When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@cicerone imposter,

as noted at your link, that required a change to the currency

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I'm a Christian, but about as far as one can get from Evangelical. Still, I don't see them as attempting to force their views and beliefs on others - rather they seek to limit the enforcement of Secularist (I couldn't resist that) views and practices on themselves. What's wrong with that?

Nothing. But your thesis is bullshit. As just the most obvious example, try to find a nearby abortion clinic in Texas or many other GOP led states. Such access to abortion has no consequence on the Christians who oppose it and then set about devising means to effectively outlaw it other than offending their particular religious notions regarding how others outside their faith community believe and act.

The rest of what you've written gets it backwards. If I say that I am uniquely unwilling to tolerate those who forward intolerance (the Taliban, for instance), does that make me guilty of intolerance? If you say "no", then you'd be saying something much smarter than your post suggests.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote George:

Quote:

I explained my self very clearly on that point. You simply chose not to see it.

I can't see what's not there, george.

Quote georgeob1:

Quote:

Indeed you appear to have missed entirely that secularism is merely an alternative to religion and that we are frankly beset by more demands that our behavior coform to externally determined principles and rules coming from secularists that from Christian religions in this country.

If you mean that our lives are governed more by such secular laws with secular punishments against theft, armed robbery, kidnaping, securities fraud and taking over bird sanctuaries than they are by religious proscriptions against these things, yes and no. Folks like the Amish and some Orthodox Jewish groups' behavior arguably is more controlled in regards to more things by their faith than by the secular laws. Simple fact is, you must follow the secular law, and you are free to follow whatever religious law you might believe in to whatever degree you want.

Do you have a point here? Because it doesn't look like it.

Quote georgeob1:

Quote:

The unravelling of Obamacare is a good example

Questionable conclusion, also completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

0 Replies

@blatham,

What individual soverign states to in these areas is up to them and their own democratiuc processes. That too is part of our fundamental law The ready availability of abortion varies across the country based largely on the prevailing views in each state or region. There are serious questions out there regarding on late term abortions and people differ in their views. It's called democracy. Where is it written that things like this must necessarily be the same in every state? Both sides cross the line in attempting to use the power of government to force the participation opf people in things they morally oppose. You appear to see only one side of the matter.

Tolerance of the beliefs and opinions of others does not require one to accept explicit threats of serious harm. That is rather obvious and your argument from extremes is patently fallacious.

You increasingly appear to be a direct reflection of the things you so avidly criticize.

0 Replies

Quote:

What individual soverign states to in these areas is up to them and their own democratiuc processes.

Irrelevant to your claim that evangelical faith groups do not involve themselves in constraining what others outside of their own community do or in enforcing what others outside of their faith community must do (vaginal probes).

1 Reply

@blatham,

They have the same political rights as I do (and presunably you in BC as well) , and are free to vote for the legislators they choose. That you find a theological motivation in their free execrise of these rights is no reason to deny them.

You appear to question the motives of people only when they may involve religious principles you don't like. Presuming to know the motives of others and judging their actions based on that presumption is foolish because those motives are generally complex and not really knowable. Doing so is also intolerant because you are attempting to punish others for their beliefs.Their right to vote is absolute. whatever may be their motives. In our syatem of law we judge people primarily on their actions, not their motives.

Vaginal ultrasound probes are no more intrusive than abortions themselves.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Come on, george. You need to think better than you are doing. I'd like to keep talking with you but I'm just not going to waste my time.

Quote:

You appear to question the motives of people only when they may involve religious principles you don't like.

As I've detailed above, the theological behavior I find utterly distasteful is where a (any) faith community demands (through coercive political activism) that others (not of their faith community) behave according to that faith community's values and ignore the wishes of those others.

Quote:

Presuming to know the motives of others

You said something similar in the earlier post - that when I indict someone (like Cruz's wife) for her thoughts (as expressed in her sentences) that I'm guilty of the same thing as religious people who deem to know the mind of God, and therefore I'm a hypocrite.

It's a searingly stupid analogy. We can and do know other peoples' minds with a rough precision because we have tons of information with which to make such a knowledge claim - their facial expressions, their postures, their vocalizations, their behaviors, etc etc. If we've known them for a long while, more such data is available. And it is the case that having our own minds, we can and should presume similar internal states in others that we are familiar with in ourselves.

NONE of that applies to a human's claim that he/she knows the mind of God. NONE of it.

Please don't waste my time.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Only a person who doesn't possess a vagina would assume vaginal probes are the same as abortion. Frankly, I don't want you or other like minded individuals deciding what I can do with my body, that's not adopting democratic principles, that's you sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong. If I worked to pas a law that all men should be forced to undergo vasectomy once they reach 45, how would you like that? I could gin up some valid bullshit reasons such as 'men over 45 might not live long enough to raise their children', I might even be able to persuade others that this was a truly great idea and we would be sparing families the heartbreak of losing a breadwinner. I can invent dozens of excuses that would give me the right to shove objects into male orifices, but I actually think some men know how to deal with their own reproductive issues. It's too bad others think they must interfere in the reproductive issues of women. I don't get a tax break for having a uterus, and I still pay the same amount to support and educate my children. So I've got this, I know what I'm doing and my community doesn't get to vote to decide where and when and if I can get medical care when I decide it's necessary.

