Remove Advertisements

Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:38 pm

I hope you'll forgive me if I chuckle at the prospect of young, female, non-white legislators in Texas pushing bills opposed by the "old white dudes" of the state legislature. I'll meet you with "sad" and "cheap", but I'm not budging on inaccurate. Unless you have the support of the gool ol boys' network in Texas (or most other governmental bodies in the US), good luck with your bill.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1969
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:36 pm

Then you quite ignorantly concede nothing and rather...make it worse. I'm curious, are the old white dudes just a republican phenomenon?
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sun Jul 07, 2013 6:08 pm

The "Good ol boys' network" is largely a Southern phenomenon, and while it has no official political affiliation, it's mainly Republican due to the predominance of that party among wealthy white southerners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_ol'_boy
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1969
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sun Jul 07, 2013 6:20 pm

As someone that lives in TEXAS, I agree.

I am sorry, but you seem to disqualify arguments solely based on it having used a "derogatory"* term as part of its point, rather than seeing the context of its use.

*I doubt Dewhurst et.al. would object to being called White, Rich and Dude... They would prolly object to being called old though -- even though the terminology is actually factual, just happens that used in this context is an insult.

I mean, both sides have their old white rich dudes, like Franken and Kucinich to mention a couple -- but the connotation, like Koatanga said, is basically an analogue for Good Ol' Boy.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11011
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Jul 07, 2013 6:46 pm

I'm familiar with the term, I lived in Alabama and saw it. Cronyism was really more "old money"/"new money" than anything else to be honest, but that's another topic. However, I'm not arguing that there's isn't a good ol boys network though I think their significance is massively overstated. I'm just pointing out the idiocy of that argument as justification for sexist and racial slurs throughout this thread.

There was no real right answer to that question, which is why the inaccuracy of those slurs is so glaringly obvious. Either there is a club in both parties, in which case, the reference to it makes no sense, or there isn't and there's an entire party who happens to also be mostly old white dudes diametrically opposed to the other, again making the references illogical.

I didn't discount the argument because it had a derogatory term. Sometimes, amazingly enough, those slurs were part of the point and so I refuted that, and sometimes they were extra and I was critical of that too. I just don't think racial and sexist slurs are at all justified.

I'm totally disheartened that this is debatable and has persisted at all. :(
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:12 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... 63304.html

In the words of GOP strategist Ed Rollins, the Republican Party can still be summed up as "a bunch of old white guys."

Appearing on Fox News Tuesday morning, Rollins was asked whom he would pick as a running mate for presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Rollins said he would choose Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who is a Cuban American, and also addressed criticism of the Republican Party's relative homogeny.

"It is a bunch of old white guys. Unfortunately, a lot of them are fat like me," he said. "We need to basically broaden the base. We need to have more women. We need to have more Latinos. We need to have more African Americans.


Stories of Republicans having demographic issues with non-whites and woman are fairly well documented, aren't they?

Texas Tea Party leader Ken Emanualson:
I’m going to be real honest with you, the Republican Party doesn’t want black people to vote if they’re going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats.


But for the record, here are the demographics for the 113th Congress:

Old: Average Senator is 62 years old. Representative: 57 years old.
White: 80.1% of congress is white. Of the 101 non-white reported, 8 are Republican.
Male: 81.3% of congress is male. Of the 101 Congresswomen, 23 are Republican.

Given those demographics, how can Congress be characterized as anything other than Old, White, and Male?

In Texas, the breakdown is 79.5% male, 66.1% white. I don't have an age statistic.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1969
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:06 pm

How do you not see that that is just proving my point? That's why I asked the question. I know what the demographics are. The vast majority of congress is white men and it always has been, so then every law in the history of our country is just a bunch of old white dudes and their good ol boy club carving up society a little bit finer amongst themselves..amirite? The most pro-choice legislation is just a bunch of white old men wanting to make sure all those minorities keeping having all those abortions at such high rates. Or maybe, they think the idea has merit...but you know I don't want to have to argue against logic, I'll just keep flaming away with the racist sexist stuff.

Fortunately, old white men don't vote as a bloc. Fortunately, legislative positions aren't predetermined by race or gender. Fortunately old white men are are fully capable educating themselves, of looking at data objectively, and attempting to vote with what they believe is the best decision for them and even occasionally their constituency, though you'd never know that from reading last couple pages of this mess.

We've gone from the tin foil hat stuff to this crap that I just frankly can't believe has hung around this long. It's an embarrassment. I'm out.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:35 am

Fridmarr wrote:Fortunately, old white men don't vote as a bloc. Fortunately, legislative positions aren't predetermined by race or gender. Fortunately old white men are are fully capable educating themselves, of looking at data objectively, and attempting to vote with what they believe is the best decision for them and even occasionally their constituency, though you'd never know that from reading last couple pages of this mess.

And unfortunately, when it comes to Texas, the only book they study from is a Bible and they reckon that gives them the right and reason to legislate a woman's choice.

Look, you have this HUGE issue about characterizing them as "old white dudes" and yet the demographics show they are mostly old, white men. So what's the problem calling them that?

You are the one who wants to make this a "democrats are old white men too!" thing, but my point is that NONE of those old white men have any place deciding the issue for women, and certainly not based on their Bible, whether that's their constituent's favourite book or not. That goes for republicans and democrats, white, black, brown, and freaking purple. None of them will ever be qualified to make the choice, so none of them should be deciding.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1969
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:40 am

Fridmarr wrote:A fully specious one. It's true that we aren't a theocracy, and certainly some politicians follow that path. However, science isn't exactly pro-choice either.

