Many patent applicants have expressed some concern regarding the potential federal government shutdown after Friday, April 8th. The basic problem is that a federal agency is not supposed to spend any money without congressional authority to spend the money. This limit comes directly from the US Constitution, which says “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Article I, Section 9. That said, it is generally thought that essential federal employees can continue to work. For the most part, however, USPTO employees would not qualify as “essential.”
Although the USPTO is fully user-fee funded, the agency still sends its revenue the Treasury and then draws money from the Treasury when needed. Thus, the USPTO will clearly be affected by the shutdown.
I contacted USPTO leaders regarding their contingency plain. The Office has crafted a short-term solution based on the fact that a portion of their monies-in-hand are not linked to the current fiscal year budget. Therefore, the lack of appropriations for the rest of FY2011 does not limit the USPTO’s right and ability to spend that money. The Office’s projection is that this funding source can take the agency through six business days. If the shutdown occurs at COB Friday, then the office would have funds through Monday, April 18. After that, the Office intends to continue to accept new application electronically.
The Office does not intend to offer any grace period for applicant deadlines missed during the shutdown.
Update: Press Release
When can we have teh next Gov-shutdown-so-Sunshine-can-wax-poetic-on-politics show?
Maybe the Big-D can start a thread on that particular subject matter and provides us all with more O this riveting poly-cy insights O Sunshine. Let’s make it a double and declare it pick on cancer survivors day.
Thank goodness the shutdown was averted … for now, at least. The patent office really does not need any more difficulties in funding its operations.
Why would I be surprised that women will be emo? That’s half the cause of the current problem.
Is it that hard to rationally figure out that if someone guts you and you barely survive but have kidney problems as a result that the kidney problems were a part of the assault against you? Is it that hard to figure out that if you get pregnant from some rapist that the pregnancy was a part of the assault against you? Seriously? No it isn’t.
It is only when emotions flare their heads that it magically somehow becomes different from the perspective of the state. At least with the pregnancy they would get like a month to decide to end it under my plan. The person left with kidney damage doesn’t get a month to decide if his kidney will magically be all better again.
Can’t we all get along…? OOPS I forgot that phrase went out with Rodney. Can’t we all be honest? OOPS I forgot that phrase went out with ABE!
I Can not tell a Lie. I did find three Cherries on that tree, and i shared all of them. But no one believed me. I guess it all goes back to the history……That was a very sad day. I adored that man. But his niece was there.. whatever that meant… maybe some History there too?
“they draw a distinction between him just sending troops to kill on people for less than 60 days and in an all out war.”
Yeah, cause wars never are over before that there arbitrary 60 day mark.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Once the war starts, one cannot stop it. The war powers act is a joke.
Maxie,
Just in case ya wanna know, the thread is running at just over ten percent relevancy. The top posters be Sunshine and 6.
Just in case ya wanna know.
Grandfather was there in WWI. Dad and Uncle in WWII.
“But that is not the “question” you are actually “asking” is it? You want the “right” to engage in the act of reproduction without the consequence of that act.
Somehow labeling that “Reproductive Right” has more panache than calling it “Right to Not Take Responsibility.”
It’s all in the words chosen to describe the situation.”
Now that about sums it up. Dont burden me with no consequences.
…or that electrons are not dripping from the wires.
“All of that is, sadly, completely irrelevant MM”
pretty much sums it up.
IBP,
Want some popcorn? I made extra given Sunshine love of dancing to politics.
Dennis,
I found this post intriguing and it sparked the topic of Noro IP’s recent blog, which compares the USPTO’s dependency on Congressional budget approval to the city of Washington DC’s similar predicament. I still have a lingering questions this budget crisis has brought to light. If you’d like to check it out –> link to noroip.com
We did that twice last century.
Yeah, Ned was right there on the front lines. Greatest generation and all that.
More lulz.
While you’re at it, go ahead and tell them that story about how getting raeped and then being forced to carry the raepist’s baby to term is just like you getting mugged once.
You will be surprised, I promise.
lulz
Yeah but they draw a distinction between him just sending troops to kill on people for less than 60 days and in an all out war. That is so as to allow him a free hand to command the military when time is short and the congress is not made up.
This close call should serve as an example that the D.C. area is not immune to the economic problems of the rest of the nation.
To my knowledge the electricity bill is paid by the building owner (the PTO leases the buildings in alexandria). This is what I heard because the building owner does periodic electricity audits for each office to make sure examiners aren’t using too much electricity.
In any case, I’ve gtg.
MM, according to my theory, the republicans don’t want to take care of another person’s child. That is up to the other person. They’re fine with taking care of the child during pregnancy because, at least usually, that doesn’t cost anything much. Seriously? You don’t understand this?
Note also that these same “yahoos” listening to their “looney tunes” give quite charitably and help a lot of mothers take care of their kids. I’ve seen it happen, with my own two eyes. That said, they’re more or less against state mandated charity.
“I’m sayig that the bill is ludicrous and also contrary to the *stated* goals of the people proposing it. ”
Discoraging federal funding for an agency that is promoting what they see as an amoral activity is “contrary” to their goal of not promoting, and instead, discouraging amoral behavior? Wait wut?
“Why would a person who seriously wanted to reduce the number of abortions propose a bill that reduces the availability of birth control? Please explain. “Because the person is a fxkking tard” is an acceptable answer.”
No problem MM you missed the point of the bill, it is not to reduce abortions by accepting a reduction of the availability of birth control. They firmly expect their to be the same supply of birth control. They want to leverage PPH into not performing and advocating for abortions. That is, they expect PPH to go about its daily business doing everything except abortions. Duh.
“And likewise, if human embryos are of such monumental importance to these people, then why aren’t they railing against in vitro fertilization, which results in multiple embronic deaths in nearly every instance? ”
I don’t know. Perhaps they believe in the ol’ if you want to make an omelet … you sometimes have to break some embryos. Ask them sometime.
“Why aren’t miscarriages treated as potential crimes?”
Lack of criminal intent?
“Shouldn’t sexually active women be monitored 24/7 to make sure they nothing is done that could compromise the “potential” human life inside them? ”
No? Ad absurdum much?
“Shouldn’t sexually active women be prevented from drinking or smoking or engaging in any activity known to increase the likelihood of a miscarriage, just in case they do become pregnant? ”
Probabaly. Idk? Why are you asking me such things? Ask your republican friends.
In the words of Commander Data:
“Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing”.