0 Replies

@blatham,

"Searingly stupid"

Quite.

0 Replies

C-Span recording of announcement by Reagan in Nov, 1987

Quote:

President Reagan on "Constitutional obligation"
“...to join together in a bipartisan effort to fulfill our constitutional obligation of restoring the United States Supreme Court to full strength."

http://cs.pn/1odNywK

1 Reply

@blatham,

good catch

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

It was a lateral from someone else. Can't recall who now. Should have noted and tipped my hat.

And though Reagan's statement is a rather perfect duplication of what Obama had said, I can offer a pretty solid guarantee that Reagan's quote will not appear in rightwing media. Because informing citizens, fully and accurately, or at least trying to do that, is not the game over there.

0 Replies

When your city zoo orders up food for their lions, what does it say on the bag the stuff comes in?
"Guaranteed 10% Christians"?

Asking for a friend.

0 Replies

Real History Facts
Conversation between an Ojibway and a Navaho, circa 1734

Ojibway: What is it with these white people?
Navaho: Who the **** knows. But I think we get a good clue when we observe that their faces are colored exactly the same as a donkey's asshole.
Objiway: No, seriously. Where the hell did these people come from? How did they get this way?
Navaho: No one knows, Little Water Buffalo In Toe Shoes, But our contacts...
Tent flap opens and an older man, a Blackfoot, enters. The Navaho and Ojibway stop talking and nod. Clearly, the newcomer is respected. He sits and pulls his shawl around him, then takes a hit from the pipe with his wrinkled mouth. He exhales. He says...
Old Blackfoot: I heard you talking. The facts are known. Satan smuggled himself across the great water hiding in the underwear of Catholics. The thing is, they knew he was there. They could feel him. But they were reluctant to tattle tale. "I'll report him being where he is first thing tomorrow".

0 Replies

Looks like Maureen Dowd has been waiting a while to get something off her chest.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/opinion/sunday/when-hillary-clinton-killed-feminism.html?ref=opinion&_r=0&referer=http://able2know.org/topic/310632-2
When Hillary killed Feminism

0 Replies

A very worthwhile piece up at the Post by Philip Rucker and Robert Costa (previously Washington editor for National Review).

Quote:

Debate rips open GOP wounds, and party risks tearing itself apart

http://wapo.st/1RFMXQe
Definitely read the piece in full but I'll just note here this one included comment.

Quote:

Trump was defiant and unapologetic Sunday, saying that he is a truth-teller and that the majority of Americans — weary of war, alienated by the political class and thirsting for a populist revival — would heed his call.

“The war in Iraq has been a disaster,” Trump said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “It started the chain of events that leads now to the migration, maybe the destruction of Europe. [Bush] started the war in Iraq. Am I supposed to be a big fan?”

Todd Harris, a senior adviser to Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, echoed the sentiment of many in the GOP when he said after the debate that Trump “was at war with the Republican Party.”

But the thing is, every candidate running in the GOP race is claiming to be an enemy of the establishment in DC which includes the establishment GOP. That's the Tea Party position and demand, isn't it. And it's Cruz's over-arching claim about himself.

So, what exactly is Rubio's adviser talking about? A proper modern conservative must indict the GOP establishment but absolutely cannot make specific criticisms of the most significant decisions, policies and acts of that GOP establishment when it held the WH.

So, yes, the party is tearing itself apart. And this sort of loud incoherence is just one more indicator of the turmoil.

1 Reply

A further on how the modern conservative movement has gone stark raving mad.

Quote:

RUSH: I believe that liberalism, Democrat Party, whatever you want to call it, is the most destructive force in America, outside of weather calamities that are acts of God. It is an organized force. It has an active philosophy with a multiplicity of objectives, and together they are oriented and aimed at destroying and tearing down this country.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/

Absolutely. It's why feminists are working day and night to ensure that city/county water supplies contain slutty amounts of lead. It's why the gays in San Francisco are secretly coordinating with the gays in Brazil to import house plants crawling with Zika larvae. It's why public school teachers are training American children to speak Russian and to be atheists. It's why unions across the country are fighting tooth and nail to obstruct and prevent government funding to go towards repairs of a crumbling infrastructure. It's why university professors teach Marx in courses on Kinetics and Archaeology (and all the rest of any university's offerings). And it's why scientists sneak behind their wives' backs and put frogs in the microwave to "prove" that the globe is warming.

We liberals want nothing less than the destruction, as total as possible, of the United States.

1 Reply

To answer the original question this thread poses in it's headline..... when she is inaugurated, obviously. She will then renew her candidacy in 2020 or perhaps a year earlier.

0 Replies

@blatham,

A further on this

Quote:

Debate rips open GOP wounds, and party risks tearing itself apart

Ann Coulter is still supporting Trump.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Quote blatham quoting Rush Limbaugh:

Quote:

It [liberalism] has an active philosophy with a multiplicity of objectives, and together they are oriented and aimed at destroying and tearing down this country.

That's only a slight amplification of Limbaugh's "liberalism must be stopped" theme that he's been pushing since the eighties. And Limbaugh really does have to amplify these days, since so much of his audience now has trouble hearing.

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know