User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6623 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Fine, anything that has a significant value/volume ratio and can be stored would be better the current situation. I think gold is the best bet, but its not the only one.
That's good, because they'd be overturning tyranny -- the majority mandating that people participate in commerce -- not imposing it.
That's good, because they'd be overturning tyranny -- the majority mandating that people participate in commerce -- not imposing it.
I realize hyperbole is your thing, but it does make it difficult to take you seriously.
At GUNPOINT!
No reason. Gold and Silver certificates worked as well as actual specie coinage.
As long as your dollar is exchangeable for a fixed quantity of X, it doesn't really matter if X can actually be used as currency.
Now that you mention it ... yeah.
Indeed, the whole point is that "X" have value independent of currency. The "gold standard" is more a metaphor for the concept that government obligations should be backed by actual fixed-ratio collateral, and not just the good word of the likes of Barack Obama, and the Greek and Weimar finance ministers.
Because Barack Obama took us off the gold standard, after he swore fealty to his Muslim masters in Kenya.
####### nutjobs.
You do realize that Germany exited their huge depression in the 1930's in large part because they went off the gold standard?
Do conservatives not like Milton Friedman anymore? I can't keep track. It seems like half the right now feels like both fiscal AND monetary policy are not appropriate tools to manage the global economy.
I hesitate to ask about NGDP targeting (another conservative idea).
The right has become a really weird place when Milton Friedman is not welcome.
That's because half of the right firmly hold the religious article of faith that the global economy should in no way whatsoever be managed. The only acceptable option is to close our eyes, let the magical market fairy do as he will, and maybe think of England.
Really? I mean, they might say that, but I don't know if they really believe that.
I'm pretty sure that if there was natural inflation of 5% or more, there would be demands to do "something" about it. Maybe I'm wrong.
In any case, that is a dangerous viewpoint.
Yes, it is.
There are many problems with this. One, is that the value of gold fluctuates wildly. It's a bit sounder than basing your currency on Dutch tulip bulbs, but not much more so. Second, it doesn't make sense to link your currency to a commodity whose supply is not subject to any control. If somebody discovers a gold vein, your country gets hit with a jolt of inflation out of the blue.
The extreme example of this is the pilgrimage of the ruler of Mali, Mansa Musa, to Mecca in the 14th century. Mali was rich in gold, and Musa took with him an entourage of about 30,000 people, along with several thousand pounds of gold to pay expenses. The result was a massive expansion of the gold supply of the Middle East, causing inflation and economic chaos. It got so bad that in order to assuage the bankers (and to pay for his expenses on the way back), Musa proceeded to borrow a large sum of gold from Arab bankers, sucking the money back out of the supply. That helped quell prices, at least until he returned to Mali and paid the debt with a lump sum of gold, inflating prices again.
You are being too kind.
True story: pro se litigant sues to have his mortgage discharged fro failure of consideration, says the bank never gave him money, the bank couldn't give him money- because very little "money" is in circulation instead we have treasury notes which are not backed by gold anymore...
So the bank says, "fine, give us our treasury notes back and we will discharge your mortgage"
That is the only time I have ever seen an irrational pro se litigant* have an honest to god self-aware, "oh crap I made the wrong argument" moment... until he collected himself and started ranting that the bank tricked him and put words into his mouth...
*irrational pro se litigants are people like Orly Taitz- they will take an idea (wages are not income and therefore not taxable, there is a secret constitutional amendment barring lawyers from holding office that's been suppressed, Obama's souper seekret Kenyan Mooslem socialist backers/handlers, planted a birth announcement in Hawaiian newspapers 50 years ago in order for the young lad to later run for POTUS) and that idea becomes so central to their conception of reality that EVERYTHING has to be adjusted to accommodate that idea.
In fact I offered to pay them multiple times, albeit only in fiat scrip, if Mary Ellen Withrow would just testify in my own common-law court that she truly believed what was written under her signature.
Yes, the idea of a gold (or commodity) exchange standard is exactly like the pro se litigant in your story.
Yup. Glad you realize it now.
ummm no...
but thanks for playing
It's amazing (*) how utterly assured utterly clueless people can be. If nothing else, BTF affords us a nearly continuous birds-eye view of the phenomenon, for which it deserves the highest of accolades.
(*) Meant literally, not ironically.
Have you ever been, like, anywhere on the internet? Other than here?
Also, I think "Pot, meet kettle" and "physician, heal thyself" are pretty good here, too.
Although, wait.... I'm sure you find yourself to be immune, only OTHERS do this, right?
Oh, irony, I love you so much.
Yeah, but those people are inherent, hopeless morons. You guys aren't.
It's absurd to compare the founders of the postwar Bretton Woods financial order to Orly Taitz. Why are you so insistent about such nonsense?
Ummm no, what I was comparing are the people NOW who think we have to go back to the gold standard to avoid catastrophe, or who believe that money has no validity unless it is backed by gold to Orly Taitz.
In case anyone is curious, Bretton Woods was about the interchangeability of currencies to prevent exclusionary trade areas. Bretton Woods was in fact about baby steps to removing the dependency of gold-backed currencies for interchangeability.
In 1971, Nixon formally took the US off the gold standard, but really, since FDR's efforts in the 30's, the gold standard was really only a formality.
Literally the whole purpose of Bretton Woods was to end the tyranny of the gold standard and allow for fiat currency to be freely exchanged.
But, somehow, I thought that the goldbug argument would be full of incomprehensible fringe words - the natural deinflation of fractions of banking fiat 500s is the stabilizer of free exchangery economies or something. I didn't realize that the actual goldbug argument was that "gold has intrinsic value". Really? That's it? You people are killing me.
How dare you equate the time cube to goldbugs. You must have been educated stupid.
