and don't forget those goddam judges legislating from the bench! we need Citizens United to protect us!
I see Citizens United as a free speech issue and don't have a problem with it. If anything, it makes it easier for people who are not independently wealthy to run for government since they can tap into more of others peoples money to run their campaigns. The only reason it was made a big deal of is that Democrats expected Republicans to outearn them by leaps and bounds from the business community. Didn't happen.13urnzz wrote:
and don't forget those goddam judges legislating from the bench! we need Citizens United to protect us!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Then why argue for states rights if the majority of Americans don't want abortion to be illegal?Jay wrote:
Democracy is majority rule.
Again, because I want all power to be pushed down as far as possible to the individual. If decisions were pushed down to the state level, I would then say that they should be pushed down to the county level, and then the city etc. The further away you get from big central government decision makers, the more control over their own lives people are able to exercise. They can figure out what works for them. I'm not saying that we should abandon government altogether, just that I prefer a system where local elections are infinitely more important than national ones. All power, and all decision making, should be pushed down as far as possible.AussieReaper wrote:
Then why argue for states rights if the majority of Americans don't want abortion to be illegal?Jay wrote:
Democracy is majority rule.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
If you want the individual to have as much power as possible, keep it legal at the national level. Don't want an abortion? Then don't have one.Jay wrote:
Again, because I want all power to be pushed down as far as possible to the individual. If decisions were pushed down to the state level, I would then say that they should be pushed down to the county level, and then the city etc. The further away you get from big central government decision makers, the more control over their own lives people are able to exercise. They can figure out what works for them. I'm not saying that we should abandon government altogether, just that I prefer a system where local elections are infinitely more important than national ones. All power, and all decision making, should be pushed down as far as possible.AussieReaper wrote:
Then why argue for states rights if the majority of Americans don't want abortion to be illegal?Jay wrote:
Democracy is majority rule.
I don't understand why you don't see that.
You don't seem to understand that the majority of Americans feel that abortion should only be available under limited circumstances, not the free-for-all it is right now.AussieReaper wrote:
If you want the individual to have as much power as possible, keep it legal at the national level. Don't want an abortion? Then don't have one.Jay wrote:
Again, because I want all power to be pushed down as far as possible to the individual. If decisions were pushed down to the state level, I would then say that they should be pushed down to the county level, and then the city etc. The further away you get from big central government decision makers, the more control over their own lives people are able to exercise. They can figure out what works for them. I'm not saying that we should abandon government altogether, just that I prefer a system where local elections are infinitely more important than national ones. All power, and all decision making, should be pushed down as far as possible.AussieReaper wrote:
Then why argue for states rights if the majority of Americans don't want abortion to be illegal?
I don't understand why you don't see that.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/9904/public- … eview.aspxA notable aspect of Gallup’s long-term measure of public opinion on abortion is the consistency in Americans’ outlook over the last quarter century. From 1975 through today, a majority of Americans have almost continually held that abortion should be legal "only under certain circumstances."
At the same time, there have been notable changes over the years in the balance of support for the more extreme opinions at either end of the abortion policy spectrum. In the initial years after the Roe v. Wade decision, the number of Americans holding the extreme positions was roughly the same, at the 20% level. In the 1980s, attitudes gradually shifted toward the pro-choice position, so that by 1990, the liberal extreme outnumbered the conservative extreme by a more than two-to-one margin. This trend peaked in June 1992, with 34% saying abortion should be legal in all cases and only 13% saying it should be completely banned. However, in 1996, a sharp reversal occurred, with a drop in the number holding the extreme pro-choice position (this fell to 22% by 1997) and more people taking the middle position -- saying it should be legal under certain circumstances (peaking at 61% in 1997). Most recently Gallup has found about a quarter of Americans (26%) saying abortion should be legal in all cases, a little over half (56%) saying it should be legal in certain cases and 17% saying it should be illegal in all cases.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Now you're just shifting goalposts. Abortion is always going to have limits, on what term in a pregnancy it can be performed.
The outlawing of abortion, and repealing of Roe v Wade is the case Romney is pushing. Not keeping existing laws in place. And it certainly is not a free for all right now. Despite how misinformed you are on the issue.
The outlawing of abortion, and repealing of Roe v Wade is the case Romney is pushing. Not keeping existing laws in place. And it certainly is not a free for all right now. Despite how misinformed you are on the issue.
He's not trying to outlaw abortion at the national level. It's funny how democracy only 'works' when it's your opinion that is upheld.AussieReaper wrote:
Now you're just shifting goalposts. Abortion is always going to have limits, on what term in a pregnancy it can be performed.