No I can't imagine what it's like to be pregnant or have that pregnancy caused by a rape. Is that strictly necessary though? Because if it is, then the only people qualified are specifically raped women who were impregnated by the rapist.


In a sense? Yes. I think it's strictly necessary to leave the decision on what to do with their body up to them.

In my opinion, they are the only people who SHOULD HAVE ANY SAY in whether or not they want to continue the pregnancy. No politician, regardless of their socio-economic, race, or gender status should be allowed to tell them they are being forced to continue that pregnancy.

Just like if a woman's heath is at risk, NO ONE but who she chooses to speak about it with should have a choice in deciding it.

Just like if a woman decides that she doesn't want to have a child for whatever reason. It should be her decision, counseled by whomever she wishes to speak to about it.

Because of my race, financial position, or gender I'm not able empathize with women in that situation? I'm not able to consider what if that situation happened to my wife or daughters, and what sort of options I'd like them to have? Aren't there plenty of rich, white, pro-choice men? How does that happen? What about pro-life women...we've talked about the numbers on that already...


You can empathize. But, can you sympathize? Can you see the world through the lens of perspective with which is needed to make a law about a decision so deeply personal, for someone you don't even know. That you've never seen, that you don't even have a first impression on?

You can consider that situation. And when/if that situation happens, hopefully, you have created a home atmosphere that will grant you some measure of input on said decision. I hope, for you and yours sake, that it never comes to that, because the gravity of the decision is far greater than what people think.

As far as options, you should want, as many options available as possible. Restricting options is a terrible idea.

And then the other side of the issue, and that's the termination of a life and what that means. At what point is that a person? Does that even matter? I am a person and a former fetus, but because of my race, wealth, and gender I can't look at the science objectively?


No one is telling you that you can't look at the science objectively. What people want you, and pro-life people to do, is sit back, and let others look at it objectively and form their own opinions.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6349
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:56 am

Koatanga wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:Fortunately, old white men don't vote as a bloc. Fortunately, legislative positions aren't predetermined by race or gender. Fortunately old white men are are fully capable educating themselves, of looking at data objectively, and attempting to vote with what they believe is the best decision for them and even occasionally their constituency, though you'd never know that from reading last couple pages of this mess.

And unfortunately, when it comes to Texas, the only book they study from is a Bible and they reckon that gives them the right and reason to legislate a woman's choice.


Well, as long as the electorate puts them in the legislating position, they have the right of it (as far as how democracy works).

As to why the legislature has to make laws about it - well that argument is fallacious to begin with - they don't have to, but they have convictions that drive them to do so (the same convictions, one must assume, that got them elected to begin with).
Laws are societys way of regulating itself.
That also means there has to be laws governing what can or can't be done to childre, babies, fetuses, otherwise it would also be perfectly legal to "abort" a born child (yes, this is hyperbolic, but true for the point in the extreme).

Do I (and almost anyone I've ever spoken to about it) think there needs to be access to emergency surgery when a persons life is in danger? yes. Regardless of the cause? yes, again.
What happens to the fetus/baby when that surgery happens is a matter seperate from whether the surgery should be available.
The reasons constituting an emergency apart from "life in danger", is also something that is up to the legislature, respectively the courts to decide.
What rights of control we each have over our own body is also something for the legislature and courts to decide (q.v. Roe v. Wade, for an example that has to do with the current discussion).

Living in a democracy means that you must accept a majority rule (Democarcy is a tyranny of the majority, no more, no less).
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:45 pm

And America isn't a democracy, it's a republic. It's not majority rule, it's rule by elected officials - who may or may not have won the vote on the platforms they then go ahead to legislate upon. True, voters should try to consider all sides like that when placing their vote, but often the campaigns dictate what issues people are actually thinking of when they go to the polls.

Doesn't Rick Perry generally run on economic issues, for example?
I don't play WoW any more.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 6805
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:16 am

Sorry, should have said "representative democracy" there are no true democracies in the world currently.

Also, Voters get to limit their deciding factors to whichever factors they want to consider. "I feel strongly about the EU" for instance wa sat one point my primary limitng factor (I was younger and not as wise back then) which excluded all but 3 parties, and then I decided from those 3 on other minor issues. That is the right of any voter (which is also one of the inherent weaknesses of a democratic system - there is no lower bar for involvement. It's up to the government (or other groups) to try to generate involvement in the system - a democratic process can easily be decided by what the weather is like as that influences a minority section of voters as to a) whether to vote and b) their mood and thus where they cast their ballot. So if its raining, we get Heisenberger for president, if its sunny we get Schrödinger (and if we don't knwo what the weather is like we get them both until we open the drapes)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:53 am

The Cognitive Dissonance is strong in this one
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/0 ... 70588.html

Basically "We want to protect unborns, but screw them if they want to qualify for health care services because they're not born yet"
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11011
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:14 pm

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11011
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:58 pm

Klaudandus wrote:The Cognitive Dissonance is strong in this one
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/0 ... 70588.html

Basically "We want to protect unborns, but screw them if they want to qualify for health care services because they're not born yet"

Aren't Republicans against public health care whether the person is born or not?
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1969
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest