-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
Guileless, let's be clear on two things.
1. I'm not claiming that there are many non-Catholics saying that contraception is in itself sinful. I have been saying that the standard conservative Protestant position on contraception has become substantially more nuanced in recent years, especially concerning the provision of contraception by subsidy or charity. I've also said that many Protestants have decided, contra the evidence, that several forms of contraception are sinful because they cause abortions. I've been interested in the reasons for these changes.
2. I understand the arguments offered against the employer mandate. They are philosophically and legally bankrupt (and often just factually incorrect) and I've moved on to psychologizing them. Nothing I've said so far has been intended as an argument against the position of the Catholic bishops, and that debate probably isn't appropriate to this thread right now, unless lots of others are interested. I have been making claims about the reasons why non-Catholics in the religious right (say they) find these arguments convincing. This is a little surprising because one wouldn't really have expected such a backlash to the policy in the abstract.
Moving on, are you claiming that Limbaugh's position wasn't a fairly popular one among religious conservatives? The intersection of the position with the general "makers vs takers" message of the Romney campaign and the intersection of religious conservatives with Romney's voters makes that hard to believe. I certainly read and heard a lot of defenses of Limbaugh, even if "it's not the language [Romney] would have used".
Some background:
There is some disagreement within the pro-life community as to whether or not hormonal birth control can cause what they consider to be an abortion. Outside of it, there is very little reason to think that this could be the case, and every reason to think that the effect, if it exists, is tiny. This is not the impression one gets from much pro-life material, to say the least. Also, google "abortion-pill mandate". There is no evidence that the pills they're talking about and which are covered by the employer mandate can cause an abortion, even using pro-lifers' preferred definition of the word.
Finally, to this:
I don't think I'm missing the point of the disagreements. I think that the disagreements themselves are basically all about false consciousness. I'm willing to make an exception for the fight over gay rights. That's probably just some pretty deep-seated bigotry.
1. I'm not claiming that there are many non-Catholics saying that contraception is in itself sinful. I have been saying that the standard conservative Protestant position on contraception has become substantially more nuanced in recent years, especially concerning the provision of contraception by subsidy or charity. I've also said that many Protestants have decided, contra the evidence, that several forms of contraception are sinful because they cause abortions. I've been interested in the reasons for these changes.
2. I understand the arguments offered against the employer mandate. They are philosophically and legally bankrupt (and often just factually incorrect) and I've moved on to psychologizing them. Nothing I've said so far has been intended as an argument against the position of the Catholic bishops, and that debate probably isn't appropriate to this thread right now, unless lots of others are interested. I have been making claims about the reasons why non-Catholics in the religious right (say they) find these arguments convincing. This is a little surprising because one wouldn't really have expected such a backlash to the policy in the abstract.
Moving on, are you claiming that Limbaugh's position wasn't a fairly popular one among religious conservatives? The intersection of the position with the general "makers vs takers" message of the Romney campaign and the intersection of religious conservatives with Romney's voters makes that hard to believe. I certainly read and heard a lot of defenses of Limbaugh, even if "it's not the language [Romney] would have used".
Some background:
There is some disagreement within the pro-life community as to whether or not hormonal birth control can cause what they consider to be an abortion. Outside of it, there is very little reason to think that this could be the case, and every reason to think that the effect, if it exists, is tiny. This is not the impression one gets from much pro-life material, to say the least. Also, google "abortion-pill mandate". There is no evidence that the pills they're talking about and which are covered by the employer mandate can cause an abortion, even using pro-lifers' preferred definition of the word.
Finally, to this:
I'm not saying that the outrage over the employer mandate in particular was self-perpetuating, although surely it was to some extent. My claim has been that outrage from the religious right is self-perpetuating from event to event. It was initially outraged over the government telling religious universities they couldn't discriminate. This was of course a policy that the government had never done before, and a host of religious leaders and judicial scholars objected. Etc. Then that became a little too obviously racist, and they at least claimed that they didn't even want to racially discriminate anyway, so they moved on to abortion. School prayer was also in there somewhere, and the War on Christmas probably counts. Now we have the "abortion-pill mandate". I'm saying that this is basically all political opportunism at the top; the rank and file on the religious right would not have objected to these things much at all, excepting perhaps the first one, without the opportunists at the top picking targets for them. I also think that a lot of what's determined those targets is the degree to which they brought conservative Protestants into line with Catholics, creating a larger political bloc.
I don't think I'm missing the point of the disagreements. I think that the disagreements themselves are basically all about false consciousness. I'm willing to make an exception for the fight over gay rights. That's probably just some pretty deep-seated bigotry.
jamesinclair
Banned
You know who should run for president next time, against Hillary and Biden?
Governor Brown. The national leader of job creation and fiscal stability.