The outlawing of abortion, and repealing of Roe v Wade is the case Romney is pushing. Not keeping existing laws in place. And it certainly is not a free for all right now. Despite how misinformed you are on the issue.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The President can't repeal laws. Only Congress can. And the Senate is still going to be Democrat-controlled after Tuesday.
So it ain't gonna happen.
So it ain't gonna happen.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I just saw this Mitt Romney commercial which confirms why I hate politics.
wow. So it's Obama's fault Ford and GM were so shit they got into that mess in the first place?
So if a state decides black folks should be property, or sit at the back of the bus, shouldn't they be allowed their democratic right?Jay wrote:
Of course states can be just as domineering over individual rights as the federal government. I'm not claiming otherwise. My argument is based on the fact that people are given more control over their lives when decisions are pushed further down the line. It's much easier to be heard and have the laws you wish to live under enacted when you are one voice out of a few million as opposed to one voice out of 300 million+.
A lot of people view abortion as murder, and I can't say that I disagree very much with that point of view. If the majority of people in a state hold that view and wish to outlaw it, they should be allowed to. That's the whole premise behind Democracy. The Roe v Wade decision was anti-democratically enacted.
I assumed the civil war settled all that.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
No, but giving it to the states, some will try to. I'd have thought you would rather citizens have the right to have an abortion if they so choose. That seems the most libertarian stance to me. That citizens have more rights.Jay wrote:
He's not trying to outlaw abortion at the national level. It's funny how democracy only 'works' when it's your opinion that is upheld.AussieReaper wrote:
Now you're just shifting goalposts. Abortion is always going to have limits, on what term in a pregnancy it can be performed.
The outlawing of abortion, and repealing of Roe v Wade is the case Romney is pushing. Not keeping existing laws in place. And it certainly is not a free for all right now. Despite how misinformed you are on the issue.
You do realize the President does not have the power to overturn law, yes? Well, if he follows the Constitutional separation of powers framework President Obama has been ignoring.AussieReaper wrote:
Bullshit. Romney will overturn it, it's on his campaigns website.Stingray24 wrote:
Abortion isn't the issue this election. The economy is. No one believes Roe vs Wade will ever be overturned.http://www.mittromney.com/issues/valuesMitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
98% probability now, or 99.8% if you like your bayesians. only reason 538 doesn't agree is that silver gives a much greater weighting to the possibility of systemic statistical bias, which sam wang doesn't to the same extent (simpler model).Spark wrote:
sam wang's model - which is much simpler, but hence much more transparent - is extremely bullish on obama. 94% last i checked.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
ElaborateStingray wrote:
Well, if he follows the Constitutional separation of powers framework President Obama has been ignoring.
As President, he can elect members of the Supreme Court.Stingray24 wrote:
You do realize the President does not have the power to overturn law, yes? Well, if he follows the Constitutional separation of powers framework President Obama has been ignoring.AussieReaper wrote:
Bullshit. Romney will overturn it, it's on his campaigns website.Stingray24 wrote:
Abortion isn't the issue this election. The economy is. No one believes Roe vs Wade will ever be overturned.http://www.mittromney.com/issues/valuesMitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
How many do you think he could place in the next 4 years, pending the retirement of those current?
Up to 5. However, courts in general are very reluctant to override previous precedent.
Executive orders. Obama has circumvented the legislature so many times I've stopped counting.Macbeth wrote:
ElaborateStingray wrote:
Well, if he follows the Constitutional separation of powers framework President Obama has been ignoring.
Were you counting when Bush was doing it?Stingray24 wrote:
Executive orders. Obama has circumvented the legislature so many times I've stopped counting.Macbeth wrote:
ElaborateStingray wrote:
Well, if he follows the Constitutional separation of powers framework President Obama has been ignoring.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
are you kidding me? republicants have to take off their shoes to count past ten . . .Dilbert_X wrote:
Were you counting when Bush was doing it?Stingray24 wrote:
Executive orders. Obama has circumvented the legislature so many times I've stopped counting.Macbeth wrote:
Elaborate
And they have to pull their hand out of their ass just to get past five.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Obama is up by 30 points in my state Never has my vote counted less. Oh well.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ex … orders.aspStingray24 wrote:
Executive orders. Obama has circumvented the legislature so many times I've stopped counting.Macbeth wrote:
ElaborateStingray wrote:
Well, if he follows the Constitutional separation of powers framework President Obama has been ignoring.