Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

that's fabulous, ace.
a kind of "when did you stop beating your wife?" implication.
it doesn't matter, though.
you can't get your "definitions" out of the realm of arbitrary assertion.
on that basis alone, there's no rationale for imposing your views--or those like yours---through the instruments of law.
apart from holding power.

the loop that you're hoping, somehow, will result in some accident of coherence from you concerning the origin of life wouldn't matter even if there were the slightest chance of coherence breaking out, dear. because, as baraka keeps trying to point out and you keep running away from, your view is frame-contigent, and that frame is basically religious.

and on that, i couldn't care less what you believe.
but i am concerned that people who think as you do on this are kept far from power.

 

Please provide any example of religious or non-religious based legislation from the left that attempts to impose their beliefs on the entire country based on the narrowest interpretation of the Bible (or the literal word of the Bible) or junk science?

 

I clearly state my views are primarily religious based on this question. And my political view is to be very careful regarding the separation of my religious views compared to what I think the law should be. Again, I want our law to be clear and consistent across all states. what should the law be? You have not given your answer or the basis for your answer. How does it work, expressing opinion while not having a point of view? To me your posts are all similar and are always foggy.

 

In my view the abortion question can not be separated from religion. Either your non-religious (you, in the general sense) view will be imposed on my religious view or the opposite will be true.

 

Well good for you. I on the otherhand can not. Now what?

In my view there is an end to the abortion debate. One clear and consistent national law.

In addition, as we learn more, the law should change accordingly.

 

Nice dodge, Ace.

So that is the best you can do to support your inference that liberals are as guilty as conservatives of basing legislation on narrow/rigid religious beliefs and/or junk science?

 

Good law transcends the "why". If we agree on law, but do so for different reasons what difference does it make? If agree on the availability of birth control including the morning after pill and the right of a woman to have an early term abortion (I say let God be her judge) and my view is religious based and yours is scientific based who is harmed? I have been asking where people would draw the line on abortion. Could agreement be reached on making abortion illegal after three months, four, five? When?
--- merged: Apr 29, 2013 at 5:34 PM ---

My response was not a dodge. When there is a morality based question up for debate regarding law and one position or the opposite can be true...why isn't that responsive to your question?

 

Dream on. If you think religious beliefs will ever be separated from politics your view is unrealistic. I would suggest developing a strategy to deal with it, rather than an attitude of "now we are done".
--- merged: Apr 30, 2013 at 3:54 PM ---

What is the topic? Oh, Obama is incompetent - question answered long ago and as further evidenced by his press conference today. I bet even the folks here are tired of Obama blaming Republicans for all of his failures. Did he actually make claim that he is powerless to close Gitmo?

 

the problem that pluralism creates for folk like ace is that there's no way to move from whatever commitments they might personally or collectively have to control of law except straight-up power politics--they aren't in a position to dominate culturally and so cannot impose their particular sets of assumptions on others. they also cannot pretend to themselves that these assumptions are "natural"--they have to argue for them. and since these arguments have no purchase outside the communities of similar believers, they have to mobilize. whence the fact that the political legacy of ralph reed and his transform of the xtian coalition into the backbone of the republican political machine is way way way more important than is what any number of conservative christians believe, and this for conservative christians.

of course there's a certain segment of this same population that cannot come to terms with this loss of (largely imaginary) hegemony, and this underpins, to varying degrees, their affiliation with types of politics that, anywhere else, would be neo-fascist. but here, they're just "patriotic commons sense"---like they are in the places where they're neo-fascist. but i digress.

i saw something in the ny times earlier that described the republican position of the moment as "post-policy nihilism"---you have to live in an upside-down world the way ace does to not see in this a significant national problem.

 

The graphic below shows N. American percentages of people who identify with a religion compared to those who do not. Darker color represents a higher percentage.



Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because people do not tell you the basis of some of their views are religious based does not mean it is not the case. In my opinion when dealing with people it is best to try to gain a thorough understanding of who they are and how they think. this is very applicable to Obama's failures. He, like you, appear to be dismissive of the point of view of others.
--- merged: Apr 30, 2013 at 5:31 PM ---

I do not impose my views on anyone. You confuse having a point of view/advocating a point of view with imposing a point of view. I have no problem with living in a situation where my point of view is not the prevailing point of view. When it is time to end the debate I move on and make the most of the situation. However, when it is time to debate I will do it relentlessly. Perhaps the subtlety is to fine for you to discern.

You, on the other hand, for example can not even state what your position on abortion is! You can not state why you hold the position! You can not articulate how you resolve the inner conflicts inherent in arriving on a point of view! Somehow it is always the person with a point of view who is wrong (usually for whatever reason available - i.e. one day it is the flea on the dog, the next it is the death of the flea) - it must be nice to be you. Have you ever taken a stand, with risks, on anything?

 

Evidently, Ace believes that if you identify with a religion, you also seek to legislate your religious beliefs on the entire country, when the preponderance of evidence would suggest that is the sole dominion of the evangelical religious right.

 

my position on abortion? i think the procedure should be legal and safe. whether one avails oneself of it is a personal decision: i support the right to make that choice. having the option be legal and safe in no way mitigates any complexity that individuals might encounter in the course of making the decision to have or not have one. having the option legal and safe is merely what a civilized countries do.

 

There could be common ground on reducing the frequency of abortions if the extremists on the right werent such fucking hypocrites by opposing Title X family planning funding, opposing greater access to affordable birth control (particularly for women w/o insurance), promoting abstinence only eduction (including baseless and ignorant fear mongering abortions leading to breast cancer and suicide) rather than compressive sex education...

Promoting ignorance and denying or restricting access to women's reproductive health is a contributor to abortions not a rational solution by any standard.