US Politics: Meet the New Right, same as the Old Right

[TerraPrime]

And the war on women continues:

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/4/tennessee-prenatalcarematernaldrugusebillhaslam.html

WEEEE!!!

I don't know.

I think I can be convinced to support a different version of the law where the focus is on holding women who are drug addicts accountable for the effects of their drug addiction on their children. I think something can be put together that does not violate a woman's right to her own body's autonomy while still hold irresponsible women accountable for the harm they had done to their infants.

[TrackerNeil]

I don't know.

I think I can be convinced to support a different version of the law where the focus is on holding women who are drug addicts accountable for the effects of their drug addiction on their children. I think something can be put together that does not violate a woman's right to her own body's autonomy while still hold irresponsible women accountable for the harm they had done to their infants.

That's quite a challenge. Personally, I'm not sure giving fetuses cause of action against the women who bear them is a good idea; in fact, I think it's bloody awful.

[The Iceman of the North]

That's quite a challenge. Personally, I'm not sure giving fetuses cause of action against the women who bear them is a good idea; in fact, I think it's bloody awful.

I don't know. The victim being a foetus does not excuse child neglect. There ought to be provisions limiting this to actions taken place after the woman was notified of her pregnancy, and only for pregnancies that are carried out to full term.

[grumdin]

I predicted that you'd get huffy about the definition of "army" since you seem desperate to reduce me to your level by parsing everything I've said to find "hyperbole" equal to your unacknowledged lies. And I was right.

I've already explained my reasoning why I believe I'm right about using the words "threatening" and "criminal" and all the rest of this is just your whining and attempting to put words in my mouth to bolster your shitty arguments. All around a pretty sad performance from a one-trick pony whose trick is tired.

Not going to respond to Ini's questions? Do you need me to quote them for you? Man up, bro.

You think you're right to call Bundy a criminal and the demonstrators a threatening milita army because in your eyes that's what they are, and you know what? That's fine. If you're just stating a subjective opinion then make that clear. When I hear that someone broke the law I assume the person being referred to is a criminal of some description,. But you meant he lost a civil dispute with the Federal government? Because losing a civil case is breaking the law and makes you a criminal... or you mean he is a criminal because he was doing some other crazy shit? But you can't tell us exactly what it is? Ini's point was that Bundy had broken the law, and so is a criminal, even though the Feds hadn't filed charges, applied for an indictment, issued an arrest warrant, arrested him, taken him to trial and found him guilty....man tough crowd. Ini knows Bundy broke the law because in his/her opinion he did, which is a really interesting approach to take when throwing accusations around. Or you don't mean any of that but something else? Oh and I'm a one trick pony with shitty arguments (which goes without saying). Man up indeed.

So again, if you have actual no shit evidence that Cliven Bundy broke the law please post it. I'm more than happy to change my mind if you can do that, so far all I've gotten is a bunch of stuff you think he did.

[Seli]

I don't know.

I think I can be convinced to support a different version of the law where the focus is on holding women who are drug addicts accountable for the effects of their drug addiction on their children. I think something can be put together that does not violate a woman's right to her own body's autonomy while still hold irresponsible women accountable for the harm they had done to their infants.

Perhaps, if you start from a situation where those women have access to all possible help. For themselves, to prevent pregnancies, to other medical care. But as current in the US in general...

[grumdin]

I don't know. The victim being a foetus does not excuse child neglect. There ought to be provisions limiting this to actions taken place after the woman was notified of her pregnancy, and only for pregnancies that are carried out to full term.

If there is legalized abortion then these types of cases, what? Fetal abuse/neglect? Are ridiculous. The mother can terminate her pregnancy anytime she likes but she can't have a drink, smoke, do weed, take meth? Personally I think anyone who would take that shit when they're carrying a baby are not fit to call themselves human, but legally this has been settled.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

It's not the original scandal but the lies to cover it up that'll get ya.

Just ask Chris Christie.

[DanteGabriel]

You think you're right to call Bundy a criminal and the demonstrators a threatening milita army because in your eyes that's what they are, and you know what? That's fine. If you're just stating a subjective opinion then make that clear. When I hear that someone broke the law I assume the person being referred to is a criminal of some description,. But you meant he lost a civil dispute with the Federal government? Because losing a civil case is breaking the law and makes you a criminal... or you mean he is a criminal because he was doing some other crazy shit? But you can't tell us exactly what it is? Ini's point was that Bundy had broken the law, and so is a criminal, even though the Feds hadn't filed charges, applied for an indictment, issued an arrest warrant, arrested him, taken him to trial and found him guilty....man tough crowd. Ini knows Bundy broke the law because in his/her opinion he did, which is a really interesting approach to take when throwing accusations around. Or you don't mean any of that but something else? Oh and I'm a one trick pony with shitty arguments (which goes without saying). Man up indeed.

