Republicans Can be A$$hats too

[IBCoupe]

Stebo, I really don't care about what you think socialism leads to, because I really don't care about whatever thought you have in your head about who is and who is not a socialist.

I think I'm starting to understand what you're trying to say, but even then, it seems a bit circuitous. If we only have the rights that we can defend, but we can use society to defend our rights... doesn't that just mean that we only have the rights that society agrees we do?

What if I get a majority of Americans to agree that black people can't ever be American citizens. We all think that Dred Scott was a fantastically wonderful decision, and that the Supreme Court was right on the money. Are you suggesting that because I have more people that agree with me than not, that we can just go ahead and make that a rule?

Or are there some immutable rights at play? Like, say, the ones that are explicitly and implicitly included in the written supreme law of the land?

[audtatious]

Circuitous? Is that some word of the day you needed to use somewhere?

[IBCoupe]

Hehe, it was the first thing that came to mind. Would "roundabout" have worked better?

[audtatious]

lol

I thought it was comical.

[IBCoupe]

'Twas.

[AppleBonker]

Somewhat back on topic:

what is this crap?

[audtatious]

He has somewhat of a point and he is saying his opinion. It's the American way, rite?

[AppleBonker]

What's his point? And what is he trying to accomplish by presenting it?

Edit: I don't have a problem with him speaking his mind. I do, however, have a problem with him saying stuff like this and then pretending to be a news reporter/analyst. Plus, he still hasn't ruled out running for president, so I would figure this is a topic better left to opinion columns/shows.

[audtatious]

What do you mean "what is his point"? It's pretty clear in the article what point he is making and there is validity to it. Portman is a "star" and people look up to stars. If she comes out and spews out kids saying it's perfectly fine doing so without being married then a lot of young girls are getting what some would determine as a "wrong impression" about marriage and family values. Seems to be OK with the left but not with the right.

I'm surely not surprised someone who labels them self as religious would have such a stance.

[AppleBonker]

What do you mean "what is his point"? It's pretty clear in the article what point he is making and there is validity to it. Portman is a "star" and people look up to stars. If she comes out and spews out kids saying it's perfectly fine doing so without being married then a lot of young girls are getting what some would determine as a "wrong impression" about marriage and family values. Seems to be OK with the left but not with the right.

I'm surely not surprised someone who labels them self as religious would have such a stance.

Do people not also look up to politicians? Why did he not speak up about Bristol Palin (sure, she wasn't herself a politician, but she was/is a national figure)? So he is trying to influence peoples' decisions about when to have children? Portman isn't telling girls to have children out of wedlock. Huckabee IS telling people not to.

[audtatious]

Palin...but Bush...Palin....but Bush...

Have you asked Huckabee what his opinion is of Bristol Palin and her baby? If he said it was OK because her mom is SARAH PALIN then you would have a point. Until then you don't.

[96Qowner]

Portman isn't telling girls to have children out of wedlock. Huckabee IS telling people not to.

And Portman is wrong, and Huckabee is right.

Right?

[AppleBonker]

Have you asked Huckabee what his opinion is of Bristol Palin and her baby? If he said it was OK because her mom is SARAH PALIN then you would have a point. Until then you don't.

Fine. I don't have a point. Just found it convenient that he now feels the need to preach to the country about how this is a bad idea after a prominent citizen with ties to the Republican party (who went through the exact same thing) is no longer in the spotlight.

Portman isn't telling girls to have children out of wedlock. Huckabee IS telling people not to.

And Portman is wrong, and Huckabee is right.

Right?

What? I'm not following you at all. I don't care what either of their positions are. Neither of them should be telling me how to live my life. Portman isn't telling me what to do (one way or the other), Huckabee is. That is my problem.

[audtatious]

Fine. I don't have a point. Just found it convenient that he now feels the need to preach to the country about how this is a bad idea after a prominent citizen with ties to the Republican party (who went through the exact same thing) is no longer in the spotlight.

I dislike anyone preaching to the country but it happens from both sides in the form of religion, environment, etc. His point is somewhat valid whether it's Bristol, a Hollywood celeb, a politician, or Suzy down the street. I'm sure he would say Bristol is wrong too as that is what he believes. If he didn't then he'd be a hypocrite.

[AppleBonker]

I dislike anyone preaching to the country

Then we are in agreement.

but it happens from both sides in the form of religion, environment, etc

Which doesn't change the fact that both sides are wrong when they do.

[audtatious]

and I don't disagree with that. It's going to happen regardless.

[96Qowner]

So a woman decides that the Oscars are an appropriate venue to announce that she's happy to be pregnant by her new boyfriend, and that's not a "wrong" thing to do, while Huckabee says in his own opinion venue, that it would have been better if she'd kept it to herself, and it's Huckabee you have an issue with.

Okayay.

We've since learned, as Huckabee did, that she'll be marrying the boyfriend when it's convenient for her to. Good for her.

Here's a question that pops to mind. How did she get pregnant? She has sex without using birth control or a condom? Just swell. What a fine example to our youth. Right?

[audtatious]

Abortions are easy enuf

[IBCoupe]

She has sex without using birth control or a condom? Just swell. What a fine example to our youth.

So did their parents.

[AppleBonker]

So a woman decides that the Oscars are an appropriate venue to announce that she's happy to be pregnant by her new boyfriend,

Better than her being unhappy about it.

What a fine example to our youth.

People shouldn't emulate others. That's the problem. My issue is as follows:

She didn't get up and tell people they should have children. She's not encouraging it. She's just doing what she wants. That's her choice. Huckabee, however, is telling people what they should do with their lives. I don't need someone to tell me what to do (especially someone who might try to run for a government position). How is this complicated?

[audtatious]

Yet we all know kids will emulate people and telling them they shouldn't means nothing.

[IBCoupe]

Be better parents, if it worries you?

[audtatious]

Yeah, it's that easy. Just ask you, a kid in school who has never been a parent.

[IBCoupe]

Apparently, my sister never acted upon any desire to follow in the footsteps of Christina Aguilera or Britney Spears. How about that?

[audtatious]

Good for her, bad role models.

Unless you home school your kids and limit what they have access to then they will run across things that can easily influence them. Peer pressure is worse with girls than boys as well. You can set by example all you want but sometimes you have to rely on the child having sense enough to make the right choice. The younger the child the worse that choice may be.

You can't be with them 24/7 and the more you harp on them the less they listen.

[96Qowner]

So a woman decides that the Oscars are an appropriate venue to announce that she's happy to be pregnant by her new boyfriend,

Better than her being unhappy about it.

What a fine example to our youth.

People shouldn't emulate others. That's the problem. My issue is as follows:

She didn't get up and tell people they should have children. She's not encouraging it. She's just doing what she wants. That's her choice. Huckabee, however, is telling people what they should do with their lives. I don't need someone to tell me what to do (especially someone who might try to run for a government position). How is this complicated?

And ironically, here you are, emulating Huckabee. He was being interviewed and was asked his opinion. You're on a political forum where you were asked for your opinion. You're judging Huckabee, just as he was judging Portman.

You'd better not consider running for political office, because then it just wouldn't be proper to judge others. Do I have your logic right?

[stebo0728]

Stebo, I really don't care about what you think socialism leads to, because I really don't care about whatever thought you have in your head about who is and who is not a socialist.

I think I'm starting to understand what you're trying to say, but even then, it seems a bit circuitous. If we only have the rights that we can defend, but we can use society to defend our rights... doesn't that just mean that we only have the rights that society agrees we do?

What if I get a majority of Americans to agree that black people can't ever be American citizens. We all think that Dred Scott was a fantastically wonderful decision, and that the Supreme Court was right on the money. Are you suggesting that because I have more people that agree with me than not, that we can just go ahead and make that a rule?

