ForumGarden

I don't understand, seriously. Delegates, candidates and attendees were forbidden to carry firearms?

What?

haha. That's awesome.

Amy Goodman is doing coverage live from the convention centres right now for Democracy Now. I've skimmed it because I can't vote so I find the coverage somewhat irritating. What caught my eye was her attempt to interview billionaire David Koch with a single question "Mr. Koch, do you think unchecked concentration of wealth will undermine democracy?" and the wall of people that created itself between her and Mr. Koch. They seemed unwilling to admit that she was media.

And some other billionaire's daughter who grabbed the DN camera and threw it to the ground. imo, Not out of malice, just out of being a spoiled brat who didn't know any better.

Oh, and Clint Eastwood started out making a fun speech which turned into a rambling nightmare of senility.

She's covering the Democratic convention next. Hopefully they provide similar coverage of embarrassing moments. I like Democracy Now but it definitely needs to show less bias in its coverage.

I'm reading Florida Senator Marco Rubio's Convention Speech: NPR.org Transcript: Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's Convention Speech

We're bound together by common values. That family is the most important institution in society. That almighty God is the source of all we have. Special, because we've never made the mistake of believing that we are so smart that we can rely solely on our leaders or our government. Our national motto is "In God we Trust," reminding us that faith in our Creator is the most important American value of all. And special because we've always understood the scriptural admonition that "for everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required." We are a blessed people. And we have honored those blessings with the enduring example of an exceptional America.

I'm sure I've been saying for years in threads like these that people like him have been claiming such bullshit, and time and again I've been told it's not true. It bloody is so. Exceptional America, just like I always claimed, led by Jesus Triumphant. The damned place is more theocratic than Iran.

And then he criticizes the current administration:These are tired and old big government ideas. Ideas that people come to America to get away from. Ideas that threaten to make America more like the rest of the world, instead of helping the world become more like America.

Thank you squire but no. The rest of the world really seriously doesn't want to become more like America. You ordered it, now eat it.

Right wing, christian and fascist. You're not allowed to say that though are you. Mind you if the religious right git power it would not be long before they are ripping each other apart.

spot;1403122 wrote: I don't understand, seriously. Delegates, candidates and attendees were forbidden to carry firearms?

What?


Both conventions are high on security this year-once a delegate arrives they don't leave the premises. Lots of secret service persons there too.

Interesting how they select the delegates, but it is not cross sectional for representation but rather for duty to the party done. Just know some going to both of the conventions, in both roles, glad I'm at home going to BBQ something yummy today instead.......

Need more eggs.

Not enough eggs in US politics. Or possibly flans.

They've given up entirely on content in election speeches - it's just a list of phrases they must include to hit the demographics.

Egg the buggers.

Given that the candidates were long ago decided, the convention is really just a waste of time and resources.

chonsigirl;1403141 wrote: Both conventions are high on security this year-once a delegate arrives they don't leave the premises. Lots of secret service persons there too.
But they're Republicans, I thought they were the right-to-bear-arms camp. I had a mental image all these years that every time a State Delegation cast its vote there'd be an impromptu volley of small-arms fire into the rafters amid cries of Yee Ha, and the occasional spontaneous line dance.

Don't they all at least fart as a sign of tribal unity?

LarsMac;1403165 wrote: Given that the candidates were long ago decided, the convention is really just a waste of time and resources.


The same could be said for the rallies in Berlin, surely.

They serve the same bonding function.

I'm only describing what I've seen from the coverage. These are mindless yahoos following scripted orders. The rallies are directly comparable. The rallies had the old Roman military salute echoed thousands of times around a stadium, the Republicans scream USA! USA! USA! on demand. How do they differ in blind obedience or in fanaticism?

spot;1403168 wrote: The same could be said for the rallies in Berlin, surely.

They serve the same bonding function.

I'm only describing what I've seen from the coverage. These are mindless yahoos following scripted orders. The rallies are directly comparable. The rallies had the old Roman military salute echoed thousands of times around a stadium, the Republicans scream USA! USA! USA! on demand. How do they differ in blind obedience or in fanaticism?


Not at all, really. They haven't yet started rounding up people and loading them up in stock cars, but give them time.

Found this on FB

There was a funny bit from the Daily show where a female reporter is questioning female republicans on how they feel about Romney allowing abortion in certain cases... contrary to the party line. They were confused about how to answer.

LarsMac;1403165 wrote: Given that the candidates were long ago decided, the convention is really just a waste of time and resources.


As long as it's party resources and not tax dollars, waste away. It'll help the city.