Paul, do you see how Mooney has proved my point?
6–
Ask some women you know the same question I asked you.
You will be surprised, I promise.
“This is just laziness, IBP. And it also closely mirrors the “centrist” position that “liberals” and “conservatives” are both “wrong” because they have different “worldviews” or some such nonsense.”
Lulz, not “wrong”, just re tarded. Following your feelings on matters of state is, sadly enough, a recipe for a shty state. Use your brain man! You do it over here in the field of lawl, why not do it over in the field of poli?
“I hardly think that an educated woman or African-American would state that “there has been no progress” in this country.”
Why is that? Because of their self-centeredness? I jest, but the whole thing is irrelevant.
Again, MM, why dabble in the irrelevant? Why not stick to the relevant?
“It has been the case that over the long haul in this country that irrational conservatives and “traditionalists” always find their positions crushed by the inevitable forward march of individual freedom, at least when it comes to the most personal and private rights. ”
You can say that with a straight face? In this country of regulation out the backside? Seriously? You didn’t even crack a smile?
“If Citizens United doesn’t lead to a Constitutional amendment within the next half-century, I’ll eat my hat. With my false teeth.
”
Wait, wut?
Ned, I LOLed at your last two paragraphs, agree with you about Biden, and also agree with your comment regarding Roe upthread and your proposed law regarding congressional approval for military action.
All of that is, sadly, completely irrelevant MM. Why base your political views on your emo hatred of others? Why not base it on, I don’t know, the sound policy of a small small small Fed gov?
6 I think you just made that up in your head or were fed by someone who did the same. I think they’re a little more concerned about the babies than with the moms banging.
Again, if that were true, we’d see proposals consistent with the love of babies, particularly born babies, particular babies born to poor people, who need the most help. You are aware that babies in this country tend to be sicker than babies in other “developed” countries, right?
Instead we see proposals from Republicans that cut programs that assist poor people and their infants (e.g., Medicaid). Explain how that works, according to your theory.
He thinks x is morally wrong, he wants to not have the fed fund someone promoting and performing x. Fill in x with whatever you want to, in this case abortion. If he can muster the political will then by all means let him go for it
Nobody is saying that a politican can’t propose a ludicrous bill, 6. I’m sayig that the bill is ludicrous and also contrary to the *stated* goals of the people proposing it. Why would a person who seriously wanted to reduce the number of abortions propose a bill that reduces the availability of birth control? Please explain. “Because the person is a fxkking tard” is an acceptable answer.
And likewise, if human embryos are of such monumental importance to these people, then why aren’t they railing against in vitro fertilization, which results in multiple embronic deaths in nearly every instance? Why aren’t miscarriages treated as potential crimes? Shouldn’t sexually active women be monitored 24/7 to make sure they nothing is done that could compromise the “potential” human life inside them? Shouldn’t sexually active women be prevented from drinking or smoking or engaging in any activity known to increase the likelihood of a miscarriage, just in case they do become pregnant?
Occasionally you do see absurd bills like this popping up in some podunk state legislature, but even there they tend to dry up unless the legislature is brimming over with ignorant fundamentalists. Odd that they never seem to make it to the US Senate floor, though. Why do you think that is, 6?
I’ll tell you why I think it is: the Wise Old Men of Washington know better than to blow their cover. Better to be less transparent.
“This is definitely “bizarre” as conservatives are just as likely (if not more likely) to engage in sexual acts which are considered “amoral” by conservatives. Moreover, plenty of married people get abortions, including “conservative” people, especially including the “conservative” Congresspeople who are trying to pass these laws (and their children). Of course, these people take advantage of the fact that such procedures are private and legal.”
So then their being willing to pay for their children to make a mistake and to make a major life decision should make them want to pay, through the state, for everyone’s mistakes and for others to have the opportunity to make a major life decision which is not available to them naturally and is only available through $$$?
I’m not seeing the logic MM. Or are you just pissed that they throw a political gloss of morality on an issue which they very well could have a moral stake in? Idk man.
“They will always be able to do that, even if they have to fly to another country. See how that works?”
Yes, and it strangely doesn’t change a thing. They can not want to pay for other people to have the same chance as their son or daughter on an issue like this. They can also afford a high priced lawltard to defend them in a trial so they don’t go to jail for years for having a bit o weed on their person whereas the poor person cannot. And they can also not want to pay for a high priced lawltard to defend those poor people’s kids when they get caught with a bit o weed. Yet nobody is btching to high hell about that. Or any other of the thousands of ways rich people are a little bit better off than poor people. See how that works?
“It’s perfectly true.”
lulz, it very well could be, and the veracity of that statement is also prefectly irrelevant. The faster you notice this the faster you succumb to my centralist views.
“the conservatives see the liberals as wanting to fund amoral behavior and coddle those that are suffering adverse consequences thereof,”
^ that is why it is irrelevant. The liberals are wanting to fund what is, pretty plainly, amoral behavior, and coddle those that are suffering adverse consequences thereof. This is also perfectly true.
But, in the case that both the liberal and the concervatives views of one another are perfectly irrelevant, what to do? What to do? See my opinion on the matter I posted above. Specifically, don’t get involved in the morality play, and don’t get involved in the women’s emo trip. Abide simply by what is natural to the point of protecting the woman if she is for sure going to die, or ending the pregnancy right at the start when the fetus is scarcely even human.
“The greater population of anti-choicers is that population who believes that women who get pregnant but who don’t want to be pregnant are bad and need to “suffer the consequences” ”
I think your data is a bit outdated. There’s a few of those around, sure, but this kind of a view isn’t exactly as rampant or as dominating over the moral view as it may have once been. Besides, as aforementioned, why they hold the view is completely irrelevant, they hold the view, and they have at least a partial moral reason for doing so, end of story.
“(and constitutionally can not) be used to control the private actions of others.”
Lulz, where did you get that from? Their “religious views”, or rather the votes cast by their duly elected reps who got there by their religious views, control you in all manner of private actions, as well as controlling many of women’s private actions.
IBP try not to get into this type of rhetoric anymore, because it never progresses.
Why doesn’t it progress? Because the rhetoric IS the end goal.
This is just laziness, IBP. And it also closely mirrors the “centrist” position that “liberals” and “conservatives” are both “wrong” because they have different “worldviews” or some such nonsense.