Or are there some immutable rights at play? Like, say, the ones that are explicitly and implicitly included in the written supreme law of the land?

Ok took me some time to get around to a decent response, or at least what I consider a decent response

It seems maybe you are trying to suggest that my world view would ultimately end in democracy, mob rule. But not so. Our representative democracy, though admittedly a bit flawed, is the best recipe for success, as long as we have measures to counteract overly large majorities; measures such as the electoral college. Its also important that all involved parties have accurate and completely involved representation. We pass amendments like the 17th, that completely oust this principle.

My point, from before, is that the most important level of our society is at the individual level. That is where changed need be affected, and that is where successes will be encountered, and likewise, where the greatest failures will be magnified. We sum our individual interests into what we call society, but when we reach a point where that summation seeks to outweigh and unempower the individual level, we are just eroding our bases, and dooming ourselves to failure of the greatest type.

[IBCoupe]

Our representative democracy, though admittedly a bit flawed, is the best recipe for success, as long as we have measures to counteract overly large majorities; measures such as the electoral college.

How does the electoral college protect individual rights? The Electoral college prevents a region from beating out another region. The electoral college didn't stop slavery.

Its also important that all involved parties have accurate and completely involved representation. We pass amendments like the 17th, that completely oust this principle.

I don't think that's what the 17th Amendment did. Prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were appointed by State legislatures, on the theory that these Senators would be beholden to their State governments, who would be, hopefully, beholden to the entire citizenry of the State. The 17th Amendment was passed because it didn't work out that way - Senators were beholden to the majority of support they could conjure in Statehouses. If anything, the 17th amendment got us closer to "completely involved representation."

We sum our individual interests into what we call society, but when we reach a point where that summation seeks to outweigh and unempower the individual level, we are just eroding our bases, and dooming ourselves to failure of the greatest type.

I don't buy it, Stebo. There are collective rights, and there have to be. Your right to run your business in exactly the way you want it is going to run right into the wall of your externalities, and the society which is forced to aggregate them. That's the very basis for regulation, and if you think it's a stretch to apply that reasoning to individuals other than businesses - try coming up with a list of things that people do that do not involve the externalization of certain costs.

[AppleBonker]

And ironically, here you are, emulating Huckabee. He was being interviewed and was asked his opinion. You're on a political forum where you were asked for your opinion. You're judging Huckabee, just as he was judging Portman.

Yeah, not entirely. If there is one opinion I will stress, it would be that you should allow others to live as they see fit. Yes, I have a problem with Huckabee suggesting he knows what is right for everyone out there. Just as I'm sure you'd have a problem with someone of a moral system other than yours telling you how to live your life. Now, if everyone keeps that to themselves, no one will be arguing about it. Right?

You'd better not consider running for political office, because then it just wouldn't be proper to judge others. Do I have your logic right?

I'd never make it to political office. I'm far too abrasive in making my points and I refuse to play to the crowd. Do you have my logic right? Nope, not at all. My logic is: leave me alone and don't tell me how to live my life. Now, that leads to a paradox; I can't tell you to leave me alone and expect you to do it. Fair enough. Put simply, if the only thing people commanded me to do was leave them alone, I'd be ok with it (in fact, it would make me so happy I would feel like river-dancing). That's much better than you trying to control every little detail of my life. Follow now?

[96Qowner]

Nah, I think the truth is that Huckabee comes off all superior n stuff, and Natalie Portman is cute. Humans are supposed to judge each other - that's how we each figure out if we're insane or not. Most people just don't like to be judged negatively - we much prefer to be judged positively - no big surprise.

If Huckabee had praised Natalie for her frank and open honesty about her pregnancy, I doubt you'd have objected, even though many people think her behavior should not be anything to boast about. You judge Huckabee negatively, but that's ok apparently. It's different when it's you judging people. Again, perfectly understandable.

I, on the other hand, have no issue with Natalie Portman, or Huckabee or yourself. But I don't agree that Huckabee had no right to judge her when asked his opinion.