What i don't understand is why republican women aren't up in arms over the family planning issue and ending access to contraception. Do any of them realise what is proposed or all they all die hard stay at home and breed for your man earth mother types.

There is a little piece of the quiz in there but they cut the lead in question of how the woman felt about Romney allowing abortion in rape cases. The official recap on youtube has some other fun bits too. Herman Cain was hilarious from start to finish. Apparently there is extra footage that ctv didn't make accessible. Damn them.

gmc;1403191 wrote: What i don't understand is why republican women aren't up in arms over the family planning issue and ending access to contraception. Do any of them realise what is proposed or all they all die hard stay at home and breed for your man earth mother types.
What the heck propaganda to you listen to?? Nobody is even suggesting ending access to contraception, at least no one on the national stage. Your source is either fringe, twisting someone's words, or lying outright.

Accountable;1403240 wrote: What the heck propaganda to you listen to?? Nobody is even suggesting ending access to contraception, at least no one on the national stage. Your source is either fringe, twisting someone's words, or lying outright.


You need to get out more, Brother.

Romney and many other Republicans are standing on the "Life at conception" platform, and since most common contraception methods are post conception techniques, they are under fire across the country.

Republicans in many states are working on laws to establish conception as the beginning of life and will then use that as the basis for criminalizing post conception interference with life. The logical process will include most current birth control methods.

LarsMac;1403249 wrote: Republicans in many states are working on laws to establish conception as the beginning of life and will then use that as the basis for criminalizing post conception interference with life. The logical process will include most current birth control methods.Take Arizona: Their new law states that a pregnancy begins the day after the last menstrual cycle which could mean two weeks before conception.

Accountable;1403240 wrote: What the heck propaganda to you listen to?? Nobody is even suggesting ending access to contraception, at least no one on the national stage. Your source is either fringe, twisting someone's words, or lying outright.


Romney on contraception - YouTube

Being charitable maybe he just doesn't understand how the contraceptive pill works.

Mitt Romney: Extreme on Women's Issues - YouTube

LarsMac;1403249 wrote: You need to get out more, Brother.

Romney and many other Republicans are standing on the "Life at conception" platform, and since most common contraception methods are post conception techniques, they are under fire across the country.

Republicans in many states are working on laws to establish conception as the beginning of life and will then use that as the basis for criminalizing post conception interference with life. The logical process will include most current birth control methods.
Nice leap. I'll believe it when I hear a suicidal politician actually bring it up. Though Lord knows I'm not infallible. I didn't believe my state repubs were against higher-order thinking until I read it published right there in their party platform.

gmc;1403253 wrote: Romney on contraception - YouTube

Being charitable maybe he just doesn't understand how the contraceptive pill works.

Mitt Romney: Extreme on Women's Issues - YouTube
I typed out what Romney said:

Let me clarify my view so that you understand. What I believe is the right course with regards to abortion and life is that I would like to see the Supreme Court return this right to the states and let states create their own legislation with regards to life.
This the right stance for a president or any federal official to take. Supporting an amendment is nice, but he's only the president, and the president doesn't count for much in the process of ratifying an amendment to the US Constitution. He can support it all day long, but it would not pass.

Now about your hyperbole that you insist on perpetuating. Acknowledging the scientific fact that life begins at inception might result in certain kinds of contraception becoming illegal. That does not rise to the level of your claim. You imply all contraception when you leave out any qualifier. What you should have said was 'one type of contraception' since others would still be allowed, and others could still be developed that would work in the unbelievably unlikely event that we grant human rights to humans while still in the womb.

Anticipating your next accusation: http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1385817

Accountable;1403255 wrote: I typed out what Romney said:

This the right stance for a president or any federal official to take. Supporting an amendment is nice, but he's only the president, and the president doesn't count for much in the process of ratifying an amendment to the US Constitution. He can support it all day long, but it would not pass.

Now about your hyperbole that you insist on perpetuating. Acknowledging the scientific fact that life begins at inception might result in certain kinds of contraception becoming illegal. That does not rise to the level of your claim. You imply all contraception when you leave out any qualifier. What you should have said was 'one type of contraception' since others would still be allowed, and others could still be developed that would work in the unbelievably unlikely event that we grant human rights to humans while still in the womb.

Anticipating your next accusation: http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1385817


My latter comment was about the contraceptive pill.



Being charitable maybe he just doesn't understand how the contraceptive pill works.


Prior to that I had referred to attempts to end access to family planning clinics, which amongst other things I presume supplies other forms of contraceptives besides the pill.

family planning issue and ending access to contraception.