I hardly think that an educated woman or African-American would state that “there has been no progress” in this country. There has been plenty of progress. There have also been some steps backwards, however, and there will always be people (remember Trent Lott?) who seek for one reason or another to return to “the good old days” when those uppity “colored” people and women knew their place.
It has been the case that over the long haul in this country that irrational conservatives and “traditionalists” always find their positions crushed by the inevitable forward march of individual freedom, at least when it comes to the most personal and private rights. When it becomes clear to the majority of citizens that those rights are threatened, there will be some hell to pay.
If Citizens United doesn’t lead to a Constitutional amendment within the next half-century, I’ll eat my hat. With my false teeth.
The more important question is your federal defecit. As I understand it the deficit is accumulating at a rate of $5000 or so for every citizen of the US per year. So if that goes on for 40 years you will have passed on an accumulated debt of $200,000 per individual to your grand-children in addition to the level of debt already.
Or we could just raise taxes on the wealthiest to the “absurdly high levels” existing during St. Ronald Reagan’s presidence, shrink the military to a reasonable size, and focus on providing affordable and preventative health care to all citizens.
Recognize that the current deficit itself creates little or no problem for the US. We continue to have excellent credit around the world, and for good reason.
A budget deficit always (and only) becomes a problem when a Democratic politician is President because the Republicans (who happily create massive deficits when they control the White House) with the help of the rich, self-interested media elites in DC, use the deficit as an excuse to cut Federal programs that help average and poor people. To some extent, they do this because the typical mouth-breather in the GOP base hates the idea of a minority citizen (who make up a larger percentage of poor people than whites) getting anything for free. To another extent, they do this because it gives them an excuse to put government functions into the hands of private corporations (i.e., the lobbyists and campaign donors who elected the GOP to office) who can then reap the profits (and the benefits of the lower taxes which miraculously are ALSO necessary to reduce the deficit, according to the insane conservative non-logic). To another extent, they cut the programs simply because it pxsses off “liberals” (e.g., poor people) who use the programs.
Again, understand this and everything the GOP does makes perfect sense. Remember when George W. Bush became President, the Wise Old Men insisted that the budget *surplus* was the worst thing ever. Even more “bizarre”, under the conditions of the greatest budget surplus in US history, the Chimperor and his handlers were already insisting that Social Security was in “crisis” and should be privatized.
The “liberal” fact: there was no Social Security “crisis” and there isn’t one now. If you don’t understand the reason Republicans want to destroy Social Security, then you haven’t read this comment carefully.
“I have come to be of the opinion that it REALLY REFLECTS SOMETHING OF GRAVE IMPORTANCE to the vast majority of Americans, ”
Of course it does. It reflects how re tarded they are because of their emotions about an issue that will likely never affect their person directly.
That is why we need a party who refuses to take part in such emotional nonsense and rise above it.
Vote 6 for prez.
“If there was a party that agreed with your own views on basically all big issues except abortion, where they were actively opposed to your view, would you vote for them?”
Yes, why would I base who I put in public office on such a re tarded issue. My own personal opinion, don’t kill the babies, or end the fetus, having babies is a normal part of life ffs, live with it. End of discussion.
To be more verbose I note that I myself, while very very very sensitive to the issue of the raep, still say no ending of the baby even if raep was the cause. Have the baby, put it up for adoption. The baby was part of the injury against you by the raepist, sorry but that’s how things happened in your life, kind of like I was mugged once and could have been killed. I also note that even cases where the mother’s life is at risk I have a hard time saying end the baby. Having babies is dangerous and yet it is a part of life. If people just absolutely must have some sort of ending of the baby happening, then let them do it in the first month or whatever when it is barely more than cells or in the event that the mother is definitely going to die.
That is all perfectly reasonable and completely not based on any moral or religious judgements I have have against killing, fetuses, babies or grown ups. I can say this because I don’t really have a moral judgement on this issue though I can see how one might certainly make one. In this case it is so much easier to simply not make a moral judgement, not get involved with women’s emotional life crises and then pop out on the other side with a perfectly fine viewpoint that is a relative compromise between the two groups having an emo cow over the issue. And as gravy it even follows the “morally correct” choice fairly closely in so far as it is compatible with the natural world around us.
Listen, Paul…listen, and learn.
It’s really amazing.
I try not to get into this type of rhetoric anymore, because it never progresses.
Why doesn’t it progress? Because the rhetoric IS the end goal.
In that sense, America is a success–it continues to meet its major goal; boring though that goal might be to outsiders, it is of vital importance and a source of spiritual fulfillment to Americans.
It is a form of expression, although it is not genuinely a form of self-expression, as many of its practitioners falsely believe.
I feel the same way, Ned.
But don’t be sorry, what I said is still true, notwithstanding your individual response.
Thanks for playing–so I can assume that you WOULD vote for that party’s candidate anyway?
I have a faint suspicion that Malcolm may not be a registered Republican voter.
Oh, and I also note that I see nothing wrong with what he’s talking about in his proposal for a bill. He thinks x is morally wrong, he wants to not have the fed fund someone promoting and performing x. Fill in x with whatever you want to, in this case abortion. If he can muster the political will then by all means let him go for it. It isn’t the end of the world to have PPH stop promoting and performing abortions. So sorry, but it isn’t. In fact, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, there certainly is a moral aspect to oh, I don’t know, ending someone’s existance before they’re born. Whether or not I go so far as to say that is the end of the discussion is another matter of course, but you must admit that much. So if they want to put that up on the legislative block as something important to them, then fine, let them.
The abortion issue to me is of low priority. Sorry, IBP.
“particularly those unique to women).”
I don’t mean to be a dick, so to speak, but are you a woman? I mean, seriously, I know as a man you’d be thinking about them every 11 seconds on avg but all this about women getting trampled and women bo ho this and that really has me wondering. You seem to have, ahem, an overabundance of feeling.
“To understand why the GOP insists on doing these things, you have to understand the motivation: maintaining and promoting a society where every aspect of a woman’s sexuality is something that must be controlled and “protected” by Serious Religious People. ”
I think you just made that up in your head or were fed by someone who did the same. I think they’re a little more concerned about the babies than with the moms banging. Considering I know a good many of these people quite well as they’re family and a large portion of the people I grew up with I can speak with some authority on the matter. I’m not too sure how their view can be “incomprehensible” unless we understand that they want to control sex. I see the rest of what you’ve written and I’m not going to bother to set you straight as apparently you’ve taken it into your head that it is totally impossible to be concerned with the fetus even if they ALSO have a concern about PEOPLE (not just womenz) having sex irresponsibly/outside of marriage. Why you’ve taken this into your brain I will never know as it is completely fine for them to hold both DISTINCT concerns simultaneously and for both of them to stem from their looney tunes. And for one of the concerns to be more socially acceptable to the mainstream. All of that is completely fine and could very well take place, why you insist that it cannot is the only thing that is incomprehensible. That is to say, you don’t have to understand jack about them wanting to control sex, much less women, to understand them being concerned about the fetus. And I think you well know that.
