cells (apparently quite a few if you believe Justice Holder and Secretary Napolitano).
Of course the former would mean we would probably have to close off travel to the rest of the world, because we couldn't trust other nations to keep terrorists off the planes and boats...
There was also a recent CIA report that Hamas and Hizbollah cells in Mexico, being a larger and more organized threat than Al Queda ever was/is.
As Napolitano says (channeling the KGB, Gestapo, and 1984); "If You See Something, Say Something".
Reasons why the "War on Terror" is seen as a disturbingly vague and bad idea by many.
LOL. That's also the safety slogan of the public transit system in Boston!
Was it the slogan in Boston before or after Napolitano?
Because that slogan is showing up all over the place since she made it her campaign... Including Wallmart! Watch your fellow customers they might be hidin something (If only they would hide their cracks better :p)...
I noticed it in the NYC metro system as well.
No idea. It's been the slogan as long as I can remember, but that doesn't really help. I mean, as safety slogans go, it's a pretty good one, really. Short, simple to remember (with some help from alliteration), and the T's a crowded busy mess--it makes sense to ask for and encourage help from the T-goers in keeping the place safe.
http://www.dhs.gov/files/reportincidents/see-something-say-something.shtm
Well it's eerily similar to commands made by various toltalitarian regimes, to watch your friends, neighbors and family and report any subversive behavior.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin;
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Add to this that on whitehouse.gov there are requests for people to report friends, family or neighbors conversations and emails that criticize Obama's healthcare reform. They even have a handy email to send reports to.
I don't cate if some people might be ignorant, I don't feel like turning people over to the government just because they ask. That's creepy...
Alot of this kin of thing started under Bush's patriot act, and Obama has just continued it.
Serious privacy violation issues...
Big Brother is watching you... :P
I truly wish Tea Party people would stop trying to hide behind the label of "Independent."
You are what you are; own it.
So now Joe Lieberman is a Tea Party member?!
Would you stop with the accusations and personal attacks please?
Seriously the idealogy-based witch hunts on both sides are insane!
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0216/Tea-party-activists-Don-t-confuse-them-with-independents
As far as I understand the Tea Party the majority of them are Republican social conservatives. It's claimed that the Republican party even funded many of their candidates... The Tea Party hate moderates and so-called Rhinos, which I'd most likely fall under if I was a politician.
Independents have been around long before there was a even a tea party, remember it was largely independents who voted for Obama! They also voted Bush in before that (I personally despise Bush and voted against him, he's largely at fault for instituting Big Brother wire-tapping and breaking privacy through patriot act, which the current administistration has unfortunately continued and expanded upon).
Way to alienate your voting base!
Yep. It's a logical fallacy for one to say all independents are tea-partiers.
Bt
Indeed it is.
I'm not sure if that was meant as a personal accusation, Perceval, and I hope it wasn't, but either way, I'll remind you again: while politics and other often controversial topics are welcomed here, it's only so long as people are civil about it. Accusatory (and blanket) statements are not in the spirit of that civility. If you're going to join in this particular conversation, do so with respect and an open mind for debate and disagreement.
Out of civility I apologize if I have offended any fellow Independents, Democrats, Republicans, Green Party, Communist Party, Libertarians, Anarchists or even Tea Party members, etc, even parties affiliated with international governments that may be visiting this thread.
I'm interested in hearing diverse POV's and reading any civil debate that comes out of it! I'm just have little interest in idealogues and political attacks and character smearing!