As a bonus, a primary where every candidate is 70+ will do wonders for the democrats in attracting the elderly.
Governor Brown. The national leader of job creation and fiscal stability.
As a bonus, a primary where every candidate is 70+ will do wonders for the democrats in attracting the elderly.
speculawyer
Member
Yes! This give me a chance to post Califonia Uber Alles!
I will have you young kids know that I dove off the stage in the 80's at a Dead Kennedy's show at the University of Minnesota. Still probably one of the most intense moments of my life. I was actually a springboard diver at the time such that it was a full somersault and then caught by audience.
Live version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iNh6BVZgJ0
I would vote for Jerry Brown. California Uber Alles!
Nebraska's Lt Guv just resigned because he used his government phone to make thousands of calls to women not his wife.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-reports-late-night-calls-to-women/?hpt=hp_t2
Whoops. Now the race is open for a Democrat.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-reports-late-night-calls-to-women/?hpt=hp_t2
Whoops. Now the race is open for a Democrat.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
You're old. Also explains why you have such a pained voice while playing TF2.
Good music though.
TacticalFox88
Banned
If Hillary runs and Obama's second term is an undeniable success by any sane person, I'm calling 400+ EV total in 2016.
Black Republican
Member
family values Nebraska wont like that!
The Librarian
Banned
Honestly, the deeper we get into this Senate "primary challenge" by Booker, the more I dislike him.
DragonSworne
Banned
What happened to Gore?
TacticalFox88
Banned
The Supreme Court.
DragonSworne
Banned
I don't like Brooker much, but there's definitely been a smear campaign in the media against him since he's made noise about running. Some people with pull really don't like him.
The Librarian
Banned
Because he was hugely disrespectful in announcing that Senate race before Lautenburg announced his plans. He does deserve a spanking.
Lautenburg is 89. 89 years old. If he wasn't going to retire (and I doubt he was), he deserves disrespect. That senate seat ain't his throne.
The Librarian
Banned
Doesn't matter how old he is, and no, it's not his throne, but he's brought in a lot of money for NJ throughout his service. It's naked ambition, and people are rightly calling him out on it.
Giant Panda
Member
He still would have lost. It was later found there werent enough votes even if the recount had continued.
I don't understand this reasoning at all.
Sirpopopop
Member
I've posted enough times on why Cory Booker is trouble. It hasn't gotten into anyone's skull. At this point, I'm done with it. The only thing I will say it's hypocritical to criticize Obama and praise Booker, if you are going at it from a left wing point of view. Booker isn't to the left of Obama.
Regardless - Are we as Democrats really ok with charter school pushers and folks who want to "privatize" public resources?
Regardless - Are we as Democrats really ok with charter school pushers and folks who want to "privatize" public resources?
The Librarian
Banned
Additionally, because he's running for Senate people are looking at how he's actually done as mayor for his city rather than just a "show horse" as the article I linked to said. He hasn't really done anything noteworthy. When he announced his Senate run, it wasn't, "Lautenburg has done a great job, but I think I can do better because of X, X, and X," it was, "Hey, guys! I'm ready to run for Senate now!"
TacticalFox88
Banned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=klzZxOat3mc
When Fox is telling you that you're ridiculous, you KNOW you've gone off the deep end
When Fox is telling you that you're ridiculous, you KNOW you've gone off the deep end
Carpe Libertatem
Member
I think by announcing that he's running he's implying that he thinks he can do better than Lautenberg, for whatever reasons. Most likely, the primary reason for this is that Lautenberg is 89 years old and - as we saw with Daniel Inouye (who was younger than Lautenberg) - could unfortunately pass away at any time. Clearly, the voters of New Jersey want Cory Booker over Lautenberg because in public polling done (and I'm sure internal polling) Booker leads him significantly.
Sure, maybe he should have talked to Lautenberg's staff before announcing he's running. He doesn't have to. And the more time he waits for a decision the less time he has to prepare.
empty vessel
Member
It was later concluded that Bush likely would have remained in the lead if the limited recounts had continued, but that Gore did indeed likely win Florida. And that without even counting the 8000 or so votes Gore lost because of the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach.
Regardless, an act ought not be judged by knowledge of its consequences learned only in the future.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Called it. He's been off for months, as if he's desperate. Shortly after the hurricane hit he tweeted a positive fluff piece about himself and basically said "today's a sad day...btw check out this story about me!" And while his MTP appearance was good on the facts, the constant me me me was jarring. He has a huge ego and talent for self promotion, which he has focused in instead of Newark recently.