Paul–
Issues here are discussed in a yes-no, black-white, binary fashion–that makes it easy to define people’s views: “You’re either with us, or against us.”
Hence things like “up/down” voting.
Abortion is the jewel in the crown.
In America, there can be a party which is perfectly aligned with one’s views on 99 of 100 issues–but if it is NOT aligned on the single remaining view, abortion, then one will not vote for its candidate.
THIS ATTITUDE IS ESPECIALLY PREVALENT AMONG WOMEN.
I’m entirely serious. You probably find it highly improbable if not impossible, or an outright lie. I have done vast polling on this very issue.
Other posters will verify this observation–even if it is not their personal experience, it will be the experience of the vast majority of those around them. Posters should ask those around them on the weekend if they want some personal verification of this observation.
In fact, I’d venture to guess, based on statistics alone, that the patently-o population is no different from the general population in this respect.
So let’s take an informal poll:
If there was a party that agreed with your own views on basically all big issues except abortion, where they were actively opposed to your view, would you vote for them?
BE HONEST, you have nothing to lose. It’s a free country.
BTW, I know tons of people in the US who would vote Republican but who do not, one the sole basis that they are perceived as being anti-abortion.
It is the deal-breaker, and it is non-negotiable.
It is where the rubber hits the road in American politics. When the going gets tough, the tough get going…to the abortion issue.
When things get mired or difficult, switch to the abortion issue, on which you can readily achieve a defined outcome.
The USA is a failed state, but the failure has yet to manifest itself fully. Abortion is always a good issue to use to take people’s minds off other things.
Just like my thinking about patents versus racial diversity among federal employees, I’ve had to ask myself whether the abortion issue reflects something political and bogus (something I used to believe), or whether it really does reflect something of fundamental and critical importance to people.
I have come to be of the opinion that it REALLY REFLECTS SOMETHING OF GRAVE IMPORTANCE to the vast majority of Americans, and that it won’t go away any time soon, even though there are other important issues that fall by the wayside as a result.
Hey everybody, answer the poll! ESPECIALLY WOMEN!
Regardless of the practice, 6, there are many who think the US president does not have the power to go to war without prior congressional approval except in the case of national emergency. Even Obama once said this, but that was then and this is now. Unfortunately, the only way to rope the american president back in is to impeach him.
I would support such a move here.
If we do not draw a line in the sand somewhere, sometime, we will go the way of the Roman Empire where the Emperor gradually took all power onto himself, leaving the Senate a laughing stock.
I’m afraid you’re wrong on the law there Ned. The pres can send troopers and military might anywhere he wants so far as I’m aware.
“The President is the military’s commander-in-chief; however Article One gives Congress and not the President the authority to declare war. Presidents have often deployed troops with Congressional authorization, but without an explicit declaration of war. According to historian Thomas Woods, “Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution — which refers to the president as the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’ — has been interpreted to mean that the president may act with an essentially free hand in foreign affairs, or at the very least that he may send men into battle without consulting Congress.”[5]”
yeah, kind of bs. see citation 5 where the case is made that this is all neocon made up bs.
link to lewrockwell.com
Lord if only the USSC would stand in and IDK INTERPRET THE LAWLS.
Additionally, we have the war powers resolution:
link to en.wikipedia.org
So the prez can’t stay for more than 60 days without the say so from congress.
All in all, it is just another one of the country’s legislative disasters.
6 n any case, the bizarre terms that the sides see the other in terms of are apparent, the conservatives see the liberals as wanting to fund amoral behavior and coddle those that are suffering adverse consequences thereof
This is definitely “bizarre” as conservatives are just as likely (if not more likely) to engage in sexual acts which are considered “amoral” by conservatives. Moreover, plenty of married people get abortions, including “conservative” people, especially including the “conservative” Congresspeople who are trying to pass these laws (and their children). Of course, these people take advantage of the fact that such procedures are private and legal. And if that were to change, guess what? Those conservative Congresspeople and their family members can easily afford to find a good doctor to perform the procedure. They will always be able to do that, even if they have to fly to another country. See how that works?
the liberals see the conservatives as cold hearted and/or not considering the ramifications of having lots of unwanted pregnancies.
What’s bizarre about this? It’s perfectly true. I agree that there is a small population of people who worship fetuses and honestly believe that *any* human embryo death is a murder or at least a potential crime (note: they are invariably hypocrites, in this regard, because they tend to fall silent when the embryos belong to innocent and typically brown people that we drop bombs on). But this population is small. The greater population of anti-choicers is that population who believes that women who get pregnant but who don’t want to be pregnant are bad and need to “suffer the consequences” (as if such women look forward to being operated on) and that population of people who think that the whole thing is just icky so, well, something needs to be done. So, yes, those people are exactly as liberals “see” them: as cold-hearted, not capable of seeing the ramifications of the laws they propose, and not capable of understanding that their personal religious beliefs should not (and constitutionally can not) be used to control the private actions of others.
Paul, isn’t it time for you Brits and your French allies to build a military that can defend your own vital interest without asking for our support?
Hillary said we owed you one because of your support in Afghanistan. So be it. But let this be the last time you ask.
And, please, do not take on some foe bigger than yourself so that we HAVE to pull your ashes out of the fire. We did that twice last century. What did that get us, but get our army mired permanently in Europe and the expense of being the world’s policeman. Enough is enough.
Sorry – should have said holding up the federal budget. But that is the same thing nowadays.
Citation plz? I’ll presume you’re right until I see a cite.
Here you go:
link to mikepence.house.gov
““Yesterday, with more than 60 cosponsors, I re-introduced the ‘Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act,’ a bill that would deny any federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America.
“On this dark anniversary, let us rededicate ourselves to protecting the unborn and to protecting taxpayers on matters of conscience.”
Of course, by denying PP funding to educate and provide folks with the means to control their reproduction, Pence is only helping to increase the rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions (not to mention STDs and other diseases, particularly those unique to women).
