Bernie Sanders: A Force to Reckon With
There's no arguing with success. Try as one might to tear down an unstoppable force, there are certain realities that have to be dealt with head on; and the reality of the moment is the fact that Bernie Sanders is not going away any time soon. For the first time in the history of American electoral politics, a national candidate has thrown caution to the wind and is saying all of the things that desperately need to be said. Any whaddaya know! A good number of the electorate are not recoiling in horror. They're listening. Even Franklin Roosevelt wasn't this bold when he ran against fish-in-a-barrel candidate, Herbert Hoover, in 1932. Who'd have thunk? Ain't these interesting times?
Some are implying (or saying out loud) that the left are about to cut off their noses to spite their faces by supporting a guy who is "unelectable" just as they did sixteen years ago when they handed the White House to George W. Bush by throwing their support behind Ralph Nader.
REALITY CHECK:
This is not 2000. Back then, very few observers (myself excepted) could perceive what a complete fool and incompetent Dubya was. Things are a lot different today. One look at the clown bus that is the 2016 Republican primary is all one needs to wash away any lingering doubt about Bernie's electability. (Spell Check is telling me that "electability" is not a proper word. Screw them). Last week, the only GOP candidate even remotely qualified for the presidency, George Pataki, dropped out of the race. He wasn't even registering in the polls. What does that tell you about "the party of Abraham Lincoln"? It's a pretty bleak picture to be sure.
`
This is not meant as an insult to Hillary Clinton. Browsing through the archives, it is clear that I was inexcusably cruel toward her and her campaign during the Democratic primaries in 2008. I wince now at some of the things that I wrote then. One piece was called "Hideous Clinton". How's that for pure nastiness? Every photograph of her I used on this blog at the time was the most unflattering I could find. I've mellowed a bit in the ensuing seven years. In 2016 I promise to be kinder and gentler. My problem with Ms. Clinton is that her record as a true "progressive" is not very impressive. You can bet that, if elected, her attorney general (like Barack Obama's attorney general) will not be seeking to imprison the Wall Street "banksters" who have made a sport of looting the American economy during the past third of a century. I want a person who's going to do some serious ass kicking.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is not that person.
And, yes, I would love to follow the prepubescent of electing the first African American president by putting into office the first woman president.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is not that woman. Sorry.
Unless they can figure out a way to resurrect the body of Lincoln from the dead, there is no way in hell I'll be voting for a Republican in November. I'll be voting Democrat come Election Day, rest assured. I just don't want to be holding my nose while I'm casting my ballot, that's all.
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net
AFTERTHOUGHT:
The photograph at the top of this piece was "commandeered" from the Facebook page of Cindi Parsano. I could not resist!
SUGGESTED READING:
The Life and Times of Mickey Rooney
by Richard Lertzman and William Birnes
Mickey Rooney passed away on April 6, 2014. There can be no argument that he was a gifted performer. Sir Laurence Olivier was once asked whom he thought the most talented person Hollywood ever produced was. Without missing a beat he replied, "Mickey Rooney". Cary Grant thought the same thing. Yeah, the Mick was pretty talented. He was also a dysfunctional, reckless sociopath who treated many people luckless enough to cross his path - wives, children, business associates - like dirt. There's also evidence that he had sex with at least one underage girl (a fourteen-year-old) He once expressed anger at one of his own sons for ruining his birthday by dying on it. Class act, that Mickey. Although the book could have been edited better, it is well researched and was made with the cooperation of Rooney's family. 600 pages long, I finished it in three days - although I had to take a shower when I was through.
SUGGESTED VIEWING:
Some sane progressive commentary from Debbie Lusignan:
Debbie Lusignan
The woman is on fire.
`
Hillary Rodham Clinton is not that person.
And, yes, I would love to follow the prepubescent of electing the first African American president by putting into office the first woman president.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is not that woman. Sorry.
Unless they can figure out a way to resurrect the body of Lincoln from the dead, there is no way in hell I'll be voting for a Republican in November. I'll be voting Democrat come Election Day, rest assured. I just don't want to be holding my nose while I'm casting my ballot, that's all.
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net
AFTERTHOUGHT:
The photograph at the top of this piece was "commandeered" from the Facebook page of Cindi Parsano. I could not resist!
SUGGESTED READING:The Life and Times of Mickey Rooney
by Richard Lertzman and William Birnes
Mickey Rooney passed away on April 6, 2014. There can be no argument that he was a gifted performer. Sir Laurence Olivier was once asked whom he thought the most talented person Hollywood ever produced was. Without missing a beat he replied, "Mickey Rooney". Cary Grant thought the same thing. Yeah, the Mick was pretty talented. He was also a dysfunctional, reckless sociopath who treated many people luckless enough to cross his path - wives, children, business associates - like dirt. There's also evidence that he had sex with at least one underage girl (a fourteen-year-old) He once expressed anger at one of his own sons for ruining his birthday by dying on it. Class act, that Mickey. Although the book could have been edited better, it is well researched and was made with the cooperation of Rooney's family. 600 pages long, I finished it in three days - although I had to take a shower when I was through.