So again, if you have actual no shit evidence that Cliven Bundy broke the law please post it. I'm more than happy to change my mind if you can do that, so far all I've gotten is a bunch of stuff you think he did.

You're just clouding the issue again. You know damn well this isn't just about losing a civil dispute with the federal government. Yet you continue to describe him as just someone who hasn't paid some fees. A guy who just wasn't paying fees to the government wouldn't be a national story, would he?

I'd say your minimization of Bundy's actions combined with your repeated mischaracterizations of my own posts (you're hyper focused on the specific words I use but you still didn't acknowledge it when I called you out for trying to ascribe the word "kill" to me) are making it impossible to actually have a good faith discussion with you. Indeed, it's like trying to run a government with a party that refuses to budge from its insane positions.

I've said again and again, I've posted all the evidence I think I need to prove my points. You don't agree with them, fine. But don't try and pretend that because you disagree with me about what constitutes "threatening" or "criminal" makes me as dishonest as you with your persistent goalpost-shifting, misquoting, and inability to even fess up to the times you were caught out making unfounded arguments about repeated subjects.

And please, do tell me, because you're so desperate to escape the stench of your own stupid and provably untrue arguments -- have liberals ever criticized Obama's drone program? Man up!

[Inigima]

The lawbreaking was repeated, deliberate violation of court orders. This is not a subjective opinion. This is a real thing that Bundy is known to have done and it is illegal.

The issue isn't that he lost his cases, it's that the cases prompted court orders that he did not abide by.

[TerraPrime]

Perhaps, if you start from a situation where those women have access to all possible help. For themselves, to prevent pregnancies, to other medical care. But as current in the US in general...

Good point. I did assume that the woman could have obtained abortion legally, but in this day and age, it is not such a fair or sound assumption any more.

I am, however, not convinced that "access to all possible help" is a good metric. We do not give similar considerations to other criminals, right? If a woman kinaps a baby and forcfeed the baby cocaine, I don't think we'd be talking about whether the hypothetical kidnapper should be held accountable for her actions based on whether she has access to all possible help.

[DanteGabriel]

I promise in future to be very careful in the language I use, I won't be letting my mouth run away with itself.

And no failure to pay federal grazing fees is not a criminal matter.

But you meant he lost a civil dispute with the Federal government? Because losing a civil case is breaking the law and makes you a criminal...

The lawbreaking was repeated, deliberate violation of court orders. This is not a subjective opinion. This is a real thing that Bundy is known to have done and it is illegal.

The issue isn't that he lost his cases, it's that the cases prompted court orders that he did not abide by.

Grumdin, is "losing a civil dispute with the Federal government" really the extent of Bundy's actions? Remember your promise now. Man up, bro.

[grumdin]

You're just clouding the issue again. You know damn well this isn't just about losing a civil dispute with the federal government. Yet you continue to describe him as just someone who hasn't paid some fees. A guy who just wasn't paying fees to the government wouldn't be a national story, would he?

I'd say your minimization of Bundy's actions combined with your repeated mischaracterizations of my own posts (you're hyper focused on the specific words I use but you still didn't acknowledge it when I called you out for trying to ascribe the word "kill" to me) are making it impossible to actually have a good faith discussion with you. Indeed, it's like trying to run a government with a party that refuses to budge from its insane positions.

I've said again and again, I've posted all the evidence I think I need to prove my points. You don't agree with them, fine. But don't try and pretend that because you disagree with me about what constitutes "threatening" or "criminal" makes me as dishonest as you with your persistent goalpost-shifting, misquoting, and inability to even fess up to the times you were caught out making unfounded arguments about repeated subjects.

And please, do tell me, because you're so desperate to escape the stench of your own stupid and provably untrue arguments -- have liberals ever criticized Obama's drone program? Man up!

Didn't we discuss that previously, and didn't I say sorry for misusing a word? Yes I shouldn't have said all I should have said most, I am very sorry for that. See? When you're wrong about something it's fine to admit it and move on.

As I said I'm more than happy to change my mind about Bundy if you, or if anyone, can post evidence that he's a criminal. If you have such evidence you could always take it to the Feds as I'm pretty sure they'd be keen to build a case.

As for the protestors being a threatening militia army, The only evidence posted, well at least the only thing I've seen so apologies if I missed something, is a picture of one dude, prone on the ground with a scoped rifle looking out over the protestors. We don't know who the man is, why he was there, who he was pointing his gun at, even whether the gun was loaded or not. I've shared a link to video of the actual protest that shows a perfectly peaceable demonstration with restraint shown on both sides. No threats to kill anyone, no pointed guns, just a bunch of folk exercising their 1A rights. So you can't/won't back up your claims? Or these statements of yours are purely a result of your own subjective views? I'll take the latter and say you have a right to speak your opinion and God bless you for that.

[DanteGabriel]

Didn't we discuss that previously, and didn't I say sorry for misusing a word? Yes I shouldn't have said all I should have said most, I am very sorry for that. See? When you're wrong about something it's fine to admit it and move on.