To understand why the GOP insists on doing these things, you have to understand the motivation: maintaining and promoting a society where every aspect of a woman’s sexuality is something that must be controlled and “protected” by Serious Religious People. Once you appreciate this basic truth, then all the GOP actions in this area make perfect sense. Otherwise, they are simply incomprehensible.
And this also is not a “conspiracy” theory. It’s something that the GOP does not trumpet as a talking point (for obvious reasons) but the truth leaks out often enough. Moreover, it’s completely consonant with the “traditional” tenets of their looney tunes religious base. Yes, another of those “liberal” facts that needs to be pointed out again and again and again, lest we forget and pretend that this all about the precious fetus (notice how the GOP’s concern for “human life” shrivels up as soon as the kid is born — still wondering why that is? Then you haven’t read this comment carefully).
Confound their politics???
I only meant to provide a little humour and some good wishes to you folks.
Respectfully, and in my capacity as an alien, it does not seem that the abortion issue, emotive as it is for some people, is sufficient grounds for holding up the federal deficit. And there is much that I would rather not pay for over here, but we do not seem to get ourselves into quite this sort of mess.
The more important question is your federal defecit. As I understand it the deficit is accumulating at a rate of $5000 or so for every citizen of the US per year. So if that goes on for 40 years you will have passed on an accumulated debt of $200,000 per individual to your grand-children in addition to the level of debt already. Not to mention imbalance of trade. Most of that debt will have been financed from sources whose benevolence cannot be guaranteed to continue indefinitely. If that does not worry you, it should.
I am not sure that we are much better off in the UK. And would anyone care to tell me the difference between a post-industrial society and a third world society? But then we are all in a profession one of whose main objectives is to support industry, so you could expect views of that kind.
Good point there Malcolm on religion. Not quite an apt analogy.
You win.
On the coin issue, I would support removing any religious symbols.
On the military issue, I would also agree to a a strengthening of the law prohibiting president from using the military to attack anyone for any reason. Unless an extreme national emergency required the president to bypass congress, I would make it flatly illegal and a per se impeachable offense to use the military in any operation not authorized by congress.
I hope I have your support for impeaching the president on this one. He clearly exceeded ally authority implied as commander in chief in his attack on Libya.
And, Malcolm, when he is removed, I would hope that Joe the dumbkoff would have the decency to step asside so that Hillary could become president.
6 On the other hand, even the dems don’t propose massive cuts to the military.
Yes, because the GOP’s noise machine would immediately denounce such a proposal as “unpatriotic” or treasonous. And this would be presented as a reasonable position by our “liberal” media and the “centrist” talking heads. And at the same time, the GOP would propose about cutting health “entitlements” to 9/11 first responders and the usual namecallers will suddenly fall silent.
Also, at least you can give credit to Sen. Franken (D-MN) who has proposed that a rational means for funding future wars is funded before they are started. We’ll see how the “deficit-abhoring” GOP responds to that proposal.
Federal funding of religious schools. The Supreme Court has said that this is illegal to the extent that the school will use the federal money to teach religion. However, if the school completely segregates its religious activities from its educational activities, then the funding is okay.
I am fairly sure that a clinic providing services to women could do so and continue to receive federal money so long as that clinic did not itself provide abortion services. I might be wrong here on the facts, and if I am, please let me know.
Your analogy fails miserably, Ned, because abortion is constitutional and legal and the use of Federal funds to promote a religious view is not.
If anything, it just demonstrates how twisted and radical the Republican’s proposed law is. My tax dollars go to pay for lots of stuff that I don’t agree it. In fact, it even pays for blatantly unconstitutional stuff like minting coins that say “In God we trust” on it (if there was some indication that “trust” meant “trust God to make millions of people suffer for his own entertainment” then at least it would make some sense, but it’s still a myth) or paying “chaplains” to preach to soldiers. Or paying US soldiers to kill innocent people, including lots of innocent pregnant woman (think that didn’t happen? think that wasn’t inevitable and predictable?).
“The problem is that people who have “strong feelings” about this subject almost invariably turn into pathetic hypocrites when they understand what it is that they are wishing for.”
Idk about that, they just need to be properly educated on the role of state governements. Let’s be honest. Most people don’t understand the difference between state and federal and they certainly aren’t capable of forming their own informed opinions because they aren’t informed.
“Have we already forgotten the yahoos storming the town hall meetings with slogans such as “Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare”? ”
lulz. Old people are funny.
“Meanwhile, our perfect and untouchable military sxcks up orders of magnitude more money and accomplishes such awesome feats as … Abu Ghraib? Turning Afghanistan into a pillar of Democracy? Funny how people are perfectly willing to believe Republican lies about the magic we can accomplish in extremely poor countries but have no faith whatsoever in the ability of our country (an incredibly wealthy country, btw) to merely accomplish what we seemed perfectly capable of accomplishing in the past.”
I kno right? On the other hand, even the dems don’t propose massive cuts to the military. Which is a real shame, and why we need a radical reasonable centrist like myself in office, all offices to be exact, to do.
Vote 6 for prez I have change (for your dollars) and conservation (for your nature).
“The problem is that the law already prohibits Planned Parenthood from using Federal money to fund abortions. The conservatards want to take away all Federal money from *any organization that merely provides abortions* (a legal procedure, you might recall), regardless of what else they might do, including providing access to birth control, reproductive and STD diagnosis and prevention, etc., especially to poor people who might otherwise not be able to afford it. Do you understand?”
Citation plz? I’ll presume you’re right until I see a cite.
“Please inform: what are the “bizarre terms” that women who seek to maintain control over their reproductive rights (and men who support them) see those who wish to take those rights away? ”
Oh, they have control over their reproductive rights MM, let’s be clear. Like you said, it isn’t the reproductive rights, it is the sexual “rights” which are truely at issue. And you might note that those are much harder to base a case for providing federal funding to support their lavish lifestyle choice. Sex, or the relative safety therefor, is not, or blatently should not be, a “gift” from the federal government. Let them buy their own gd condoms if they want to bang some loser, I know I do. And also to be clear, that isn’t a republican plan to “control” the sexual lives of these women, they’re free to do as they please. The republicans just don’t want to fund them making a costly decision.