Some sane progressive commentary from Debbie Lusignan:
Debbie Lusignan
The woman is on fire.
posted by Tom Degan @ 8:15 AM
44 comments
44 Comments:
Mr. Degan, I simply don’t get it. You are obviously a smart guy. Hell, many of my progressive friends and family with whom I argue, even on your own blog here, are smart people. And yet, nearly every one of them says that they will vote for Hillary if she is the Democrat nominee. For the life of me, I cannot understand how intelligent and good people could vote for such a craven liar who has continuously been embroiled in scandal of her own making by flouting the law and the United States Constitution.
You correctly acknowledge that if elected, she will not only NOT prosecute Wall Street malfeasance, but she will likely encourage it to further build up Clinton Foundation coffers. If there is any sense of justice left in our government, the current FBI investigation into her mishandling of classified information will result in an indictment against her and remove her from consideration for the presidency. Short of a conviction though, I half fear that many progressives will still vote for her.
The alternative is Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed socialist. Amazing. And yet, Hillary is so corrupt that for the sake of our country, I honestly hope that Bernie is the nominee. Many of his policies are exceptionally foolish, but he appears to be an honest man. I would welcome an open and honest debate between him and hopefully Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio for the presidency because it would be based on ideals. (It is my fervent hope and prayer that people will wake up and realize what a fraud and narcissist Donald Trump is, and we don’t need another president like that following the one we currently have in office.)
I can pledge right now that if Trump is the GOP nominee, I will NOT vote for him, out of principle. I wish my smart and well-meaning progressive friends would pledge to do the same with the even more execrable Hillary if the Democrats do foolishly nominate her as their candidate. Shouldn’t principles and the Constitution mean something? Are we really that far gone as a nation?
"Spell Check is telling me that "electability" is not a proper word. Screw them"
Good for you Tom, I'm joining your Screw Spell Check movement!
At least Trump respects Putin so my day will not be ruined by a blinding flash of light, I hate when that happens. Trump over Hiterly any day.
Of course Sanders is our best hope for some over due sane politics and policies. If not Sanders then I will vote Jill Stein as I did in the last election. I rather be screwed by a Republican Fascist than a Democratic Fascist, at least they are honest about how they will wreak the country.
'there is no way in hell I'll be voting for a Republican in November. I'll be voting Democrat come November, rest assured. I just don't want to be holding my nose while I'm casting my ballot, that's all."
Tom Degan
"I can pledge right now that if Trump is the GOP nominee, I will NOT vote for him, out of principle."
T Paine
Key word here is principle, principle before party. It would seem that progressives/ liberals/ democrats might lack this important gene.
I remember saying here that I hoped Bernie would win the nomination because he was an honest if misguided man. I remember saying here that I thought it would be great if American could choose between a true socialist/liberal and a true free enterprise/conservative. The results of the election would put an end to the question of is American liberal or conservative. (I know this, if Chris Matthews had asked Bernie the question he asked Clinton "what is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist" he would could answer!)
Several months ago Tom had Jeb in his sights, that has changed, now it's all the GOP candidates. But really, is this a change? Sadly I see that for all the talk of reaching across the "isle" to get the peoples work done, from a liberal/progressive democrat point of view, it is only work if it advances their agenda. Anything out side their view they believe only supports the 1%, the corporations, et al.
This election is not about principles as TP has staked his position, but it is about who can advance the agenda of a political party. I see the establishment part of the GOP fearful that an outsider will be their candidate. Party over principle..just like Tom.
Polls show that 20% of democrats polled would vote for Trump. So why isn't the establishment GOP getting behind Trump? I guess it is because he doesn't need them, the same as the DNC not supporting Bernie. If either won, the Party couldn't control the candidate. The purpose of a political party used to be to win elections, now it is to grow in power.
It is refreshing that Bernie and the GOP outsiders (IE: Trump, Cruz, Carson) are, up to this point, doing well in their races . Maybe, just maybe next Nov's election will be about principals not party. And Tom won't have to hold his nose to vote.
"Polls show that 20% of democrats polled would vote for Trump. So why isn't the establishment GOP getting behind Trump? I guess it is because he doesn't need them, the same as the DNC not supporting Bernie. If either won, the Party couldn't control the candidate. The purpose of a political party used to be to win elections, now it is to grow in power.
It is refreshing that Bernie and the GOP outsiders (IE: Trump, Cruz, Carson) are, up to this point, doing well in their races . Maybe, just maybe next Nov's election will be about principals not party."
Chuck, you absolutely nailed it here. The parties have indeed become corrupt. They want a candidate that is beholden to them so they can nudge and bully their pet interests into being legislated in their favor. (Sounds like Hillary running the State Department.) This has always been so, but it is now quite blatant.
I too would love to see the final debates come down to two outsiders not beholden to either party and espousing their principles. I have just enough hope left in me that I think America will choose a Constitutional free-market conservative over a big-government tax-and-spend socialist. We can only pray, my friend!