I'd imagine in some places in the states it would be quite hard for teenagers to walk in to a store and but them off the shelf. I remember the fuss here when it was first allowed that supermarkets be able to sell condoms.

What I should have said perhaps is one type of contraception for sure and if successful no doubt they will go for others, I wouldn't be surprised. Perhaps only allowing married couples access for instance , no doubt with the husbands consent required.

Given:

A human is dependent upon life support provided by the mother. The baby/zygote/fetus/whatever cannot survive without the apparatus, and the apparatus cannot function outside of the mother.

Therefore:

The decision of whether the new human remains on the natural life support provided by the womb can only be made by the mother.

Any other option is a violation of liberty resulting in what can only be described as slavery, which is illegal.




So we agree if perhaps from different reasoning. By the way slavery isn't illegal if you pass a law saying it isn't. You now have a vice president candidate who openly states he would end the right to an abortion even in cases of rape or incest. is against abortion. Romney seems to change his mind all the time.

Rachel Maddow Show

I'm still puzzled as to why the republicans haven't lost the female support over all of this. Not my problem and I'm not having a go at you or anything I just do not understand how they are getting away with this.

gmc;1403191 wrote: What i don't understand is why republican women aren't up in arms over the family planning issue and ending access to contraception. Do any of them realise what is proposed or all they all die hard stay at home and breed for your man earth mother types.
I'm not afraid to say it. They are stupid. They have a need to be led. Fine with me, except.........they impose themselves on the lives of others.

You have a simple alternative - emigrate.

spot;1403266 wrote: You have a simple alternative - emigrate.


Not that simple.

As they used to say in the sixties, "My country, right or wrong."

We may not always like what's going on, but it is home.

LarsMac;1403269 wrote: Not that simple.

As they used to say in the sixties, "My country, right or wrong."

We may not always like what's going on, but it is home.


I did not say that, I never said that. I thought it was "America--Love it or Leave it". At least that was what was screamed at me & thousands of others. I don't like what is going on, I'm not attached to the US as home except if home is where the heart is & my son is here.

AnneBoleyn;1403276 wrote: I did not say that, I never said that. I thought it was "America--Love it or Leave it". At least that was what was screamed at me & thousands of others. I don't like what is going on, I'm not attached to the US as home except if home is where the heart is & my son is here.


Yeah, I remember those, as well. I DID say, "My country, right or wrong." Still say it. We can't just run off and leave the inmates running the asylum.

And, I AM attached to the US as home. A lot of other places are nice to visit, but all my family is here, and I am quite well established. and the country around here is like nowhere else.

Besides, I am too old to be a new guy, somewhere else, now.

Though I do have a place so far out in the boonies, it's a three day ride to the grocer. I can stay there if it gets too weird.

Maybe that's it. I don't like living in Brooklyn. It must be making me cranky.

gmc;1403259 wrote: By the way slavery isn't illegal if you pass a law saying it isn't.
Despite these last two presidents' recent behaviors that show I am wrong, I still hold to the idea that we as a nation still hold to the Rule of Law. We have a written constitution that is damned hard to amend, and proudly inserted into that document is the Thirteenth Amendment, which makes slavery illegal for once and forever ... unless we abandon the Rule of Law, then all bets are off.

Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution:1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Slavery is a Capitalist imperative. You'll observe that your thirteenth amendment effectively defines the incarceration of criminals as slavery. I note that around one in eight people currently in jail across the world is in the USA.

spot;1403343 wrote: Slavery is a Capitalist imperative. You'll observe that your thirteenth amendment effectively defines the incarceration of criminals as slavery. I note that around one in eight people currently in jail across the world is in the USA.

Accountable;1403347 wrote: Defend your principles. You don't lack the capacity.

Georgia Uses Cheap Prison Labour

Idaho Uses Cheap Prison Labour

Arizona Uses Cheap Prison Labour

Washington Uses Cheap Prison Labour

Seeing a theme here?

Accountable;1403347 wrote:


Let me guess - when a comment is unarguably factual and damning, resort to comedic insult?

It beats me how you can brag about a Constitution with such a condemnatory "except" in such a vital Human Rights clause. If it were North Korea the comment had applied to, you'd be more than prepared to criticize. Because it's The American Way that's being held up to censure you're incapable of reflection and objective participation.

Accountable;1403341 wrote: Despite these last two presidents' recent behaviors that show I am wrong, I still hold to the idea that we as a nation still hold to the Rule of Law. We have a written constitution that is damned hard to amend, and proudly inserted into that document is the Thirteenth Amendment, which makes slavery illegal for once and forever ... unless we abandon the Rule of Law, then all bets are off.

Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution:


Prior to the thirteenth amendment you had law that allowed slavery, slavery was the norm. The rule of law is not some fantastic panacea to make society perfect it is a tool by which behaviour is regulated. You are inconsistent - on the one hand you don't think the federal government should interfere in states rights

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.




The next you laud law that allows the federal government to, well lay down the law. It seems your written constitution is not hard to amend when enough feel the need to do so.

If you are trapped in a badly paid job with no employment security and where the employer deliberately ignores measures for your safety whose freedom natters most? The employer to pay and treat his employees as he sees fit and just fire them whenever he sees fit? or the workers right to demand fair treatment? Right or left, the establishment or the people whose side are you on? the argument is always basically the same no matter which country you are in the powerful against the powerless. In essence secular law started as a way to curb the power of rulers and would be rulers, religious law tells the people how to serve their god with the priests in charge. Next someone will come out with the notion that the wealthy are specially gifted from god. God blessed no to be poor.

Who owns America? The vast majority of your films and literature have a common theme, the little man taking on the powerful cattle baron, or corrupt establishment and winning but the reality now seems to be ordinary people have been so brainwashed they no longer think they have the right to object because it's unpatriotic, you no longer have the right to demand your government do things to improve life be it social reform or even just building roads for ordinary people because it's unamerican. Now the wealthy are job creators and need all the money they can get to make more jobs so let's not tax them. It's absurd. Annoyingly we are getting some of the same crap here.

What to do when a state decides women should not have access to family planning as and when they see the need, do you just accept that in some states women are second class citizens with no right to make their own decisions?

gmc;1403359 wrote: Prior to the thirteenth amendment you had law that allowed slavery, slavery was the norm. The rule of law is not some fantastic panacea to make society perfect it is a tool by which behaviour is regulated. You are inconsistent - on the one hand you don't think the federal government should interfere in states rights



The next you laud law that allows the federal government to, well lay down the law. It seems your written constitution is not hard to amend when enough feel the need to do so.

If you are trapped in a badly paid job with no employment security and where the employer deliberately ignores measures for your safety whose freedom natters most? The employer to pay and treat his employees as he sees fit and just fire them whenever he sees fit? or the workers right to demand fair treatment? Right or left, the establishment or the people whose side are you on? the argument is always basically the same no matter which country you are in the powerful against the powerless. In essence secular law started as a way to curb the power of rulers and would be rulers, religious law tells the people how to serve their god with the priests in charge. Next someone will come out with the notion that the wealthy are specially gifted from god. God blessed no to be poor.

Who owns America? The vast majority of your films and literature have a common theme, the little man taking on the powerful cattle baron, or corrupt establishment and winning but the reality now seems to be ordinary people have been so brainwashed they no longer think they have the right to object because it's unpatriotic, you no longer have the right to demand your government do things to improve life be it social reform or even just building roads for ordinary people because it's unamerican. Now the wealthy are job creators and need all the money they can get to make more jobs so let's not tax them. It's absurd. Annoyingly we are getting some of the same crap here.

What to do when a state decides women should not have access to family planning as and when they see the need, do you just accept that in some states women are second class citizens with no right to make their own decisions?
You're all over the place, so much so that to explain how the different subjects don't apply would take too much time. Pick one & start a thread.

Ahso!;1403349 wrote: Defend your principles. You don't lack the capacity.
True. I also don't lack the capacity to resist jumping every time spot tries to bait me.

Accountable;1403362 wrote: True. I also don't lack the capacity to resist jumping every time spot tries to bait me.It doesn't appear that way to me. You're a person with strong, thought-out principles. Why not test those principles? The argument presented is a valid one. You don't need to love a person in order to converse with them in an adult fashion.

I'd personally like to see where the two of you take this discussion. I'm here to learn and you both are worth learning from.

ETA: as you can tell by glancing at my avatar, John Boehner doesn't take too well to the idea of us learning stuff.

spot;1403343 wrote: Slavery is a Capitalist imperative. You'll observe that your thirteenth amendment effectively defines the incarceration of criminals as slavery. I note that around one in eight people currently in jail across the world is in the USA.


I would have pointed out the Guantanamo is a place subject to their jurisdiction and that the inmates of that place have not been duly convicted of any crime.

Accountable;1403361 wrote: You're all over the place, so much so that to explain how the different subjects don't apply would take too much time. Pick one & start a thread.