And, I note, that I’m totally on board with them not wanting to provide these things. The only real issue amongst people with a brain pops up, of course, when one considers that young people won’t stop having sex even if we don’t fund fam planning and so we have to consider the consequences of that. And, to the end of helping to stop the ramifications of this fact of life, people such as myself can be persuaded to fund some small level of family planning in the form of prevention and testing. However, I do not begrudge these guys not wanting to pay for it one little bit. Although, I would encourage them to see the reason buried beneath all the nonsense spouted around. Even so, if they could muster the political will to stop paying for it, I say let them have it, no skin off my back. Or yours btw MM. I believe you can afford your own condoms and std checks. A situation due, no doubt to your having been a decent student back in the day.
I finally note that, if we did stop funding family planning because they provide abortions as well as other things that I would not begrudge them that either if they can muster the political will. If someone wants to have an abortion then fine, let them go to the doctor’s office or hospital or whatever and pay for it their own dam selves. I see no need to coddle these people if just that is such a big issue to the republican gentlepersons duly elected by their peps.
Something that is quite funny though, if unplanned births go up, and in roughly 16 years to 20 years our crime starts shooting through the roof to levels prior to roe v wade I will lol. You saw the freak o nomics movie right?
In any case, the bizarre terms that the sides see the other in terms of are apparent, the conservatives see the liberals as wanting to fund amoral behavior and coddle those that are suffering adverse consequences thereof, and the liberals see the conservatives as cold hearted and/or not considering the ramifications of having lots of unwanted pregnancies.
“It’s hardlyt a “conspiracy”, 6. You need to me find you quotes from prominent Republican leaders and mouthpieces expressly voicing their desire?”
That’s the “master plan” of like a handfull of people on the fringe it isn’t the master plan of the whole party. Just because they have leadership positions doesn’t mean jack. In addition, most of them are really not biased against public schools as such, they’re pissed about one thing or another specifically. Ron Paul about the constitution, others about how much massive fail is currently entrenched in our public schools via the system we have allowed to take hold. Understand that if our schools were shining beacons of edumacation then most conservatives wouldn’t say jack. And note that there is plenty of support from your own side of the isle to support nipping these problems in the bud. They just don’t have the balls to just come out and say “do whatever it takes to get it done”.
” I don’t disagree that many public schools are failing.”
Many? MANY? I don’t know how old you are, or where you went to school. Or whatever ridiculously low standards you wish our public schools and private schools to meet. But I personally had the displeasure of going through public school not so long ago. And I went to one of the better ones relatively speaking. It still massively failed to prepare even a majority, probably even nearly half, much less nearly all, of the students for a prosperous life in our modern age. Ridiculous! And you see schools doing the right thing now in these documentaries but we haven’t adopted those models everywhere. IN LARGE, NAY HUGE, PART BECAUSE OF THE FIN UNIONS.
I note that there is even an ENTIRELY ONLINE AND COMPLETELY FREE program for schools to follow and teach that prepares kids outstandingly well.
Just watch this vid. link to khanacademy.org
There. The end of the crisis in the schools except for disciplinary and other nonsensical problems that can be nipped right fast for any student willing to put forth effort.
The only “master plan” we need is to be able to incorporate that curriculum into our public and perhaps private schools bust the unions (almost?) ENTIRELY and by next year watch our stats go through the roof. Then we can talk about making a new union to help the poor teachers out. Starting with a much more reasonable baseline and probably including some, oh, I don’t know, ability to make some merit based pay if they so desire?
I’m just really rilled up about education since the answer has been waaaaaaayyyyyy too apparent since several years before the Khan Academy guy took matters into his own hands and did what the gov should have done years ago. And yet still, even as the answer has been freely provided for them, we still have people bickering on whether or not the schools should be public or private. Je sus H Ch rist. The only thing that matters are the kids, not public v private nonsense.
Wow, I haven’t seen this talking points since I mistakenly glanced downward while reading a CNN Online story.
What exactly are “reproductive rights”? I don’t seem to find them in the Constitution.
I don’t see the right to blink in the Constitution either. It must not exist.
What about men who don’t support their women having an abortion?
“Their women”? LOL.
Should they have a say (after all, the baby is half his)?
You mean the fertilized single-celled embryonic “baby” or the “baby” with a fully developed nervous system moments from being born? It makes a difference, as you know.
Honestly, the idea that some guy can engage the government to control a woman’s uterus merely because he ejaculated inside of her is ridiculous on its face. I bet it sounded reasonable in the fourth century, though. Of course, back then you could buy and sell women, just like you could buy and sell black people in this country until fairly recently (an activity, by the way, that was “justified” by thumpers of various religious texts, the same folks who are thumping the most loudly today about what women should and should not be doing with their nasty private parts).
To answer your question most succinctly: no, a rxpist does not have any right to determine the fate of an egg he inseminated, at least as long as that egg is in a woman’s uterus. With respect to any consent that might have taken place prior to insemination, that is at best a contractual issue that could never trump the woman’s right to end the pregnancy if she later decides (for any reason) that she wants nothing whatsoever to do with this guy or the fetus. Or would you prefer a trial in such cases to determine whether the guy really cheated and stole all her money before she can get the abortion?
What about the viable fetus, does the viable fetus have a say?
That’s funny. I don’t see anything about the rights of “viable fetuses” in the Constitution.
LOL
I don’t understand your point. If you’re saying Amendment 10 can’t be strengthened because of Slavery or Women, then I’d say that’s not convincing because Slavery is abolished in Amendment 13 and Women (and LGBT for that matter) are addressed in Amendment 19.
“What exactly are ‘reproductive rights’? I don’t seem to find them in the Constitution.”
So U.S. citizens don’t have any rights unless they are specifically mentioned in the Constitution?
You must be one of those Scaliatards.
Get a clue.
“What exactly are “reproductive rights”? ”
Why that’s easy: The Reproductive right is the right to just say “No.”
But that is not the “question” you are actually “asking” is it? You want the “right” to engage in the act of reproduction without the consequence of that act.
Somehow labeling that “Reproductive Right” has more panache than calling it “Right to Not Take Responsibility.”
It’s all in the words chosen to describe the situation.
I think the best answer to your first question is to discuss an analogy: Federal funding of religious schools. The Supreme Court has said that this is illegal to the extent that the school will use the federal money to teach religion. However, if the school completely segregates its religious activities from its educational activities, then the funding is okay.
I am fairly sure that a clinic providing services to women could do so and continue to receive federal money so long as that clinic did not itself provide abortion services. I might be wrong here on the facts, and if I am, please let me know.