Amazing, Tom thinks socialism is the future of America. And you call yourself smart. Laughable.
Amazing, Tom thinks socialism is the future of America. And you call yourself smart. Laughable.
So long as the Republican party insists on nominating those who would take from women their right to choose, would block gay marriage, would go to war at the drop of a hat, would give tax cuts to those who are already wealthy beyond measure, who put down environmental causes, don't value the land, and only value the dollar, there is no way I could vote for a Republican. It has gotten so extreme that the main ones wanting to be President this year would make Social Security meaningless, and end any kind of health care for those who don't work for a corporation or are already wealthy.
So, of course, people like me will vote for Hillary if she is the Democrat (I am still hoping she won't be), and we'll do it holding our nose because she's better than any Republican running right now. I will though be voting for Bernie in the primary. I haven't given up on him and his commonsense proposals to get America in a healthier position. He won't be sending us to war (can't count on Hillary not to), he is on the side of the middle class.
The word socialism is much abused by those who equate it with communism and not Europe. Our libraries, highways, police, fire protection, food inspection, etc. are all potentially seen as socialism as are our public schools. People need to get more informed on what Bernie stands for as he should appeal to some libertarians as well as moderate progressives. I think he'll even draw from Republican ranks once the voters hear what he stands for; and in a debate with Trump, it should be fun as no way could they avoid the issues facing this country. I'd be all for hearing that kind of debate unlike the ridiculous one Thursday night in SC.
Rain, respectfully I don’t see how voting for a someone who is so corrupt and untrustworthy would be better than voting for nobody at all, or writing in a vote if you must.
While I obviously disagree with most of your characterizations of all of the members of the Republican field, I think there are several folks that are truly decent guys. Gay marriage and abortion rights are already settled so I doubt that, outside of a constitutional amendment, those policies would ever get reversed, even under a Republican president and congress. As for the rest of the boilerplate talking points, some have partial merit and some are merely campaign rhetoric. Healthcare has NOT improved for most Americans under the misnamed Affordable Care Act. It needs to be repealed in its entirety and replaced so that it truly lowers costs for most Americans, instead of being a boondoggle for the insurance companies, and a huge problem for most of the insured.
I have traveled all around the world, and communism’s lesser cousin of socialism has not provided most of Europe the same average lifestyle and living wage that the typical American has here. Our federal government does indeed have specific duties and responsibilities it must do. It is when it steps outside of its constitutional mandates in trying to provide everything for everybody that we run into gross inefficiencies, waste, corruption, and costly bureaucracy.
While I hope that Bernie Sanders is indeed the Democrat nominee, I do hope the other choice will not be Trump. If such is the case, neither one of them will get my vote. Regardless of the outcome of the election with those being the main choices, our country will not fare well at all.
I have always voted and will be doing it in '16 if I am alive to do so. I believe it is a responsibility even when we don't like the choice and I have only rarely liked the choices. If you have read the proposals by Bernie, you will know he's not that unreasonable. Making a college education available for all good students seems something that should have happened years ago. The health care act has helped those with conditions that enabled the insurance corporations to block them. You are not thinking about the whole picture. Most of the glitches with it are there because Republicans wanted it that way. Bernie though favors medicare for all which sounds good to me.
As for these issues being settled, you have to be joking. Look at the states where the Repubs control and see what it's done to birth control and abortion rights. It's not even just that but education where they want creationism taught as science and would actually make our schools in worse shape then they are. Give them more power and watch them do more like assigning someone who knows nothing about science to oversee it. Sorry but you are wrong about the damage they can do. They have shown it time and again.
As for Hillary, most of the supposed corruption is unproven or she'd be in jail. I am hoping that the issue of the emails is resolved soon by the FBI because if she is going to be charged, we need to know it while Joe could still get in. I don't like her. I don't want her. I also believe she's too much like Margaret Thatcher for my taste, but she is better than any Republican who is driven by religious values that don't remotely relate to anything Christ taught. An ideologue like Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush is scary to imagine the damage they could do in the name of their idea of a god.
I think though that Bernie has a good chance to actually win. And I'd love to see him debate Trump. Incidentally, as a long-time Democrat, who has only rarely voted for a Republican (but it has happened), of all the ones running on the Republican side, I'd rather it was Trump! Yes, he throws out racist jargon to get the nomination but what he'd be once he got in would be very different. He is a street guy from NYC which even though from wealth, it's who he is and pretty much a redneck. I won't be voting for him but if I was a rightie, I'd choose him over any of the religious zealots!
Rain,
Is abortion birth control?
I don't mean to intrude into the slugfest that T Paine has prompted. I simply want to comment on something else.
Tom, you said, "Who'd have thunk?Ain't these interesting times?"
Don't celebrate interesting times. Celebrate boring ones. Remember the ancient Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times."
Banking, for example, used to be a boring pastime, until Wall Street brought it to the adrenalin-pumping, fascinatingly complex level of interestingness that nearly sank the economy.