You espouse state rights and deplore federal law overruling them then in the next sentence you boast about the thirteenth amendment where federal law is superior to state law. I pointed out the inconsistency in your argument, take that first if you like - if you don't want to respond then that's up to you.

posted by spot

Slavery is a Capitalist imperative. Y




Bollocks, a truly capitalist industrial economy cannot succeed where there is slavery. An economy based on slavery will always fail in competition against one that isn't,

States rights is a code to outlaw progressive ideas. Scream all you want to accountable, but that's the truth of the matter. The only states sqawking about rights are the ones where education is lacking, where evangelism rules, where blacks "know their place", where there are lots of uninsured people, poverty is high & where gays are invisible. If you disagree, name one progressive state that is sqawking for their "rights". Just one. Thank you. Don't ask what a progressive state is as you know what I mean, I'm sure.

gmc;1403423 wrote: Bollocks, a truly capitalist industrial economy cannot succeed where there is slavery. An economy based on slavery will always fail in competition against one that isn't,That sounds pretty hypothetical - it may be robust Capitalist theory you're repeating but I don't believe it to be true. A truly capitalist economy can't succeed where there's government-funded shareholder bailouts either. It gets away with either act because there's no truly Capitalist competitor to take their customers. The rest of us prefer to govern to the benefit of all citizens instead of just a skim of hyper-rich manipulators. We call it Socialism.

And here we call it socialism for the rich.

spot;1403432 wrote: That sounds pretty hypothetical - it may be robust Capitalist theory you're repeating but I don't believe it to be true. A truly capitalist economy can't succeed where there's government-funded shareholder bailouts either. It gets away with either act because there's no truly Capitalist competitor to take their customers. The rest of us prefer to govern to the benefit of all citizens instead of just a skim of hyper-rich manipulators. We call it Socialism.


One for another thread perhaps before we derail this one completely although I would point out that that government funded bailouts of private companies is hardly capitalism. Monopolies and cartels are also things which will prevent capitalism working. So you're right up to a point but then the US economy is not truly a capitalist one anyway else they wouldn't have monopolies and cartels or government funded buyouts of private companies unless the intention was to take them in to public ownership - some things are too important to be left to the market place but rational debate on that has been made impossible by a kind of messianic monetarism whose articles of faith it seems no one can cry rubbish.

posted by anne boleyn

And here we call it socialism for the rich.


Fascism by any other name is still fascism.

I often wonder why the bailout money wasn't put into a fund to be doled out to the taxpayers who were not able to pay their mortgages instead of to the banks that approved their mortgages fraudulently then gave themselves bonuses. Of course the last bailout was administered by Obama but they all would have done it.

gmc;1403423 wrote: You espouse state rights and deplore federal law overruling them then in the next sentence you boast about the thirteenth amendment where federal law is superior to state law. I pointed out the inconsistency in your argument, take that first if you like - if you don't want to respond then that's up to you.


*sigh* It really is a sad commentary that the rule of law is a concept that has to be explained.

1. There is no such thing as states' rights. It's a common term referring to the decentralized aspect of our legal and legislative systems. Unfortunately, we've used it so long that some people now believe that state governments actually have rights that they can exercise. Of course that's not true; all rights belong to the citizens (meaning they are not on loan from the government and subject to recall). I try not to use the term anymore, and I'm pretty sure I haven't done in quite some time.

2. The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.netThis Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.The Thirteenth Amendment is a part of "This Constitution".

The Tenth Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.There is no inconsistency in my argument. If the Constitution clearly states that a power is delegated to the federal government, then it is the responsibility of those in Washington. If not, then it is not. You'll hear this tripe about the Constitution purposely written vaguely to cover whatever statists decide ought to be national law. This is either mistaken parroting or outright lying, depending on the individual making the claim.

Our Constitution was written to give the minimum power necessary to a federal government to ensure unity among the several sovereign states. It has a provision for amendment to add or change as necessary. The provision has proven too tedious for those claiming to be "progressive" (a term that Anne has admitted has become so distorted that people can't agree on what it means) so they opted over history to pack the courts with politically-minded justices to creatively interpret what was written to mean whatever the feck they want it to mean.

Sorry for going beyond your accusation. There is not inconsistency in my argument for both pointing out the fact that our Constitution prohibits slavery and advocating a decentralized legal and legislative system as ours was originally set up to be.

koan;1403478 wrote: I often wonder why the bailout money wasn't put into a fund to be doled out to the taxpayers who were not able to pay their mortgages instead of to the banks that approved their mortgages fraudulently then gave themselves bonuses. Of course the last bailout was administered by Obama but they all would have done it.
That's a question Obama supporters aren't allowed to think about. It's the green curtain.

hehe. One of my favourite movie quotes: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"