I'd respect him more if he challenged Christie and lost; he could then wait for Latenberg to die and run in the special election, plus earn the respect of local officials for an eventual governors race. Instead he's running from a fight to pick one with a fellow democrat who is well respected. I can't imagine how disgusted Harry Reid and other lions of the senate are. And as I've said before, a legislative body doesn't fit his style. He needs to be in control, and he can't make headlines by being the last guy on a committee to talk.
lol this is great.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Wow, good on Chris Wallace.
I didn't expect to see something like that. It's possibly just a fluke for Fox News, but I'm starting to buy the argument that the NRA is becoming less and less influential in terms of shaping the public debate.
That was a great interview, good on Chris Wallace.
Fox News is not all Sean Hannity.
I'm not saying I've never wanted to punch Chris Wallace, but the guy has undeniable journalistic chops (though I don't watch enough Fox News to know how often he flexes them).
For further reading, google Shepard Smith's greatest hits.
He doesn't get to flex them often enough.
jamesinclair
Banned
You just blew my mind.
I've heard that song dozens of times, but naturally didn't understand more than two words.
Just looked up the lyrics
Every once in a long while Chris will do some legit good stuff like that. It's rare though.
Haha, LaPierre totally fell apart when the real questions started coming. He was not expecting that.
'They're trafficking 15 year old girls!'
TacticalFox88
Banned
Because it ends up like this:
"We have to take the politics out of this!"
*Proceeds to put the politics in that*
I had the exact opposite story, I too loved the Dead Kennedy dearly, and while I did know the lyrics (like every kid who was in a punk band, we covered it too) from half a world away and the internet more than a decade in the future, I had no frame of political reference.
Needless to say that when I moved to the US and learned who Jerry Brown was and why that song was really written, it had lost some of its appeal to me.
I did get to see Jello Biafra apologize for it years later though.
Not really. Chris Wallace happens to be one of the few people at Fox News that does do a good job of actual journalism on more than a few occasions.
Sure, he still has his occasional stupid streaks, but he's okay for the most part.
Where are you from out of curiosity?
Not at all. That's how primaries work, and I don't think we should be discouraging Dems from them. Ideally it's how we get better candidates and make the Senate more accountable to the electorate. (Not commenting on Booker's qualities, but rather the sentiment that anyone should be off limits for a primary challenge.)
Plus as was said Lautenburg is very old. I think encouraging him to retire by challenging him is a good thing; the Senate needs to tilt younger so as to better represent the country.
jamesinclair
Banned
I was against brown running again, because it blew my mind that the California democrat party couldn't find anyone else to run aside from an old man who already was governor, but now I'm glad he did.
Also, if he ran for president again fox news would be glorious
The Librarian
Banned
It's my fault, but I think people here are confusing my dislike for the way Booker announced his decision to run, and how he's been handling it since then, and him actually running
Israel.
I read this post as meaning Booker should wait to see if Lautenburg were running again to announce he's running. When I think that should have no bearing on his decision. Then this post makes it sound like Lautenburg is entitled to not be primaried because of how much money he's brought into the state.
What you are saying now is more clear, but I still don't like the idea there should be some kind of protocol for when a primary is announced. I want everyone in the Senate to be worried about a primary, it will make them a better Senator. (Of course, in the case of the Tea Party, it makes them worse, but that is blowing back in a way that is also good, long term, IMO.)
The Librarian
Banned
I also like Lautenburg more than Booker. Way more. So the mere fact that Booker is challenging him makes me dislike the challenge. It'd be like someone primarying Daniel Inouye. Kind of. You just don't do that, man!
The NYT has a nice feature on gerrymandering today: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?_r=0
edit: nvm already posted, didn't realize this was Sam Wang's article at first.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Weren't you all over Booker last month?
He reminds me of Obama in many ways in terms of naked ambition, but he's...not as good at nearly any of the things that make Obama a great politician. He just comes off fake, even though he has done some good things and has some great ideas.
The NYT has a nice feature on gerrymandering today: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?_r=0
edit: nvm already posted, didn't realize this was Sam Wang's article at first.
I'm in FLA 5. Had the districts been the same, the democrats would've won our state house seat. And maybe even in the U.S. House. But alas...
Edit: Sorry, actually in the 6th. Still.
What are those great ideas?
PhoenixDark
Banned
I think his gun proposals are very good, and actually address the issue of illegal guns - which to me should be the major focus of any gun reform.
jamesinclair
Banned
Why doesnt our benevolent dictator fix gerrymandering?
Do it like Reagan.
In order to access federal education grants, all districts must be arranged by independent committees by 2014.
If not, the federal money tap runs dry that year.
Worked for Reagan, it will work for Obama.
Do it like Reagan.
In order to access federal education grants, all districts must be arranged by independent committees by 2014.
If not, the federal money tap runs dry that year.
Worked for Reagan, it will work for Obama.
- Status