I'm for Bernie, not least of all because he threatens to make banking boring again.
Yours very crankily,
The New York Crank
T. Paine.
I agree with you. I do hope that Bernie gets the nod by the party. But if the eventual choice is Hillary Clinton - or any one of the GOP candidates. I'll have no other choice unfortunately.
Early birth control prevents the embryo from implanting in the uterus; so it can be considered so. For those who believe conception is when life begins, anything short of rhythm method and a blocking method would be criminal. But I believe that abortion should be legal until the fourth month and then after that depending on the reasons. I am not one who believes late term abortions should be legal. It is one of those ways that a moderate differs from ideologues. I can see something besides black and white. Same with gun control where I can believe in owning guns but also in regulations for not only who can but what kind. Ideologues know no gray. I am well past the age where abortion matters for me personally, but I grew up when it was illegal and women died having it in back alleys and some lost their ability to ever have a child due to botched procedures. Pushing it out of legal facilities, guarantees back alleys. It's always interesting how the party that claims to want less regulations stop when it involves reproductive rights of women or marriage.
Rain – your belief that abortion should be legal until the fourth month is right out of the Roe v Wade decision. I have yet to meet an opponent of abortion who would admit to having read that decision. Roe v Wade was a remarkable decision. Besides being unanimous it is a well-documented decision. Before commenting on abortion, people should read that decision.
Many people think Roe v Wade meant that, la de da, an abortion was a decision that anyone can have an abortion at any time in the pregnancy. That is simply not the case. The decision focuses on viability of the fetus. It is a careful balancing of the rights of the woman to control decisions about her body and the rights of the fetus to be born. It also recognizes medical complications that in some cases become paramount
As to condemning birth control, I had a vasectomy. That was certainly a fool-proof method of birth control. My wife and I are coming up on age 82 so any current talk about birth control falls in to the comic venue. We are also coming up this year on our 60th wedding anniversary.
We proceeded to have five children in our first seven years of marriage. The birth of our fifth child disclosed a blood problem so we had to stop, hence the vasectomy. Our fifth child was one of the last baby boomers (born in 1964).
Those years were also the time of back-alley abortions, which primarily affected poor people. With enough money a medically-safe abortion was always available in certain foreign countries. In 1954 a good friend’s girlfriend became pregnant and she had a back-alley abortion. He was a Korean veteran and was slowly climbing out of poverty. He had to rush her to a hospital and she almost died. And the police clapped him in jail for aiding an abortion. It ruined their lives.
Today most people have no idea of the evils of back-alley abortions. Be careful what you wish for.
Ron Baldwin, it seems you and I agree. Commonsense can play a role in such issues. It's the winner take all mentality that has become so detrimental where compromise is a bad word and hence nothing gets done.
Ron, Who twisted the Roe V Wade decision that abortion should be legal until the fourth month to what is now? Pro lifer's, Conservatives or was it liberals who pushed for expanding the decision to allow abortion at any time?
How many of those who support abortion on demand, know about the original limitations?
That change comes from ideologues and I've always said on the far left or far right, they have more in common with each other than with the moderates who don't take extreme positions. The argument for partial birth is to save the mother's life except why not do a C-section then? But extremes, where they can't use logic, cause harm to both parties. Same is true with gun control. A lot of states do now block abortions from the time the baby can survive, which I think is just over the 20th week. There is no excuse for late term abortions. If the couple break up or she suddenly decides she doesn't want to be a mom after all, then adoption is the option. We don't let someone murder a baby outside the womb, why would we in it? But it's not the same thing when it's done very early and the right wing extremists won't see that.
Rain,
Was it liberals or conservatives that pushed the limits of abortion past the original months? Was it left wing extremists?
Using 4 months as a cut off point, then abortion after that would be "late term"?
Interesting how before 4 months when the baby human can't survive out side of it's mother it's ok to remove it from it's life support, IE it's mother, but after 4 months it's not?
I find it sad how liberals who support abortion claim it is conservatives who are infringing on the a woman's right, have had to accept late term abortions.
Is your knowledge of the subject all from books and newspaper articles, Chuck? Have you known women in desperate situations where they got pregnant after birth control failed? Women with too many children already? Since you cannot have experienced pregnancy, you don't know what it's like for a woman other than what she tells you. I personally believe if a woman knows she cannot bear another child, it's not up to you or any other extremist to say she cannot. There has to be a cutoff point though as the fetus/baby is growing and eventually can feel, begins to have a brain, etc.
For extremists, that cutoff point is at conception. For others it's before viability. For me it should be as soon as it is medically possible.
Since I know of a time before it was legal, how it was for women then, the stories in my own family, of friends, and the tragedies that sometimes followed, I don't really care what you think or anyone else. You can keep your personal moral beliefs and I don't mind. Just don't push them onto others. I can relate to the need to be merciful to the fetus and the mother-- that requires the slippery slope though and oh my gosh how that scares righties and lefties.
