| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/31/2005 03:42:12 PM · #551 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
...It is the voters who decide who gets elected to the legislature. And the legislature that decides what laws are passed. |
This is about the most naive (or is it disingenuous) statement I've ever heard you make here. |
I'll have to take your word for it, since you don't explain what there is about that statement that strikes you as being either naive or disengenuous. But, for what it's worth, One of the synonyms for "naive" is "INgenuous", and "ingenuous" means "openly straightforward or frank". DISingenuous, on the other hand, means "NOT straightforward or candid". So, if I AM naive then I can't be DISINgenuous. You must be confused if you can't tell the difference between two options at opposite ends of the spectrum. |
I used the word "or" specifically to indicate that I can't tell at which end of that spectrum your statement falls, although given the amount of sensible posts you've made, naive is a pretty remote possibility.
I "learned my politics" during the Watergate era ... the mantra then was "follow the money" -- I don't think much has changed since.
While you are "technically" correct, that the voters pick the legislatures and the legislators set the law, as a completely practical matter, campaign donors and corporate lobbyists have far more influence over legislation than any "ordinary citizen" does. Since you are likely aware of those facts, I guess I'd have to say your original statement was disingenuous. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 03:45:52 PM · #552 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Just strike the freaking parenthetical "disingenuous" and accept that the general called your statement "naive". Don't try to tie us all up in semantics, as if it will make the "naive" part go away.
Robt. |
1) I didn't think that Paul actually needed someone else to try and explain what he meant.
2) I really don't think that he needs TWO people to try and explain what he meant.
3) Why should I accept YOUR interpretation of his remark? Especially given that
4) Neither of you have actually explained his rationale
Is it too much to ask to wait for HIS response? After all, it was his statement.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 03:53:53 PM · #553 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Just strike the freaking parenthetical "disingenuous" and accept that the general called your statement "naive". Don't try to tie us all up in semantics, as if it will make the "naive" part go away.
Robt. |
1) I didn't think that Paul actually needed someone else to try and explain what he meant.
2) I really don't think that he needs TWO people to try and explain what he meant.
3) Why should I accept YOUR interpretation of his remark? Especially given that
4) Neither of you have actually explained his rationale
Is it too much to ask to wait for HIS response? After all, it was his statement. |
How about three then? I took the naïve or disingenuous to mean ignorant or just plain lying. What more interpretation should you need?
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 03:57:29 PM · #554 |
Now boys, don't make me have to pull this car over... ;o)
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 03:58:09 PM · #555 |
Originally posted by RonB:
1) I didn't think that Paul actually needed someone else to try and explain what he meant.
2) I really don't think that he needs TWO people to try and explain what he meant. |
Sometimes even two isn't enough ... : ) |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 03:58:56 PM · #556 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Now boys, don't make me have to pull this car over... ;o) |
But he started it!
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 04:10:33 PM · #557 |
Come on guys, the poor lady is dead. Can we have a moment of silent no matter which side you are on?
Barbara
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 04:18:53 PM · #558 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
...It is the voters who decide who gets elected to the legislature. And the legislature that decides what laws are passed. |
This is about the most naive (or is it disingenuous) statement I've ever heard you make here. |
I'll have to take your word for it, since you don't explain what there is about that statement that strikes you as being either naive or disengenuous. But, for what it's worth, One of the synonyms for "naive" is "INgenuous", and "ingenuous" means "openly straightforward or frank". DISingenuous, on the other hand, means "NOT straightforward or candid". So, if I AM naive then I can't be DISINgenuous. You must be confused if you can't tell the difference between two options at opposite ends of the spectrum. |
I used the word "or" specifically to indicate that I can't tell at which end of that spectrum your statement falls, although given the amount of sensible posts you've made, naive is a pretty remote possibility.
I "learned my politics" during the Watergate era ... the mantra then was "follow the money" -- I don't think much has changed since.
While you are "technically" correct, that the voters pick the legislatures and the legislators set the law, as a completely practical matter, campaign donors and corporate lobbyists have far more influence over legislation than any "ordinary citizen" does. Since you are likely aware of those facts, I guess I'd have to say your original statement was disingenuous. |
Finally. Thanks for the response, Paul. Though I might normally take offense at the term 'disingenuous' being applied to me, given the context of your explanation, I can see why you might feel it appropriate.
As to your rationale, namely because ( in the 'worldly' realm ) "campaign donors and corporate lobbyists have far more influence over legislation than any "ordinary citizen" does", I do not disagree with you.
Nevertheless, it is ultimately the fault of the electors if they
1) re-elect representatives ( the term is meant to include all elected individuals ) who do not properly represent them,
2) fail to maintain awareness of proposed legislation, and/or
3) fail to communicate to their current representatives their own views on such proposed legislation.
