Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The Two Main Reasons Why I'm (More Than Likely) Voting For Obama
1) A strong reticence on my part to give the entirety of Washington back to the Republicans.............2) The fact that a Republican President would more than likely appoint anti-choice judges to the Supreme Court (a move that could possibly overturn Roe vs. Wade and push abortions back into the back-alleys).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
Two very valid reasons,
I might add the current crop of candidates pandering to the hard right fringe groups in the GOP sound slightly batty in the belfry if you ask me.
That and their rehashed three decade old ideological sound-bite driven ideas will produce the same economic conditions they resulted in circa 2008.
Cutting taxes doesn't create jobs nor raise revenues. But the way republicans do it, does shift the burdens of funding the country off the wealthy to the poor and shrinking middle class.
I haven't been able to vote R in a national election since Ford, they keep getting farther from solid long term good ideas.
Reagan sounds mild compared to the current crop of pandering lunatics I see now a days, and he was far to reactionary and disconnected from reality for me.
Yes, if you favor abortion, you will have no luck with any of the Republican candidates, for sure.
Who "favors" abortion? I favor a woman's right to chose. I favor a woman having access to this medical procedure, or having her baby... in other words, I favor the choice being completely in the woman's hands. I do not "favor" abortion.
Although that isn't the first reason I'm voting for Obama. I'm voting for him so he'll apoint anti-fascist judges to the SCOTUS. Hopefully then the terrible Citizens United decision can be overturned.
Qaddaffi is dead, about damn time
Reagan could never get him, Obama's policy did help.
Osama is dead,
Bush, Cheney and the neo(kook)cons could or would never really go after him directly, but Obama did.
Damn Obama is better for the US foreign policy defense than Reagan and Bush combined.
WD: Choice is not at issue. Not even a decision. An action is controversial: the action is abortion. Some favor it, some do not.
It is like with the death penalty. Except with the death penalty, people are a lot more honest when they talk about being for or against it. None of the attempts to pollute the conversation and hide views it with vague references to "life" or "choice"
As for "Citizens United", I'm with you on getting rid of that silly corporate personhood idea. However, due to the existence of the First Amendment (and the fact that I think its protections are a great idea). I oppose bringing back any of the pre "Citizens United" censorship ideas.
dmarks, you are wrong. I do not favor abortion; I favor choice... so choice IS what is at issue. With me, and with people who agree with me that this is the woman's decision. I suspect very, very few people actually "favor" abortion.
I'm also very much in favor of taking away the special group rights granted by Citizens United. Free Speech rights are for individuals and the press only, not corporations. Our government should most certainly be able to censor corporate speech, which isn't protected by the first amendment.
But I suspect dmarks will disagree... the reason being that dmarks doesn't understand the First Amendment.
"Free Speech rights are for individuals and the press only, not corporations"
Of course. Individuals associated with corporations are protected too.
I've never known a corporation to speak, actually. It is all individuals who do this.
"Our government should most certainly be able to censor corporate speech"
Your lust for censorship is quite apparent here. It is indeed the hallmark of a fascist mindset. Why not just ignore the speech you don't like?
Regardless, there is no corporate speech: it is all done by individuals. I certainly do understand the first amendment. And I have read your link, which attempts to justify censoring speech unless it comes from certain government-approved press organizations.
The censorship you advocate is very un-American and against Constitutional liberties. But your idea fits in well in North Korea.
Corporate speech occurs when members of a corporation get together and agree what they going to say... AS A GROUP. The Constitution doesn't cover group rights.
The reason I oppose corporate speech is BECAUSE it is fascist in nature. I'd say people who agree that corporate speech should be censored do so because they exhibit a mindset that is very anti-fascist.
You, on the other hand seem to be eager to turn over our elections to the highest bidder (which is very fascist). Of the two of us I'd say dmarks is clearly the one who favors fascism.
"...AS A GROUP. The Constitution doesn't cover group rights."
But whatever is decided, individuals end up making it happen. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution to strip away free speech rights of individuals because they are associated with groups that you don't like.
This has nothing to do with "the highest bidder", and has everything to do with the rights of individuals to criticize those in power.
(1) I want to protect this right. (2) You want those in power to take this way. Sorry, the second is a characteristic of every fascist regime.
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution to strip away free speech rights of individuals because they are associated with groups that you don't like.
There is nothing in the constitution that even HINTS at giving a non living economic entity the same rights as a living breathing individual human being.