On the abortion issue, I think is generally acceptable for a women to want to control her own body. However, I think the Supreme Court decision in Roe V Wade struck the right policy. The fetus has rights later in the term because the fetus is now viable.
To the extent that either side of this issue ignores the central policy compromise struck in Roe V Wade, I think they’re wrong.
IBP I think federal power should be limited to what regional interests can agree upon, where the issues are only questions of degree–e.g. defense, air travel, patents, etc.–and that the regions should be otherwise left to themselves. Yes, there may be constitutional difficulties, but whatever–nobody ever said life would be easy.
“Constitutional difficulties.” Oh, you mean stuff like balancing the rights of a majority of people in a region to maintain their “traditional” values versus the rights of a minority of citizens in the same region to privately pursue their happiness (causing no harm to other citizens) without interference by the majority.
Yes, it’s true that some people have a really difficult time with that balancing act. Have you noticed that in this country such people historically tend to be poorly educated, “deeply religous”, white people? Just another one of those troubling “liberal” facts that you may want to digest.
The tension between States and Federalism was spoiled by the States refusing to recognize the sanctity of Man (in the traditional sense of Man including women).
When a State will believe that it is within its rights to have slaves, then Federalism becomes a pretty good thing.
After all, we are all citizens of this country, whether we live in NYC, Bismarck, Mobile, San Francisco (inhabitants abhor “SanFran”), or Provo. And as citizens of this country, one right we each have is to relocate to any of these cites if we so desire.
This “region” is a relative term, and the proper context of that term is “country.” To ignore the role that Federalism has is to choose to ignore reality.
“what are the “bizarre terms” that women who seek to maintain control over their reproductive rights”
What exactly are “reproductive rights”? I don’t seem to find them in the Constitution.
It still takes both sexes to reproduce, correct? What about men who don’t support their women having an abortion? Should they have a say (after all, the baby is half his)? Or do you think only that (white) men should be cut out of the decision process?
What about the viable fetus, does the viable fetus have a say? After all, the viable fetus has the absolute most to lose here.
6Conspiracy theory much?
(this was in response to my statement that “that a big part of The [Republican] Master Plan is to eradicate the Federal Government’s ability to educate the population. ”
It’s hardlyt a “conspiracy”, 6. You need to me find you quotes from prominent Republican leaders and mouthpieces expressly voicing their desire?
I don’t disagree that many public schools are failing. I certainly disagree that it’s a problem that is incapable of solution. (Typical Republican solution: it’s the fault of the teachers! We need to cut their salaries!)
Some public schools are perfectly fine. In fact, they are so so fine that upper middle class and wealthy parents buy houses just so their kids can attend those schools. Go figure.
Meanwhile, our perfect and untouchable military sxcks up orders of magnitude more money and accomplishes such awesome feats as … Abu Ghraib? Turning Afghanistan into a pillar of Democracy? Funny how people are perfectly willing to believe Republican lies about the magic we can accomplish in extremely poor countries but have no faith whatsoever in the ability of our country (an incredibly wealthy country, btw) to merely accomplish what we seemed perfectly capable of accomplishing in the past.
6 : What’s that? State’s Rights? lulz, silly man, nobody would ever hold strong feelings on this subject!
Except oh, everyone on the face of the planet that doesn’t want an additional burdensome leven of gov. nonsense over their heads except to the point absolutely necessary.
The problem is that people who have “strong feelings” about this subject almost invariably turn into pathetic hypocrites when they understand what it is that they are wishing for. I seem to recall most if not all of them gobbling up that Federal stimulus money not too long ago. Have we already forgotten the yahoos storming the town hall meetings with slogans such as “Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare”? Remind me: which states receive the most Federal subsidies relative to what they contribute in taxes? What will happen to all these proud states without income tax when the interstate highways passing through them turn into dust?
Don’t the computers that provide EFS require electricity? Does the patent office get electricity for free? If not, running computers comprises (to coin a phrase) spending money that has not been appropriated.
That’s why they would shut down EFS.
Ned: I think that is all that the Republican position is trying to do. They are not trying to outlaw abortion. They simply not do not wish to fund it.
Let’s assume that the Republican position is reasonable (it’s not, of course, because the abortion issue is just a proxy for the ancient and never-ending desire of fundamentalists to control women’s sexual lives, but let’s just assume that it is).
The problem is that the law already prohibits Planned Parenthood from using Federal money to fund abortions. The conservatards want to take away all Federal money from *any organization that merely provides abortions* (a legal procedure, you might recall), regardless of what else they might do, including providing access to birth control, reproductive and STD diagnosis and prevention, etc., especially to poor people who might otherwise not be able to afford it. Do you understand?
This is what I’m talking about. The conservatives have a giant microphone for disseminating their lies and they have no shame whatsoever about doing it. For example, just this morning, a Republican Senator made a speech on the floor of the Senate in which he alleged that 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions. That is a ridiculous lie.
the country seems evenly split on the issue of abortion. The issue is emotional. Each side sees the other in rather bizarre terms.
Please inform: what are the “bizarre terms” that women who seek to maintain control over their reproductive rights (and men who support them) see those who wish to take those rights away?
To paraphrase Reagan:
Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. Recovery is when Obama loses his!
Spend an hour with me, and I think your worldview might be a changin’.
God dammit that was ping. I replied before looking. Sorry ping, I’m ignoring you this week. Disregard my posting in re your posting.
Anyone? Excepting disabled people?
lulz
6 and I, on the other hand, seem to have no common ground on anything!
Yup sounds like state’s rights issues to me!
What’s that? State’s Rights? lulz, silly man, nobody would ever hold strong feelings on this subject!
Except oh, everyone on the face of the planet that doesn’t want an additional burdensome leven of gov. nonsense over their heads except to the point absolutely necessary.
I am faint with the shock in finding that I agree 100% with Malcolm Mooney. But then, it has nothing to do with patents, LOL!
My bad I didn’t post in re the correct post. It should have been in re the reasonable centrist post.
Regarding your original posting:
“Paul, the reason for the shutdown is the anti-woman lunatics in the ultra-conservative Repuke party trying to remove Federal funding for reproductive health care and family planning. ”
Oh now now. Just because some people don’t want to pay for other people’s abortions, i.e. pay for them to be able to have consequence free sexual relations, hardly makes them anti-women. I’m quite sure they love their womenz a lot. Whilst getting some of the pregnant I should have no doubt.