Representatives are politicians and as such are self-serving. They WILL stand up to lobbyists if it means that catering to them will result in their defeat at the next election. Campaign donors are perhaps more powerful, but even they cannot trump the ballot box.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 10:53:41 PM · #559 |
Here's an interesting article written by ex-Senator John Danforth (Republican) for the New York Times yesterday (Weds., March 30th):
"By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.
"Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone. Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of positions common to conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the Republican Party.
"Christian activists, eager to take credit for recent electoral successes, would not be likely to concede that Republican adoption of their political agenda is merely the natural convergence of conservative religious and political values. Correctly, they would see a causal relationship between the activism of the churches and the responsiveness of Republican politicians. In turn, pragmatic Republicans would agree that motivating Christian conservatives has contributed to their successes.
"High-profile Republican efforts to prolong the life of Ms. Schiavo, including departures from Republican principles like approving Congressional involvement in private decisions and empowering a federal court to overrule a state court, can rightfully be interpreted as yielding to the pressure of religious power blocs.
"In my state, Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have advanced legislation to criminalize even stem cell research in which the cells are artificially produced in petri dishes and will never be transplanted into the human uterus. They argue that such cells are human life that must be protected, by threat of criminal prosecution, from promising research on diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes.
"It is not evident to many of us that cells in a petri dish are equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible diseases. I am and have always been pro-life. But the only explanation for legislators comparing cells in a petri dish to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law.
"I do not fault religious people for political action. Since Moses confronted the pharaoh, faithful people have heard God's call to political involvement. Nor has political action been unique to conservative Christians. Religious liberals have been politically active in support of gay rights and against nuclear weapons and the death penalty. In America, everyone has the right to try to influence political issues, regardless of his religious motivations.
"The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.
"When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.
"Take stem cell research. Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal the sick.
"During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans.
"But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.
"The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots.
"John C. Danforth, a former United States senator from Missouri, resigned in January as United States ambassador to the United Nations. He is an Episcopal minister." |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:03:29 PM · #560 |
And here's more evidence of what's in store for all of us should the religious right gain more ascendancy:
Censorship of IMAX Films Threatens Integrity of Science, Leader Says
The leader of the world's largest organization of scientists said the suppression of some IMAX films because they run counter to religion threatens the integrity of science and public education.
Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science, sent a letter Monday to 410 members of the Association of Science-Technology Centers. The letter was prompted by recent reports that Imax theaters in at least a dozen U.S. cities have declined to show films that endorse the science of evolution.
"We are writing now to express strong concerns about increasing threats to science that endanger our shared missions and to offer our support and partnership in dealing with them," Leshner's article said.
Some IMAX theatres have refused to show movies that mention evolution or the Big Bang because the ideas contradict the Bible, according to a March 19 article in The New York Times. The protests involve a dozen or fewer theaters, but the effect could be significant because only a few dozen IMAX theatres exhibit science documentaries.
"The desire not to antagonize audiences and to avoid negative business outcomes is entirely understandable," Leshner wrote. "Yet, the suppression of scientifically accurate information as a response to those with differing perspectives is inappropriate and threatens both the integrity of science and the broader public education to which we all are committed. It is also objectionable to many stakeholders -- including many with strong religious convictions -- who understand that religion and science are not in opposition."
--------------------------------------------------------
By the way, if you've never seen one of these outer-space/Big-Bang movies in an IMAX theater, I highly recommend it, especially if you have kids. They are absolutely spectacular!
Message edited by author 2005-03-31 23:05:23. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:42:32 PM · #561 |
Originally posted by BAMartin:
Come on guys, the poor lady is dead. Can we have a moment of silent no matter which side you are on?
Barbara |
Hear hear. Time to lock this thread. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:52:35 PM · #562 |
doctornick, I tend to agree. That said, this topic is about the terri shiavo controversy. She has passed on, and since the discussion is grown beyond her situation, I am going to ask, politely, if the parties actively discussing the politics of our nation, please open another thread, or find an old one to continue that discussion. This thread, as far as the original topic is concerned, has gone in about as many circles, and chased about as many rabbits as is needed.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2005 12:54:42 AM · #563 |
Originally posted by karmat:
doctornick, I tend to agree. That said, this topic is about the terri shiavo controversy. She has passed on, and since the discussion is grown beyond her situation, I am going to ask, politely, if the parties actively discussing the politics of our nation, please open another thread, or find an old one to continue that discussion. This thread, as far as the original topic is concerned, has gone in about as many circles, and chased about as many rabbits as is needed.
Thank you. |
Does that mean you are locking it?