Corporations are NOT people and should not have the same rights as individual people.
Each person in said corporation has their individual right, so as a group collectively they should not get a second set of "special rights" as a collective group.
Corporations should not have the rights individual citizens have only each member as a separate individual.
#32: I agree with all of your points. As I said, I do want that personhood idea gone.
dmarks: #32, I agree with all of your points.
No you don't.
#37927 said, "Each person in said corporation has their individual right, so as a group collectively they should not get a second set of special rights as a collective group".
This is exactly the point I've been making, and you continually disagree with it. You DO believe in granting special group rights to corporations... a very unconstitutional idea.
Allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money influencing our elections most certainly IS opening up our government for sale to the highest bidder... because it has been shown that the candidate that spends the most usually wins.
Actually, I agreed with all of his points, completely. And this included the one you quoted. I agree with it very strongly, reading it for the latest of multiple times.
DM if you agree with me then the corporate right of unlimited contribution should be OUTLAWED, only INDIVIDUALS should be allowed to influence politicians which individual citizens vote for.
Individuals who own or work for corporations already have rights to contribute and vote take thew corporate right(which should not be) away and elections clean themselves up immensely;
Also take away corporate rights to buy politicos with lobbyist money and Washington gets much cleaner and more efficient doing what the PEOPLE not corporations need done.
The people in and owning corporations have rights, collectively they do not need nor should get special rights to buy or influence our law makers that thew individual citizen which is the only entity written into the constitution have.
OUTLAW citizens united make such special gamesmanship for special exclusive groups uncomnstitutional
Return to all citizens have the same rights, not special rights for the moneyed interests.
#37: "...the corporate right of unlimited contribution should be OUTLAWED..."
There's no Constitutional protection for campaign contributions, so I am open to anything reasonable. ,
"Individuals who own or work for corporations already have rights to contribute and vote..."
And?
"Also take away corporate rights to buy politicos with lobbyist money and Washington gets much cleaner and more efficient doing what the PEOPLE not corporations need done."
Would you do this to all special interest groups?
"OUTLAW citizens united make such special gamesmanship for special exclusive groups uncomnstitutional"
Get rid of the corporate personhood, but keep the free speech for individuals that the ruling protects.
"That and their rehashed three decade old ideological sound-bite driven ideas will produce the same economic conditions..."
37927, that's funny. I guess the Democrat's ideological sound-bite driven ideas are fresh and new?
dmarks: Actually, I agreed with all of his points, completely. And this included the one you quoted.
NO YOU DON'T. Proof of that what you said later...
...You said, "Get rid of the corporate personhood, but keep the free speech for individuals that the ruling protects".
There is no protection of free speech for individuals in Citizens United. Citizens United grants special free speech group rights for corporations.
"Citizens United" isn't actually citizens united (individual American citizens coming together)... it is a corporation. It's not the name of the group that's confusing you, is it? Whatever it is, dmarks is clearly confused.
Heathen Republican: I guess the Democrat's ideological sound-bite driven ideas are fresh and new?
No, they are tried and proven...
...to work, that is. Unlike the Republican ideas, which are proven to not work.
Not confused at all. The details of the Citizens United case even mention the information about the individuals involved who had their political expression censored. Individual Americans with real names.
Expression that must be protected.
Slightly off topic;
Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study
The Earth's surface really is getting warmer, a new analysis by a US scientific group set up in the wake of the "ClimateGate" affair has confirmed.
The Berkeley Earth Project has used new methods and some new data, but finds the same warming trend seen by groups such as the UK Met Office and Nasa.
The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change.
Phil Jones, targeted in "ClimateGate", said the result was "encouraging".
The Berkeley group says it has also found evidence that changing sea temperatures in the north Atlantic may be a major reason why the Earth's average temperature varies globally from year to year.
and;
Skeptic Talking Point Melts Away as an Inconvenient Physicist Confirms Warming
Richard Muller, a noted Berkeley physicist who’s been a strident critic of climate campaigners, has released a much-anticipated new package of studies, along with all of his team’s data and methods, that powerfully challenges one of the prime talking points of pundits and politicians trying to avoid a shift away from fossil fuels.
A new independent study which included skeptics, finds SCIENTIFIC Physical proof of AGW,
Don't tell the traveling freak show, also know as the collective of lunatics running for the GOPer presidential nomination cause they don't seem to believe in science.
I wonder how much the Koch brothers and Exxon is gonna have to spend to counter the FACTS in this scientific study?
