myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
the big lie "the media is liberal"
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 111, 112, 113 ... 142, 143, 144  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
youwindsurf



Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 677
Location: Classified

PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The first question is: Did the Republicans block judicial appointments for reasons other than the lack of qualification of a nominee? If the answer is "Yes", then why complain when the Democrats lawfully modify a rule of the Senate to allow a vote on the nominee? Why not simply allow an up or down vote? Can a Conservative reading this post formulate an answer to these questions?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5399

PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deep, deep hypocrisy. When the Republicans take something that has been handled with courtesy through multiple presidents of both parties--extending the debt on budgets already passed and implemented--the whacky right says that such a break with tradition is bold. The result--economic damage and no accomplishments. When the Republicans turn the occasional strategy of the 18th and 19th century--a total of 12 filibusters--into a wholesale attack on every single aspect of a president elected by a landslide, and reelected by a margin of 5 million votes--we get the most paranoid screaming.

When the toilet trained Republicans start cleaning up after those who aren't, I'll still say that they are reaping exactly what they sowed. Exactly. And about time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bajaDean



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 954
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DanWeiss wrote:
nw30 wrote:

Okay, you and Dan agree, you basically said what Dan said.
That still doesn't make what Reid did acceptable, the Repubs may have abused the filibuster, your and Dan's chosen word. But I say that Reid just abused the senate rules, by changing them, rules set up by our forefathers.
So take your pick on which abuse is worse. I say the latter is far worse, not even close. The Repubs were just exercising their legal right, for the reasons mentioned in my previous post.
It's childish, "it's not fair, I'm changing the rules!!!". Playground logic.


Our forefathers? Like the Founders? Exactly who did you have in mind?

Since the earlies days of our Consitutional government until 1917, the only way to end a filibuster was for the filibustering Senator to pass out or quit.

The Senate's procedural rule regarding cloture votes was established in 1917 to end an filibuster regarding ratifying the Treaty of Versailles. The super-majority aspect 66/7 absolute votes for cloture did not apply; only a super-majority of the Senators present were required. So, it was possible that most Senators were absent and a very low number was required. Note that cloture was never achieved until the early 1960s despite around a dozen attempts.

It was not until 1975 that a hard-number majority was required. So, no matter how few Senators were hanging around the floor, any motion for cloture required 60 votes (adjusted for vacant seats).

So to say that the procedural rule is some holy vessel of Constitutional balance is greatly misinformed.
No, you mean Mr. Smith goes to washington was pre 40s.... well '39 by a good amount of time?

Great point and amazing how the right wing media is not discussing that point whenever MITCH MCCONNEL sheds a farse tear.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14339

PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
it's not just judicial appointees, it's way more than that.

Take Sibelius, for example, who supports abortion at birth at the mother's whim. And science czar Holdren, who wrote that children are mere property, with no right to life, until they're two years old, and that the main problem with putting sterilizing chemicals in the public drinking water was side effects.

As President, Obama appointed as his Science “Czar” John Holdren, a man who co-authored a book advocating for eugenics. In his book, Dr. Holdren argued that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bajaDean



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 954
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
nw30 wrote:
it's not just judicial appointees, it's way more than that.

Take Sibelius, for example, who supports abortion at birth at the mother's whim. And science czar Holdren, who wrote that children are mere property, with no right to life, until they're two years old, and that the main problem with putting sterilizing chemicals in the public drinking water was side effects.

As President, Obama appointed as his Science “Czar” John Holdren, a man who co-authored a book advocating for eugenics. In his book, Dr. Holdren argued that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.


hmmm sounds like right wing distortions in the makings to me. Please show the exact words in the boook where it was "argued as a this is what we should do" I can see a person discussing it all options that others have done or suggested, but a ignorant hating right winger of propaganda would say it is "argued" for that specifically.

And yes abortion at a mothers whim, yes a female should have the right to decide what to do with her body. you and your religios finatics are not the deciders of when life starts. after all the new Pope has said that birth control and abortion priorities are not correct in this world. I assume you could not understand what he was saying here.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14339

PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bajaDean wrote:
hmmm sounds like right wing distortions ... Please show the exact words in the book where it was "argued as a this is what we should do" I can see a person discussing it all options that others have done or suggested, but a ignorant hating right winger of propaganda would say it is "argued" for that specifically.

And yes abortion at a mothers whim, yes a female should have the right to decide what to do with her body. you and your religios finatics are not the deciders of when life starts.

At birth, dude, life has started, regardless of how liberal one is.

And anyone can Google up Holdren's book. Do your own homework.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
youwindsurf



Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 677
Location: Classified

PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PANTS ON FIRE!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/

As evidence that the country is closer to socialist than capitalist these days, radio and talk show host Glenn Beck recently made this claim about John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy:

"I mean, we've got czars now," Beck said during his July 22, 2009, program. "Czars like John Holdren, who has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."

