Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    •  
      CommentAuthorFinagle
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2012
     (10833.1)
    THE NEW SEXUAL PREDATORS: older women and gay men

    If you think the Republicans haven't alienated enough people, check this out.

    Younger women look to older women for guidance and mentorship. They rely on being able to trust their foremothers as sisters in the cause for women’s health. But the increased scarcity of the fertile female body, combined with IVF technology that allows for egg harvesting and surrogacy, creates a conflict between generations of women. Older women with more power and resources put their interests ahead of younger women’s and make up for their past mistakes or misfortunes by risking the health and well-being of their successors.

    The attack comes from close range—dressed in words of altruism and generosity. The women who seek other women’s children often carried the torch for gender equality, women’s rights, and so many other victories for their side in the gender wars. Out of respect for their ambition and their challenge to the glass ceiling, younger women feel pressured to give their children to older women as gestures of appreciation for their life trajectories. Perhaps these women anticipate a similar trajectory for themselves and donate away their children in hopes that someone will do the same for them in the future—a form of paying it forward.

    Our gay friends and family members may now also be after our daughters’ bodies. These are the only men in the world we thought we could trust because they weren’t interested in our bodies. That is, until they grew older and discovered they wanted to be parents. Today, more and more often, gay men are using egg donors and surrogates to create motherless children on purpose.


    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/09/6168
  1.  (10833.2)
    that on a similar thought ive been wrestling with lately: how can any woman who is above basic intelligence levels EVER side with right wingers (for any reason besides religion)? any time ive tried to talk to one about this, they start by saying its not about religion, but it eventually boils down to something that is 100% religious in nature.

    i fucking hate organized religion
  2.  (10833.3)
    @Finagle: That is certifiably insane.
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2012
     (10833.4)
    That's some grade A, purebred crazy there. Jesus.
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2012
     (10833.5)
    @joe.distort

    They can for the same reasons GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans exist; because being conservative is more important than what the conservatives want to do to you.

    That and Stockholm Syndrome.
    •  
      CommentAuthormister hex
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2012
     (10833.6)
    "If you're not a liberal in your twenties, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative in your forties, you have no head."

    It comes down to money. "You're going to spend my hard-earned tax dollars on WHAT?" That said, most fiscal conservatives are just that - they don't really care about social issues,for them it's all about CONSERVING their money, status, etc. It's the Bi-Polar Holy Rollers that give conservatives a bad name. Well, that and most conservatives.

    An anonymous guerilla fighter in Angola once paraphrased the quote up top - "If you're not a communist when you're twenty, you're not too bright. if you're STILL a communist when you're forty, you're STILL not too bright."

    "A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged."
  3.  (10833.7)
    Top quote is Winston Churchill. Can always be relied on for an insightful comment
    •  
      CommentAuthorFinagle
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2012
     (10833.8)
    @Mister Hex

    Comservatives have a real quandary here, now, with demographics. See, the major constituency right now of republicans are White men over fifty. Many of them are so called Regan Democrats, union guys who have been working their whole lives.

    These guys have paid into the sysmtem their whole lives, and are now being told that the money just isnt there like they were promised. Not only that, but they still need to pay for THEIR parents, the Greatest Generation of Boomers who are still hanging on.

    MEdicare, Medicaid and Social Security need fixing. Demographics are on the wrong side of keeping them solvent. We will have two workers to every one reiteree spending to keep their benefits going by 2024.

    This is not sustainable, but the Repugs are doing their best to make it seem like it can be for retirees, if we just slam the door on folks under 50 and make us all take private savings accounts instead.

    The Democrats do not have a more believeable plan, sadly.
    •  
      CommentAuthorFoamhead
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2012 edited
     (10833.9)
    Samuel L. Jackson Has Had It with Mitt Romney, Tells Obama Supporters to ‘Wake the Fuck Up’

    •  
      CommentAuthorTF
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2012
     (10833.10)
    Tea Party to Obama: Your Mom's a slut!

    (at least they're getting desperate and running out of shit... right?)
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2012
     (10833.11)
    •  
      CommentAuthorScribe
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2012
     (10833.12)
    A question, and forgive the ignorance on it but I'm not too up to date but...if Romney won will there be much change? By that I mean will it be, like Obama, another four years of cockblocking? It's been frustrating to see Obama's attempts at bridging the gap between the two parties in order to get some shit done shot down simply because he's a democrat and with Romney not really showing many signs of a desire to bridge that gap will it just be democrats stopping Romney for the hell of it?