You know, it gets harder and harder to comment here the farther this blog gets from reality.
Will, firstly it would be very hard for even conservative judges to overturn Roe v. Wade since it's precedent at this point and there is very little will to do so.
Secondly even if they did, all that would happen is that the choice would return to the states where it should have stayed to begin with.
Zip, Collectively the wealthy could only fund the country for a month or two. The burden has always been on the middle class.
And if you think cutting taxes doesn't create jobs, raising them will certainly drive jobs overseas faster.
WD, I'll give you this one. OK, groups don't have free speech rights. Now can we round up the OWS commies and give 'em a bath?
And Will, I thought you were a smarter man than this. Look around man. You like what's going on in this administration? Really, you'd vote for Zero again?
Oh and Zip, quit beating a dead horse.
1. It has "Berkeley" in it's name.
2. It took funds from a partisan group. (I really don't care that they went turncoat on them)
3. No mater what the cause, even they note that the "average temperature varies globally from year to year"
First it's "the next ice age", then it's "global warming". Now we need to stop "global temperature varation"...ooooh, that's scary.
First it's "the next ice age",
WRONG,
Except for the non peer reviewed non scientific rag Newsweek, nobody in the 70's was pushing very hard for cooling or new ice age.
The number of peer reviewed articles stating they thought AGW was real in the 70's outnumbered any cooling articles 8-1
The scientific consensus back then was mostly the same as today with out a lot of the evidence we now have. They could see the basis and since CO2 heating of the atmosphere in the infrared spectrum has been known since the end of the 19th cen, they could see where things probably were going if we kept dumping long burried Carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2,
BTW volt science has NO turn coat if you are honestly following the facts.
Just because the Koch brothers tried but failed to buy the finished results for that study doesn't mean the results HONESTLY reported are from a turncoat.
Except if you're hyper partisan but extremely unscientific in the approach you (and the wanna be propaganda financiers) seem to use
This time science won over partisan money.
You should be happy,oh wait you're part of that sect who wants the science to fit your particular world view instead of fitting your world view to the scientific facts.
It has "Berkeley" in it's name.
Only because the skeptic who ran the study used it, sorry but that criticism is as baseless and Perry's campaign has been so far.
Hey, Volt, I'm pretty sure that wd would vociferously object to your characterization of me as a detached from reality liberal. According to him, I'm a woman-hating corporatist who uses Republican talking-points, apologizes for Bush, and who is insufficiently alarmed by global-warming. Perception, I gather, is 99%.
Welcome back, btw. LOL
Will: WD wants to see Bush killed, and buys the "Bush is a war criminal" argument from an "attorney" with dubious qualifications (an "attorney" who has detailed how he wants to get rid of Israel's Jews and also considered Alan Derschewitz a "war criminal")
I guess if you don't want Bush killed, you must be some sort of apologized Bushie.
And let us not forget, either, his Reagan = Hitler proclamation.
Reagan equals Hitler was a joke, and what dmarks says is a misrepresentation of my actual positions.
I do not want to see bush killed. I want him to face trial for his crimes... and I think the death penalty should be on the table. Francis Boyle's views on Israel (which dmarks distorts) are irrelative to whether or not bush has committed crimes.
This is a straw man dmarks has constructed. He thinks if he says something bad about Francis Boyle that somehow makes bush's crimes go away.
Crimes are determined by the courts, thankfully.
WD: I distorted nothing. Boyle's views on Israel do indeed call for the elimination of a nation and ethnic cleansing of its people. And he did call Alan Dershewitz, an attorney and author, a war criminal. There are actual indicted/charged/etc war criminals that Boyle defends.
He has been your main source for the wild claims of Bush's "crimes". So yes, it is relevent to point out that he is an antisemitic crank with a reputation of making false claims about people being "War criminals" while defending actual war criminals.
It's not a straw man; he is your main source. There aren't even any Bush crimes to make "go away". The ICC rejected any claims of them,
Will: Crimes are determined by the courts, thankfully.
A shift in position? If that's the case I imagine you'll be retracting your slanderous claims of perjury against Valerie Plame? The courts did reject any accusations against her of committing this crime.
In fact, the judge in the Scooter Libby case determined she was telling the truth... otherwise he would have dismissed the charges against Libby after reading that media brief. Instead he obviously believed CIA Chief Hayden who said she was covert at the time of the outing.