“So who votes for these radical right m0r0ns exactly? What motivates them? Well, they tend to be folks like that sockpuppet who commented in the Judge Reyna thread to the effect that MLK, Jr. would be disappointed by Dennis’ description. You know, folks like Mississipppi GOP voters, a majority of whom (46-40) think inter-racial marriage should be illegal. Yes, you read that correctly: inter-RACIAL marriage.”
Oh come on MM, they’re not against all inter-racial marriage. Just some. For instance, they don’t care one way or another if a hispanic person marries an asian person. Right?
“No surprise, then, that a big part of The Master Plan is to eradicate the Federal Government’s ability to educate the population. ”
Conspiracy theory much?
“A big part of the conservative, fundamentalist dream is to destroy public funding for education. ”
Well, considering current dropout rates that really shouldn’t matter that much lol. But, on the other hand, let’s say it would matter. Who on earth told you that they want to destroy public funding for edumacation?
“That will allow Federal money to be transferred to private religious schools (in the form of vouchers) and at the same time will keep the population as uninformed and uneducated as possible (at least as to objective facts such as the age of the earth and trivial stuff like that — such facts tend to be “liberal”, as everyone knows).”
I have to say, if it decreases dropout rates it would probably increase the amount of overall edumacation dealing with such facts as the people who recieved a “religion filled” edumacation would certainly at least be able to read and write and might, one day, spend 5 seconds to wiki the facts and see what all the commotion was about. And then, thanks to their edumacation, they would be able to critically think for themselves.
But hey, don’t let me rain on your parade of horrible schools we’re currently overfunding. I just got through watching a great documentary on them, one of many. Usually they’re made by your avg liberal film-maker and I enjoy those, but this was by a fairly conservative person and he came to the exact same conclusion. Out public school system is so bonked and dysfunctional it blows the mind.
If I had to guess, which I do, it would probably be easier to start up competition between private schools (religious or science specializing) to compete with the public schools for funding so that we can root out the problems without having to get rid of all the thousands of politicians who practically cannot be voted out because the education unions control a massive vote in elections where hardly anyone votes because they don’t know or care about state gov.
Now, all that isn’t to say that I support this particular brand of republican, or republicans in general, but if they’re the only one for doing away with this ridiculous entitlement bs then more power to them. That goes double if they will support vouchers that can be used by students to go to a specialized school, either religious OR science specializing. The later of course would be where I would hope most kids could go if only there were enough people capable of creating such a school everywhere one is needed.
Maybe what we need is a constitutional amendment to modify Amendment 10. It could do something along the lines of securing less power to the fed and more to the states, because Amendment 10 as it stands is clearly not taken seriously by the fed.
6,
Clueless at O so many levels.
One hint: just who do ya think is most able to “help themselves”?
Mooney–
I reject, as not useful, the entire basis upon which the analysis is predicated.
I reject, as not useful, the “linear” so-called “political spectrum”.
I reject, as not useful, the congressional and executive scheme in the USA.
The real problem is structural. American political institutions are not designed to overcome the inadequacies of the population, but instead to amplify, exacerbate, and propagate them.
I’m short on time, but I’m sure that Paul Cole can briefly compare and contrast the American system with, say a Parliamentary system, to at least highlight some of the structural inadequacies inherent in the US today.
The average person is a m0r0n, hardly worthy of the title “citizen”. That is partly the fault of the state. And it doesn’t matter HOW one chooses to define, categorize, or characterize them, that basic fact remains.
I’m most definitely not a “centrist”, as you put it. The US is effectively a number of different nations, contributing to a common defensive, commercial, and social welfare scheme. NYC is NOTHING like Bismarck, which is NOTHING like Mobile, which is NOTHING like SanFran, which is NOTHING like Provo.
I think federal power should be limited to what regional interests can agree upon, where the issues are only questions of degree–e.g. defense, air travel, patents, etc.–and that the regions should be otherwise left to themselves. Yes, there may be constitutional difficulties, but whatever–nobody ever said life would be easy.
I suppose you might call me a “pluralist”, whatever you understand that to mean.
Just a couple points here Malcolm, the country seems evenly split on the issue of abortion. The issue is emotional. Each side sees the other in rather bizarre terms. I would think that under the circumstances, the federal government should stay neutral. I think that is all that the Republican position is trying to do. They are not trying to outlaw abortion. They simply not do not wish to fund it. This is not a radical position.
Regarding President Bush and the surplus, it had vanished before any tax cuts went into effect. The surplus vanished with economic expansion. The significant “recession” that began in the last year of the Clinton administration is the reason for the loss of tax revenues.
The Bush tax cuts clicked-in in 2003. This also corresponds with the beginning of the recovery and of the strong economic expansion that took place between 2003 in 2007. Near the end of the Bush a administration, this economic expansion had increased tax revenues so much that the budget deficit at all but vanished.
So what do we take from this? We take from this is that the most critical factor in federal tax revenues is economic activity and economic expansion. Recessions, such as we have experienced under Obama, kill tax revenue. If we are to reduce the budget deficit, we must get the economy moving again.
I’m such a reasonable centrist and I agree with nearly everything you just said above. Except with the part about a budget plan being objectively insane. The only thing objectively insane is continuing to spend the obscene amounts of money we currently are at our federal level.
Oh, and I also have very little interest in improving the lives of the majority of any constituents. I am on the other hand very interested in improving the lives of the majority of any constituents who can be bothered to try to help themselves.
“Conservatives” and “liberals” are like two identical twins arguing over which of them is the ugliest.
Ah, yes, enter the “reasonable centrist” (I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren’t an anarchist). The “reasonable centrist” in the United States typically exists to serve conservative interests, as the “reasonable centrist” tends to support something that resembles the status quo but almost always tends to align more closely with the “serious white daddy” figures in the conservative camp. The “reasonable centrist” says “why can’t we compromise without fighting”, without ever seeming to recognize that the conservative proposals (e.g., Senator Ryan’s budget) are objectively insane and nonsensical (the “reasonable centrist” might characterize such a position as “brave”).
I would agree with the proposition that there are many Democratic congress people who have just as little interest in improving the lives of the majority of their constituents as a typical Republican.
But that is not what you said. What you said is wrong, to the extent it’s not devoid of meaning (given that you haven’t defined the terms).
It’s not terribly difficult to define the core elements of “liberal” and “conservative” philosophy in the United States. Do you need a lesson?
Kudos to IBP – now that was funny.