    One could only hope that this would be the outcome IF Romney were to win the Presidency. We saw the damage that could be done when Republicans run both chambers and the Presidency when Bush was in office. I would have preferred no action as compared to the actions that Bush took.
  4.  (10833.13)
    Since the GOP isn't likely to win control of the Senate, Romney wouldn't be able to accomplish much legislatively, at least not without providing political handjobs to Democratic senators from conservative states (there are several). His whole "repeal Obamacare" promise is totally empty, because the Democrats in the Senate will block that.

    But what would change are all the things that involved powers that Congress has abdicated to the Executive branch, such as the ability to wage undeclared war, and to determine regulations thru "executive rule-making" and level of enforcement. For example, the War Powers Act allowed Obama to exercise military power in Libya without Congressional authorization, and he was able to effectively grant amnesty to immigrants brought to the US illegally as children by deciding not to bother enforcing the law in those cases. Romney would have similar discretion, which he'd probably use very differently (such as instead deciding to relax or stop enforcing finance-industry regs).

    And then there's the Supreme Court. The two oldest justices (one a cancer survivor) were nominated by Democrats and lean to the left, and the next-oldest is Kennedy, who's usually the swing vote, so if Romney nominated their replacements it would shift the court even further to the right, for a long time to come.
    •  
      CommentAuthorFinagle
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2012
     (10833.14)
    @JAQ -

    Keep in mind though that the Democrats aren't likely to pick up enough seats to get a filibuster-proof majority in Congress. As long as they don't have 66 seats in the Senate, the Republicans can, indeed, continue their 'party of NO' cockblocking and maintain their position that "Look how ineffectual Obama is, he won't cooperate with us."
    • CommentAuthormanglr
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2012
     (10833.15)
    As a minor point of order, filibuster proof is 60 votes, not 66. That mostly a case a semantics as neither side will get to that point.

    The other off hope is that the democratic leadership opts to change the rules for a filibuster to prevent the rampant abuse of the practice that has been in place since the dems took Congress back in 2006. That change would be a possibility once the new Congress starts in January.
    •  
      CommentAuthoroddbill
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2012 edited
     (10833.16)
    I'd love to at least see the Dems make the Repubs actually filibuster if they threaten to.

    As it stands now, the way Congress has been operating, when the Repubs say they will filibuster, if there isn't a filibuster proof majority, they just say it was filibustered but no one has to actually monopolize the floor with continual unbroken speech.

    It would be like if someone were building a road and you said you would chain yourself to a tree in their path to prevent it, and they just threw up their hands and said "welp that beats us!" And stopped building even though you never actually chained yourself to that tree.

    I don't think the repubs could use the filibuster so often if they had to really do it. Not least of the things that would backfire on them is they would look ridiculous.
    •  
      CommentAuthornelzbub
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2012
     (10833.17)
    Cheers Oddbill, I'd always thought that they actually did get up and speak non-stop, like in that episode of the West Wing.
    I'm kind of disappointed to hear that it is something that is just threatened rather than carried out and I agree that they should be forced to put their money where their mouth is in that respect.
    I'm sure it would make for some great car crash television.
    •  
      CommentAuthorFinagle
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2012
     (10833.18)
    (Derr, 60 senators of course)

    I would take it one step further and mandate the filibuster be carried out while wearing a special coverall uniform festooned with patches of relative sizes that detail the Senator's various sponsors constituencies, a la NASCAR drivers.
    •  
      CommentAuthormister hex
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2012
     (10833.19)
    @ Finagle - THIS.

    oH, BUT A THOUSAND TIMES this.
    •  
      CommentAuthorScribe
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2012
     (10833.20)
    Reid needs to actually force the filibuster. Today's senate treats it like a parliamentary procedure. Currently, the basic structure goes something like this; Democrats bring up a bill, a Republican objects, Reed moves on to a new order of business.

    Reid does have the power to force the filibuster and make Republicans look like the dumb-fucks they really are. Past majority leaders have gone as far as closing off the doors to the senate floor, turning off the A/C, denying bathroom and meal breaks, and forcing the debate. On the downside, McCain might think he is back in a Vietnamese torture cell and go balls-out ape-shit.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.