Anyway, I look forward to your next post... I'm positive it will be a full retraction of your wild claims of perjury against Valerie Plame.
dmarks: I distorted nothing.
OK. I'll retract my "distorting" charge. "Distorting" is far to mild a word to describe what you're doing... you're LYING. I challenge you to produce one quote from Francis Boyle where he calls for the death of all Jews living in Israel. FYI, being critical of Israel doesn't make you anti-Semitic.
dmarks: It's not a straw man; he is your main source.
No, my main source is the UN Charter (in regards to bush's illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq) If you read it you'll see the actions bush took are clearly prohibited.
Although if bush is ever brought to justice for his war crimes... I suspect he'll be charged with violating that Geneva Conventions against torture. bush even admitted he authorized torture, so it isn't a "wild claim" in the least.
The UN Charter says disputes must be settled peacefully through negotiation. You think "real authorities" laugh at those words... because by "peacefully through negotiation" the charter really means "hostilely through warfare"? If that is your suggestion I say you are mentally ill. I advise getting to a doctor ASAP.
dmarks: He did not call directly for their death.
No, he did not call directly or indirectly for anyone's death. Also, I caught you in a lie here. "Ethic cleansing" definitely suggests a direct call for mass death. You just admitted he never said anything to suggest he's in favor of ethnic cleansing.
dmarks: And everyone knows that such "trails of tears" result in massive casualties.
No, "everyone" doesn't know this. Francis Boyle is not suggesting the entire population of Israel be forced to march across the Middle East to some other location. This is just silly nonsense.
If the "real authorities" were to laugh at either of us, clearly they would be laughing most heartily at dmarks and his insane suggestions about a forced relocation of Israelites along a new "trail of tears" leading to a "new holocaust".
This is clearly delusional stuff. And all completely made up by you. None of this fantasy you've concocted has anything to do with anything Francis Boyle has said.
In any case, I don't agree with Mr. Boyle's views on Israel, just his views on bush's illegal invasions... so you can cut out the straw man BS (but I doubt you will).
wd, you accuse Karl Rove (who, I agree, is an asshole - but being an asshole isn't a crime) of treason and then have the ballsiness to accuse ME of slander?...As for this Valerie Plame character, a) there are documents from PLAME HERSELF (memos, one of them entitled, "Iraq-related Nuclear Report Makes a Splash") which clearly show that she recommended her husband. b) She testified under oath that she never recommended her husband (even going as far as to make the laughable declaration that she didn't have the "authority" to even make a recommendation). c) Mrs. Plame-Wilson is either a liar, delusional, or suffering from the earliest onset of dementia. There are no competing explanations.
WD said: ""Ethic cleansing" definitely suggests a direct call for mass death"
Actaully, ethnic cleansing policies typically include mass deportations and/or death. The former Yugoslavia situation is typical of this: far more people were removed from the territories than were killed. And yes, it is a form of genocide.
As long as the hated Jews are removed from Israel, Boyle would be happy.
"No, "everyone" doesn't know this. Francis Boyle is not suggesting the entire population of Israel be forced to march across the Middle East to some other location. This is just silly nonsense."
No. He wants it to happen eventually, even if he is not willing to advocate an Auschwitz-style rail system to do it immediately.
You are defending the indefensible.
"In any case, I don't agree with Mr. Boyle's views on Israel, just his views on bush's illegal invasions."
But there were no illegal invasions. You pre-suppose a rejected claim in your sentence.
And this is no straw man. I've presented Boyle's deplorable record accurately.
Here's the many smoking guns on Mr Boyle's antisemitic ravings.
In this, he "Advises" the Palestinians on strategies necessary in order to get rid of the Israelis.
A process that would result in ethnic cleansing at best, and genocide at worst.
It is likely to be genocide, since the current Palestinian government insists on killing every Jews no matter where they hide, and that the new Palestinian nation would be Jew-free.
Boyle lies about this. Antisemites typically lie about the history and intent of genocide
"Some Jews will remain in Palestine either voluntarily or involuntarily. Palestine and the Palestinians will treat the remaining Jews fairly. Palestine and the Palestinians will not do to the Jews what Israel, Zionism, and the Zionists have done to the Palestinians."
Pretty damning. The first is referring to a few token/pet Jews would would survive the new Holocaust. Regardless, it is not true. The Palestinian government insists on a complete cleansing.
This is the opposite of what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians: the Palestinian population has grown a lot, and has not been eliminated.
Post a Comment