As to who stretched it out to the full length of the pregnancy-- left wingers, of course, who feared where the right wants to stop it at conception. Both sides react to this kind of fear and as I said, it's a lot like gun control.
I haven't had an abortion but I know enough about what it's like for women who are not wanting the pregnancies as I did mine, that I am not about to make their decision for them. If someone believes it's wrong, don't do it. I also believe for women who do carry a child to full term, who need economic help, it should be there for them. If someone is against all abortions, for righteous reasons in their own minds or even fear (some religious fear a god smiting them if they condone what they believe he didn't -- even though the Bible never addresses abortion. Jesus said not a word about it. If someone wants to call early abortions murder and kill the woman who has one, well that sounds like Sharia law to me, doesn't it to you?
The games people play here with constantly wanting to nitpick and force arguments that get nobody anywhere is why I seldom read the comments. It is not possible to get an ideologue to change their mind based on logic and yet once in awhile I try. I think, after this thread, I'll stick to reading Tom's points and stay out of comments as I can't afford the time for something that goes nowhere. It usually doesn't take long before it descends into name calling which is where I totally give it up as I believe there are good people on both sides of the partisan divide who disagree on abortion and yes, gun control. I know that's not how all see it.
Rain, I do understand and even have some appreciation for your nuanced arguments regarding abortion. Where you have advocated compromise and an avoidance of extremist positions on both the left and right of the spectrum on various issues, I find myself agreeing in certain contexts. For many issues and much legislation, both left and right tend to dig in their heels and refuse to budge so as not to give the other side a "win". Such intractability tends to not help anyone.
However, there are certain core values where I personally don't feel that there should ever be compromises made. Those issues generally include those listed in our Bill of Rights. Those should not be negotiable or subject to compromise. For me, protecting innocent life also is an area where I will not compromise.
We can argue about when abortion should be legal and under what circumstances, etc., but all of those issues come down to some arbitrary standard that we humans impose. Viability used to be a lot further along in the pregnancy process, but now in the United States with modern medicine, viability occurs much sooner in the gestation process. That, as a standard, is a moving target accordingly. To me, the only safe way is to err on the side of life. Consequently, unless the life of the mother is in danger directly because of the pregnancy, abortion should never be an option.
I know many people see huge areas that are shaded gray and only find narrowly defined issues that they consider black and white. That is fine and their right; however, I also think that is part of the reason we have seen a moral collapse with our families and thus societies these days. I do recognize that sometimes there are middle ground areas of gray, but most of the time there is typically only black and white .... or what used to be called "right" and "wrong". It is moral relativism and the expansion of those gray areas to encompass nearly all things that allows nearly anything to be permissible in society these days accordingly. It is why where we once would never consider abortion as a morally acceptable choice one hundred years ago, now it is funded by tax-payer dollars.
Last, with all due respect, do you honestly think that Christ would tolerate abortion? God gave us the gift of life. I think the selfish destruction of innocent life would be something that would greatly sadden Him. Further, Christ never explicitly spoke about pedophilia or necrophilia either, but I think it is very safe to assume that such abhorrent practices would also be something that He would deem as gravely sinful, ma'am.
All of that said, I appreciate your civil debate and clearly stated arguments. I too hate the name-calling and the sophomoric attitudes when people disagree. We need more commentary from thoughtful progressives like you; not less. Best wishes to you!
Well said TP.
I love how people talk about Sanders being a "Socialist" when what he is, is a DEMOCRATIC Socialist.
I wonder if T.Paine and the rest of the conservatives here realize that the USA has been based upon DEMOCRATIC Socialism since day one.
I also think it's holarious that even though H.Clinton has been cleared of ANY wrongdoing by no less than NINE republican comittees, conservatives still call her "scandal ridden" as if all the scandals were just BS things THEY made up.
I'd want H. Clinton running the country over ANY GOP candidate. All the GOP wants is to cut taxes for the rich, repeal Obamacare, destroy social security and medicare, eliminate the EPA and all unions so the corporations can be free to exploit us, and kill all avenues of education to all but the rich.
Oh, and get a couple wars started, their defense contractor buddies cannot make billions unless we are at war.
chuck, like so many things, conscience should be our guide. The Bible does not say a woman cannot terminate a pregnancy. The only place that comes close is Exodus 21:22 'If men strive [fight] an hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.' But keep in mind, she had to be quite a ways along to be sure she eve was pregnant back then. Certainly it does not then claim he should be killed. If further harm comes, then the penalty grows as in if it cost her her life. But you are using this and so would I be as if our country was governed by the Bible. We know we are not. We don't stone disobedient children to death.
The problem with Christians on this issue is they want to force their laws onto others. I am fine with a Christian deciding abortion is murder for their own choices. I am not fine when you want to project your interpretation of the Biblical laws onto anybody else. This country is not a Christian nation by the Constitution. Right now a certain mentality of politicians want to change that. Which is why I say I'd never vote for a Republican right now. I have in the past but not happening. They cannot stop abortion. They can force it into the back alleys where women die. That's the only choice they have.