So "most" liberals have not criticized Obama's drone policies? Do you have support for that claim?

Do you recognize that Bundy's misdeeds go beyond "losing a civil dispute with the federal government"?

[TrackerNeil]

Good point. I did assume that the woman could have obtained abortion legally, but in this day and age, it is not such a fair or sound assumption any more.

I am, however, not convinced that "access to all possible help" is a good metric. We do not give similar considerations to other criminals, right? If a woman kinaps a baby and forcfeed the baby cocaine, I don't think we'd be talking about whether the hypothetical kidnapper should be held accountable for her actions based on whether she has access to all possible help.

I'm not going to get into the civil rights implications of this law, because I do not want another giant abortion debate. However, I would like to know exactly what the state is trying to accomplish. If the goal is to ensure there are fewer drug-addicted babies, I can think of a number of ways more gentle and less intrusive than policing pregnancies. However, I suspect that the goal here has little to do with drug-addicted babies; instead, lawmakers are attempting to restrict the sexuality of women, poor women in particular.

[grumdin]

Grumdin, is "losing a civil dispute with the Federal government" really the extent of Bundy's actions? Remember your promise now. Man up, bro.

Well what laws did he break? Really tell me, beyond 'defying court orders' which again is a civil beef. If you and Ini mean that law breaking includes losing civil disputes with the government then I'm happy to accept your definition. If you mean he has been up to actual no shit criminal activity, then tell me what that is and post some cited evidence of it.

[Inigima]

As I said I'm more than happy to change my mind about Bundy if you, or if anyone, can post evidence that he's a criminal. If you have such evidence you could always take it to the Feds as I'm pretty sure they'd be keen to build a case.

Which particular tiresome tactic are you employing: pretending that violating a court order isn't illegal, or insisting that we (again) post an article reporting that he did indeed violate them?

[grumdin]

So "most" liberals have not criticized Obama's drone policies? Do you have support for that claim?

Do you recognize that Bundy's misdeeds go beyond "losing a civil dispute with the federal government?

Now who's trying to change the subject?

Yes OK, you've said that like a zillion times, cool I'm happy to accept Bundy the crook, now what laws has he broken and what evidence can you cite?

[Maithanet]

Good point. I did assume that the woman could have obtained abortion legally, but in this day and age, it is not such a fair or sound assumption any more.

I am, however, not convinced that "access to all possible help" is a good metric. We do not give similar considerations to other criminals, right? If a woman kinaps a baby and forcfeed the baby cocaine, I don't think we'd be talking about whether the hypothetical kidnapper should be held accountable for her actions based on whether she has access to all possible help.

This bill is very poorly thought out. It encourages women not to go to prenatal checkups, because if the doctor suspects she may be using drugs, she could be going to jail.

I agree with TrackerNeil, this bill only makes sense if you don't think about it. This law can potentially harm a lot of women, and could easily cause a lot of harm to the babies it is superficially trying to protect.

[DanteGabriel]

Well what laws did he break? Really tell me, beyond 'defying court orders' which again is a civil beef. If you and Ini mean that law breaking includes losing civil disputes with the government then I'm happy to accept your definition. If you mean he has been up to actual no shit criminal activity, then tell me what that is and post some cited evidence of it.

He violated a court order. Arguably he interfered with law enforcement officers attempting to do their jobs. This is so simple it beggars belief that the flaws in your argument have failed to penetrate your evidently potent Never Wrong zone.

And yet, within minutes of promising to be very careful with your words, you kept insisting that all he's done is lose a civil case.

[Shryke]

Fox News is more ridiculous then I had suspected. Somehow.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/how-not-cover-presidential-press

This report from Jack Mirkinson may seem like a joke, but it’s entirely real.

Fox News cut away from President Obama’s press conference with German chancellor Angela Merkel on Friday because people weren’t asking Obama questions about Benghazi.

Obama’s conference came just as House Republicans announced that they were forming a select committee to further investigate the 2012 attacks, but Fox News apparently grew frustrated that he was getting questions on the situation in Ukraine and the botched execution in Oklahoma.

When a German journalist started asking a question, Fox News’ Harris Faulkner told viewers, “We are not anticipating that that [question] would be about the situation with Benghazi, which is breaking news since the president has been talking, really. So if in fact somebody throws him a question on this topic, we’ll go back to that joint news conference … we’re going to move on here with what is breaking.”

Media Matters posted the video of this remarkable editorial decision.

Just so we’re clear, there’s an ongoing crisis in Ukraine and this White House press conference was an opportunity to hear two of the most important heads of state in the world address the West’s response to Russia’s incursions. Obama and Merkel also spoke at some length about surveillance policies, which have strained U.S. relations with allies like Germany.

But unless reporters at the press conference ask about Benghazi, Fox News just isn’t interested. Indeed, as promised, the network did not return to show any additional live footage from the press conference.

Crazy fuckers and their Benghazi obsession.