The cotroversy has not died in the media, or in everyday conversation and I am afraid it will be a matter of normal conversation for the next several weeks. So why should this thread be different. I agree it may be in poor taste, but so was bringing this whole tragety into the media and into everyday conversation to begin with.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2005 01:06:00 AM · #564 |
Yes, this issue is still in the media, etc. and probably will be until something more sensational comes along. IF this thread would meander back on topic, I see no reason why it should be locked. At it's current status, though, I see that it has been sufficiently hijacked, and is going no where.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2005 02:59:10 AM · #565 |
Anybody see South Park last night?
|
|
|
|
04/01/2005 08:48:16 AM · #566 |
Permit me to respond to Mr. Danforth's comments as posted by Judith Polakoff.
Originally posted by John Danforth:
The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement. |
I'm afraid that Mr. Danforth is making a gross error in assignment. The issues of which he speaks MAY, in fact, be issues in which the majority of those in the Religious right fall on one side, but that does not make it by de facto a religious movement. In fact, the issues of which Mr. Danforth speaks are MORAL issues that just happen to find support for one side in the Religious right. The fact that the majority of the Religious right hold similar MORAL convictions ought to be understandable.
On another note. It is the secular humanist movement that has falsely insinuated and successfully, it seems, convinced the mainstream media that this is a religious movement, and it is the mainstream media that has propogated that false association to the point that many, if not the majority of people actually believe it to be true - including, unfortunately, Mr. Danforth.
Originally posted by John Danforth:
When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. |
I would agree, BUT, to repeat, what Mr. Danforth is talking about is a MORAL program that just so happens to find widspread support in the religious community - but that does NOT make it a religious program.
Originally posted by John Danforth:
But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. |
And they could, by making sure to identify the issues as MORAL issues, not RELIGIOUS issues.
Originally posted by John Danforth:
While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. |
How can Mr. Danforth say on the one hand that religions are free to advocate for their own causes, while simultaneously saying on the other hand that political parties should resist identification with a religious movement? By that logic, it would seem self-defeating for any religious groups to attempt ANY political activity, because political parties would then be bound to act in direct opposition lest they be identified with that religious group. Rather, it would seem that for a religious group to advance their cause, they must come out in opposition to it so that the politicians would vote just the opposite to show that they shouldn't be associated with that religious group. What twisted logic.
Originally posted by John Danforth:
At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another. |
Hmmm. If you advance the cause of some, you oppose the cause of others. How profound. Hey, I thought that that's why we elected representatives in the first place - to make those "tough" decisions, where there was not a clear majority of support one way or the other. But why must every issue be tied to RELIGION, why not just call it what it is: a moral issue that many people, religious or not, have strong convictins about?
Originally posted by John Danforth:
"The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots. |
The fixation is not on a religious agenda, it is on a moral agenda. |
|
|
|
04/01/2005 07:41:54 PM · #567 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Anybody see South Park last night? |
Watching it right now. |
|
|
|
04/01/2005 08:08:44 PM · #568 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Anybody see South Park last night? |
Watching it right now. |
haha wow. Got to love South Park. |
|
|
|
04/01/2005 08:15:31 PM · #569 |
To get back on subject, here is the latest CNN story ono Schiavo:
Death doesn't quell political battle over Schiavo case |
|
|
|
06/15/2005 12:24:45 PM · #570 |
An autopsy report on Terri Schiavo's body shows that she was in a persistent vegetative state and had lost 50% of the mass of her brain. She had suffered "massive and irreversible" brain damage and died of dehydration, not starvation. In addition, there was no signs of trauma such as strangulation prior to her collapse in 1990.
Story here. |
|
|
|
06/15/2005 12:51:56 PM · #571 |
| Thank you for the update. |
|
|
|
06/15/2005 12:59:26 PM · #572 |
| Just to add too, that she was also found to be blind. |
|
|
|
06/15/2005 01:07:56 PM · #573 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Just to add too, that she was also found to be blind. |
Is that true? Because wasn't she said to have been following a balloon around as they moved it around the room?
Wowzers.
Message edited by author 2005-06-15 13:08:09.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2005 01:11:08 PM · #574 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Just to add too, that she was also found to be blind. |
Is that true? Because wasn't she said to have been following a balloon around as they moved it around the room?
Wowzers. |
Yeah, the vision center of her brain was totally dead. Which means she wasn't 'looking' at her parents either.
Edit to add that she was SO brain damaged that her brain was only about 1/2 the size of a normal brain and that NO ammount of theropy could 'fix' it.
Message edited by author 2005-06-15 13:12:15. |
|
|
|
06/15/2005 01:37:06 PM · #575 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
An autopsy report on Terri Schiavo's body shows that she was in a persistent vegetative state and had lost 50% of the mass of her brain. She had suffered "massive and irreversible" brain damage and died of dehydration, not starvation. In addition, there was no signs of trauma such as strangulation prior to her collapse in 1990.
Story here. |
"died of dehydration, not starvation"
[[[um...she died of the removal of sustenance. It was a known fact she was going to die of dehydration as that usually takes a matter of days (the fact she went nearly two weeks was surprising) where as starvation takes a month or two in most cases.]]]
|
|