Some say well Jesus didn't know abortion would be an issue and it's why he didn't bring it up. My opinion is abortion has been around since people got pregnant and figured out ways to end the pregnancy, often involving herbs, which could poison the woman too. Jesus concentrated on more important things like not judging, like not being greedy, like exercising love on others. Frankly if more Christians followed his guidelines, this wouldn't be an issue. They'd be concentrating on their own moral choices and not hitting on a woman who is in a position they have no idea what it would mean to be. A lot who disapprove of abortion find it changes when they have a family member in that situation.
Paul Ryan goes so far as to say even a raped woman should be forced to have the baby. These are the same men who say the government is interfering too much in people's lives... Amazing.
Incidentally, I know lefties who also think abortion is wrong based on the same reason most righties do-- believing God thinks like they do. Well, there is no evidence for that and plenty for taking care of the poor, healing the sick, understanding the concept of grace...
Mozart, I understand that Bernie Sanders is a "Democratic" socialist in the mold of many of the western European leaders. It is interesting how one has to mitigate and soften the word "socialist" by placing "Democratic" in front of it though. I wonder how much longer THAT will even be necessary, considering the "quality" of today's education.
And please enlighten me regarding how America has been based on Democratic socialism since its founding. I am truly curious to hear about this, sir.
As for Hillary, you have finally inspired me to write my next blog post on all of her scandals and lawlessness. If your threshold on lack of criminality for her is simply the fact that she hasn't been convicted of any of her crimes yet, then I expect you to be consistent and not judge George W. Bush as a criminal either. :)
I won't even bother addressing the rest of your tired DNC talking points, Mr. Mozart. The only people that truly believe them are progressive partisans.
I think an INFORMED conscience should be one's guide. There is a distinct difference. There are a lot of good people in the world that may be ignorant and have not fully developed their consciences based on whatever faith or philosophy they profess to follow.
As for some of the Mosaic laws of the Old Testament, Christ came and founded a new covenant with us. We no longer are expected to mete out death penalties for the breaking of some moral laws. We are told to turn the other cheek instead of always seeking an eye for an eye.
I don't presume to know your faith background, Rain, but if you are of any orthodox Christian faith, then you know that Christ is God and the second person of the Holy Trinity. As such, He would know everything that the Father knows. He silence on forbidding abortion isn't because he didn't know that it would become a prevalent problem two millenia down the road.
Speaking for myself, I don't want to force my faith on anyone else and I sure don't want our government to do so either. That said, our nation was indeed founded on Judeo-Christian principles which have informed and guided our laws, and indeed our very founding document as a nation in the Declaration of Independence, where we are all endowed by our Creator with the inalienable rights to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Further, and with no disrespect intended, you are wrong about judging. Christ told us the standards He expects us to live by. All of us fall short, especially me. That doesn't mean that we are not to discern what is right and wrong based on His standards. We are not to condone in ourselves or others what He considers evil. In other words we are to judge the actions as to whether they are right or wrong. Judging the person and their soul is NOT something we should be doing. That is for Him alone to do.
As for Paul Ryan, I understand that his stance is horrifying to you, but if one believes that life truly does begin at conception and killing any life, even one founded in the despicably evil act of rape, isn't he simply being consistent in his beliefs, ma'am? Killing the child conceived in rape only adds another evil to the first heinous one committed. This is one more reason why the punishment for rapists should be far more severe then they currently are, in my opinion.
I am wasting my time but just want to say someone can be educated and disagree with you. I know a lot about the Bible, have read it through from beginning to end six plus times, not to mention multiple Bible studies. I was very into the rhetoric in my earlier life. I am not now part of any religion seeing them all as a good way for people to quit thinking for themselves and let someone else tell them what they should do and how to live-- often someone not remotely living their own life that way. Study your major Christian leaders today and with a few exceptions, you see money matters more than anything else to them. They don't remotely teach the Gospels.
Our Constitution is not a Judeo-Christian document and if you are aware of the earlier codes of government you know about the Hammurabi Code and know that the Magna Carta is actually the cornerstone of most modern concepts of government. We followed a lot of British law which is why women could not vote as much as for any logical reason.
So you go ahead and believe you should never have an abortion. I'd be all for helping you not have to have one by government programs to help you get that baby to adulthood which means food, housing, education, but for you to tell me what my conscience should dictate, not happening.
Now if you get any of these yahoos running on the right, you may well get it outlawed, throw women in prison if they have one, force it into back alleys. You will be forcing your version of law onto others. Very Sharia law or back to the Puritans where you can drown or hang a witch. Yep, heading right back there.
This though is getting us nowhere. It began because I said I wouldn't vote for a Republican today and this is one reason. You just show why with your view that whatever you believe is moral must be so...
Rain,
The problem with Christians on this issue is they want to force their laws onto others.
What's your take on Muslims stand on abortion?