Political figures like Holdren, who are little-known by most Americans, make easy targets. And Beck's biting quick hit on Holdren provides a healthy enough dose of outrage on which to hang his argument.

But is it true?

Beck's allegation has its roots in a book Holdren co-authored with Paul and Annie Ehrlich more than three decades ago called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment .

Conservative bloggers have quoted the book extensively, and often out of context, to make the point that Holdren has advocated positions such as the ones Beck stated.

We obtained the book to see exactly what Holdren, then a young man, wrote (or co-wrote). The book is just over 1,000 pages, and it clearly makes that case that an explosion in population presented a grave crisis. Although it is a textbook, the authors don't shy away from presenting a point of view. As the preface states, "We have tried throughout the book to state clearly where we stand on various matters of controversy."

In a section on "Involuntary Fertility Control," Holdren and the other authors discuss various "coercive" means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. But they stop well short of advocating such measures.

Here's a few excerpts:

"The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. ...

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. ...

"Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children."

Later, the authors conclude, "Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).

"Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries."

And here's the part that some have interpreted as Holdren advocating for forced abortions.

"To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however."

This comes in a section discussing population law. The authors argue that compulsory abortions could potentially be allowed under U.S. law "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." Again, that's a far cry from advocating or proposing such a position.

In the book, the authors certainly advocate making abortions readily accessible for women who want to get them. But they never advocate forced abortions. Big difference.

In response to the comments from Beck and others, Holdren's office issued this statement: "The quotations used to suggest that Dr. Holdren supports coercive approaches to limiting population growth were taken from a 1977 college textbook on environmental science and policy, of which he was the third author. The quoted material was from a section of the book that described different possible approaches to limiting population growth and then concluded that the authors’ own preference was to employ the noncoercive approaches before the environmental and social impacts of overpopulation led desperate societies to employ coercive ones. Dr. Holdren has never been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive means of population limitation."

Holdren's office also provided a statement from Annie and Paul Ehrlich, the co-authors: "We have been shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren in blog posts based on misreadings of our jointly-authored 1000-page 1977 textbook, ECOSCIENCE. We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described — but not recommended — in the book's 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator.

Under questioning by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he "no longer thinks it's productive to focus on optimum population for the United States. ... I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally, and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have for years been calling 'sustainable prosperity.'"

Vitter continued with his line of question, asking directly, "Do you think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?"

Said Holdren: "No, senator, I do not. ... I think the proper role of government is to develop and deploy the policies with respect to economy, environment, security, that will ensure the well-being of the citizens we have."

But with regard to Beck's claim that Holdren "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population," the text of the book clearly does not support that. We think a thorough reading shows that these were ideas presented as approaches that had been discussed. They were not posed as suggestions or proposals. In fact, the authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate for forced abortions.

Some have argued that Holdren's view of the imminent and grave global dangers posed by overpopulation should provide pause, given Holdren's current view that global warming now presents imminent and grave global dangers. That's a matter for reasoned debate.

But in seeking to score points for a political argument, Beck seriously mischaracterizes Holdren's positions. Holdren didn't advocate those ideas then. And, when asked at a Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he did not support them now. We think it's irresponsible to pluck a few lines from a 1,000-page, 30-year-old textbook, and then present them out of context to dismiss Holdren's long and distinguished career. And we rate Beck's claim Pants on Fire!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14339

PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Holdren spent too much time on his list of possibilities, and allied too closely with Paul Ehrlich, for anyone to believe he was simply listing wild ideas he had no interest in.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bajaDean



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 954
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
bajaDean wrote:
hmmm sounds like right wing distortions ... Please show the exact words in the book where it was "argued as a this is what we should do" I can see a person discussing it all options that others have done or suggested, but a ignorant hating right winger of propaganda would say it is "argued" for that specifically.

And yes abortion at a mothers whim, yes a female should have the right to decide what to do with her body. you and your religios finatics are not the deciders of when life starts.

At birth, dude, life has started, regardless of how liberal one is.

And anyone can Google up Holdren's book. Do your own homework.


you are the one who posted what he "said" back it up or retract it. again posting lies is bearing false witness specially when brought to your attention... you seem to be the one following the religious commandments like they are written in stone.

yep life does not start at conception is my decision and you can determine what is right for you. and that date is to be determined by you or the mother or father?

or are you saying you know more than the Pope and are higher ranking to priorities in the religious life than he?

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4240

PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
The "reasoning" of the right:

Quote:
whether it's constitutional or not


Can you find some constitutional reference for the procedural rules of the Senate? Of course you can't. Rules are made so we play nice. If you don't play nice, guess what--there are consequences. But listen to the piggies squeal! Only Republicans get to shut down the government!
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing


Good, I'm glad there will no longer be rules. It will now be called the banana kingdom. Anything goes if you are in power. I can't wait to see how this turns out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 111, 112, 113 ... 142, 143, 144  Next
Page 112 of 144

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group