Sorry Rain, I thought I had singed in before I posted the last post to you
Chuck
Since I am down on religions, after being intensely into them (Catholic and then Evangelical), I don't look for how Muslims regard it anymore than Jews or Christians or Buddhists or whatever. I also, as a young woman, studied Mormonism, I was very looking for a religion to get me an answer to spirituality. I discovered religions often got in the way of spirituality and hence now am a heretic to them all and definitely doomed to hell, which might worry me if I believed in one ;). And for anyone wanting to think i left religion because I wanted to live a wild and reckless life, not the case. I've been married 51 years with no intention of changing things. Our kids and us live conservative lives pretty much. We just don't believe in religions... My view on abortion is based on what to me seems commonsense that at a certain point, the fetus has feelings and becomes more like a baby. When it can survive on its own, the mother no longer has all the rights. I know... sliding scale... gray when only black is easy :). I will say that you all have been nice about this. We can agree to disagree. It will influence our voting. Some issues matter more than others but I think with abortion, it's the whole view of how women are seen by those who won't let them make the choice for themselves. I have a lot of other issues that matter regarding those who want to rush to war, those who cut taxes on the richest and make everybody else pay, global climate, environment, but when someone says no woman can have a legal abortion because my view of my religion says it's wrong, that's a deal breaker and usually a lot more goes with that viewpoint. In November, we'll see how important it is in the voting as it looks to me like, except for Trump, there is a clear choice between those who would again make it illegal from conception and those who will keep it legal and safe as it can be.
Rain, that is remarkable and wonderful that you have been married for 51 years! I applaud your example to all of us!
By the way, in my earlier comment I did not mean to imply that your conscience wasn't informed or that you were ignorant. My apologies if that is how you took it. You made the generalization that everyone should follow their own consciences. What I meant to articulate in my reply was that some peoples' consciences are based on whims and their own desires rather than being well formed and informed on what is best for them, society, and morality as a whole.
It is my hope that you continue to comment on Tom's blog in the future. I think it is good for all people to be able to civilly discuss difficult and controversial issues. We may not end up agreeing on everything, but I think it is important to listen to each other as that helps us to see that we often want the same things, but simply disagree on how best to achieve those ends. It helps to humanize each other with differing opinions. That seems to be a far better thing than to demonize and dehumanize the other person because they may not see things exactly as we do. Thanks for elevating the level of discourse here. It was badly needed!
Thank you, T. Paine.It has been an encouragement to me too that people can really discuss such divisive issues and bring forth their own point of view without attacking each other. :)
T. Paine
PUBLIC schools
PUBLIC utilities
PUBLIC roads and infrastructure
PUBLIC Libraries
Police and Fire Departments
THE MILITARY
ALL are examples of "DEMOCRATIC Socialism".
YOU use the word like some "scary" thing, because you know that 90% of conservatives will not research for themselves. They equate it to Communism (I wonder WHY?) They, like you, just take whatever Limbaugh, Beck and Fox Entertainment tell you because it's WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR.
You like your car, so Climate change MUST be a hoax, and you hate anyone but rich WHITE "Christians" so anyone NOT in that gang MUST be a danger, or even a (gasp) terrorist!
WHAT HAVE CONSERVATIVES DONE FOR THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS THE LAST 50 YEARS?
Rain, don't let T. Pain foo you. He'd take away your right to choose as quick as he'd shoot a Black kid in the back.
But he sure can "shovel the old windsong" when he wants to.
I insult sore loser with good reason, five years of being polite to him was enough. Seventy percent of his posts were insults and attacks on Liberals, the rest were racist posts and name stealing.
You have no reason to attack T. Paine at all, he is always polite and sincere. You are in the wrong Mozart.
"You are in the wrong Mozart"
Can I quote you Mr Hansen?
Mr. Mozart, by your reasoning then every nation in the western industrialized world is a democratic socialist nation. Any nation that has a common defense force is a democratic socialist nation. Any nation that builds roads is a democratic socialist nation. Interesting. I think you are painting with awfully broad strokes using that term, sir.
As for the rest of your insulting accusations, all I can say is that I honestly feel pity for you. You are a very angry man, it would seem. You know little to nothing about me, and despite the several misconceptions you did have about me that I tried to clear up, you evidently don't want to hear it. You have everyone pigeonholed into neat little categories that you can label and make broad binding assumptions over.
For the record, I cannot tell you the last time I listened to Limbaugh, and I am as likely to watch MS-NBC as I am Fox News. I try to get all viewpoints, sir. I recommend that you try it with an open mind too.
I am agnostic about global warming because I see so much of a political agenda attached to the cause and so many credible scientists that put up reasonable arguments countering anthropogenic global warming. That said, I do indeed love my car and have no intention of giving it up. I also love nature and God's wilder places. I think He has called us to be good stewards of His creation, and that is what I strive to do.
As for your despicable comment about me being willing to shoot a black kid in the back, well that says a lot more about you then it does about me. But you are right about one thing; I would indeed take away everyone's "right" to abortion if I could legally do so. And I will continue to donate my money and my time towards that hopeful end, sir.
Mr. Hansen, I appreciate your integrity and support. Thank you! Your courtesy gives me hope that even though we certainly have our disagreements too, we still can be civil in our disagreements and see each other as good human beings. If only we could change our culture everywhere so decent people of good will with differing views on controversial issues could reasonably discuss these issues, then perhaps congress and our president would one day follow suit and actually solve some of these issues instead of using them as a wedge to simply get re-elected. This is something of which both parties are guilty.
Mr. Morre, I'd say that you already did quote Mr. Hansen. :)
T. P.
You noticed.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, I've purposely gone weeks with out posting a thing here, much less viewing it, only to find that when I do return, I'm given "credit" for posts I didn't make under a variety of names including anonymous that are not mine.
I've even gone so far as to publish my I.P. (as has Harry, and they are different) and when I've traveled from my home, I've announced same and the new location, so those who understand how to use the map of posters to this site can reference my new location to my posts.
All to no avail. I'm still the ,main non liberal poster in the minds of liberals/progressives/democrats.
It's good to feel wanted :)!
Chuck, I feel badly for your situation. I really don't know what more you can do to prove it either. Hang in there. We conservative will always be "loved". :)
What bullshit, this is a very small site and there is no way on Earth that you are not a lying POS. You stole the name of Charles Moore and have the nerve to plead innocence!
There is a reason that T. Paine and Harley are "loved" and that you are despised.
Mr. Hansen
What's small is your ability to think and comprehend.
Cheers!
I insult sore loser with good reason, five years of being polite to him was enough. Seventy percent of his posts were insults and attacks on Liberals, the rest were racist posts and name stealing.
I happily quote Mr. Hansen and the truth of his statement. The troll’s dishonesty is entirely in service to the Republican Party.
Unfortunately, Chuck Sorre Loser Morre has fooled some people here. I have proof of his "Big Lie" on identity dishonesty. People choose to believe what they want to believe, though.
I'm not even going to note the inaccuracies, assumptions, and fallacies from our "True believers". Been there, done that.
==
Rain,
Now if you get any of these yahoos running on the right, you may well get it outlawed, throw women in prison if they have one, force it into back alleys. You will be forcing your version of law onto others. Very Sharia law or back to the Puritans where you can drown or hang a witch. Yep, heading right back there.
I made this point, illustrated by the radical laws of embryonic rights superior to women's rights in Costa Rica a couple threads ago. They refuse to recognize the possible extreme implementation of such laws.
This though is getting us nowhere.
Exactly. Just like they regard corporate PR over peer reviewed science.
They project peer reviewed science as driven by a "political agenda" and ignore the possibility that corporate PR is the real corporate, economic, and political agenda.
Who ya gonna believe? And pay no attention to record-breaking heat and the warmest years on record. Those thermometers have a "liberal, socialist, commie agenda" donchaknow.
This of course, is the exact belief system that bought corporate PR and refused to admit smoking can cause cancer. Too many Americans learn nothing from history. Just watch what happens when the corporate TPP laws hit us, and the next Republican war and recession is created.
Corporations never lie? We must allow our holy and infallible "job creators" to write the laws of our land? Don't be fooled. This is the true agenda of those posing as "Constitutional free-market conservatives".
This is the corporatocracy being built by the owners of the GOP, and abetted by Democrats.
Democratic socialism is the only viable alternative. This is why the Right must lie about democratic socialism being the same as a communist dictatorship.
Democracy, like unions and voting rights, will be destroyed if the Right has their one-party dictatorship.
Because "freedom" and “free market” are the lies they wrap around the economic tyranny of the economic elites.
For a horrifying preview of the Republican/corporate dictatorship, look no further than Flint Michigan.
First GM abandoned the city for cheap non-union labor. Time to cut food stamps and unemployment benefits. Then the Republican dictatorship from Lansing under Rick the Prick Snyder forced them to drink lead with corrosive river water.
Thank your "Constitutional free-market conservatives and job creators" for that, and vote Republican.
How many GOP Mayors in the last 25 year has Flint had?
Why is NY cutting taxes to encourage big business to move to their state?
How many GOP governors in MI in the last 25 years?
Flint ran out of money, and whose fault was that, Bush's? Of course not, it is the fault of the local govt for spending more than they were taking in. And since they can't print money like our federal govt, they could no longer afford to buy their water from Detroit, who because of their failed democrat mayors, had to raise the price of the water they sold to Flint.
Why haven't the mayors of Flint developed their own water purification system long ago? Did they think that being on the gravy train of liberalism, they would never have to face the reality of the bill is due and we have no money to pay it?
Maybe Flint should have increased income and property taxes on the top 1%, I bet that would have kept GM from abandoned the city.
When you think of the partnership of the DNC and BIG Labor, you have to look no further than Flint and Detroit, MI. to see the wonderful socialistic results, and it's not pretty.
Post a Comment
<< Home