You're probably afraid to debate that guy.
That's gold-pressed latinum, and don't you forget it!
Only gold.
Only gold.
He loves only gold.
He loves gold.
He loves only gold.
Only gold.
He loves gold.
Actually, to mix my villains, there's more than one BTFer whose posts are best appreciated when you imagine them typing from their lairs, while stroking a pedigreed white cat.
We have only black and black and white mutt cats in the SnapperSchloss.
Why pay somebody to breed pets when there are perfectly good ones at the shelter; for free?
Ultimately exchangable, through the dollar, into gold. The world economy exploded with rapid and balanced growth between Bretton Woods and 1971.
It's very problematic to interpret post-WW2 growth.
So much of the capital stock of the world was destroyed, and standards of living fell so far in so many countries, that rapid growth was inevitable.
If tomorrow you destroyed 50% of the capital stock of the US, and reduced the pc GDP by 40%, we'd experience really fast growth for a couple of decades as we rebuilt.
That wouldn't necessarily be a sign that we did something right.
I will confess to owning a shaded silver persian who is fond of sitting on my lap when I'm at my desk. My wife has a cat she found as a kitten in an alley. Let's just say that blood will out.
No idea what it did while outside, but it seems to have been as stupidly territorial. We think it died attacking an encroaching car -- at least that's the best sense anybody could make of what happened.
She's been back home for a few years now, but still prefers the outdoors. She's an odd cat, I think I've only heard her meow once or twice in her life. She mostly epresses a desire for things (food, being let out) simply by silently walking into a room and looking at you. Which usually works because when she wants something from them is the only time she deigns to recognize that humans exist. She also prefers to drink out of a running sink, which normally wasn't a problem. But since she's hurt her leg and can't make the jump she wants you to turn on the tap and pick her up to put her at the sink. Which is a hassle because she also hates being picked up. She is just about my ideal pet though. I don't think I could live with someone who doesn't feel inherently superior to me.
Well, there's something I could never be accused of.
But it's hilarious that this imagery was actually part of various Bond films and the like.
It's funny, because it's such a big part of history, they teach it in schools, but no one really ever gets into why it was such a huge part of the politics of the times.
That was the main plank of WJB platform--and it wasn't grandstanding. It was a policy reform that he had every intention of enacting.
Weird to think that was only a 120 years or so ago--the major issue at the time was something that is almost considered quaint today. Makes you wonder what people will care about in the next 100 years. The period of postwar politics is almost unique in that the same issues dominate the political landscape for going to 60-70 years now: abortion, integration and entitlements.
As for abortion, it's amusing watching people on the left and right get so worked up over the issue -- as if a woman's abortion rights are going to suddenly be taken away.
Virginia recently passed laws requiring state sanctioned rape - "trans-vaginal ultrasounds" - before a woman can terminate a pregnancy. Other states have passed "personhood" laws that define _unfertilized eggs_ as friggin' "people." But I'm sure that women are being hysterical and emotionally stupid when they worry about the state getting up in their ####. Because, you know, the state is quite literally getting up in their ####. All so some old men can tell them what to do with their uterii.
I'm also sure your patronizing assurances that there's nothing to worry about, and that they should just quit worrying their pretty little heads and relax is going to take care of everything, too.
So the only place to live on planet Earth is Virginia?
Oh noes, teh gummint is going to give you an ultrasound AT GUNPOINT!
Gold supply is controlled because
a) it is rare - The scarcity of an element is basically a direct function of its atomic number. Its conceivable that we could find a mother load of diamonds (i.e. carbon) that would dramatically lessen the world value of diamonds, but it is not conceivable that we will find a mother load of gold in the same proportion.
b) it is extremely labour and capital intensive to mine
These are incontrivertable facts that are not in any way dependent on a central banker's whim, a panic in the markets, or the vigilance of a regulator, all of which can influence or even destroy a fiat currency.
If you consider restraints on reserve ratios tyranny, then I guess your point is valid.
In the Libertarian utopia, no. Here, not as certain.
It's ####### hilarious that you nutters will whine about paying taxes at gunpoint, but then when the state requires a woman to be unnecessarily vaginally penetrated before having a medical procedure, you'll just sort of laugh it off as no big deal.
Not "the state," a state. Not that the provision was in the final bill anyway, but women who don't like it can always flee or get their abortion in a more civilized jurisdiction. Everything you collectivists do and want to do covers the entire US, negating flight as an option.
I'm not entirely sure who The Good Face is making fun of here.
edit:
Acceptable to require people to cross state lines, not acceptable to require people to cross country lines. Not really sure I see the distinction there. Do you just really hate filing emigration paperwork?
So IOW, take it like a man, slut!
Do you still not realize that as long as you insist on using words you don't understand, no one will take you seriously?
Don't worry, neither is he.
Why can't black people just move out of the south, amirite!?
This, is a summation of why all of the so-called "small government" authoritarians are completely full of #### when they claim to be interested in defending liberty.
The most egregious crimes against liberty and human freedom in the US history have been perpetrated by "states."
The only examples in US history of liberty being expanded against crimes-against-humanity level of intrusion was by "the state."
Yes, but gold has intrinsic value. It's really hard to mine it.
Look, a room has six sides, right? Thus, you must accept that time also contains three simultaneous days. It's just logical.
Those currencies were theoretically exchangeable into gold, but only in theory. The whole idea of Bretton Woods was that those currencies would be theoretically exchangeable, but no one would ever actually be able to do that. Nixon, if it weren't for the whole Watergate and Vietnam thing, was actually a pretty sharp, centrist, and technocratic president. If you step away from the rhetoric and the crimes, he had quite a few good moments. Never been much of a move to rehab his rep, though.
well maybe they won't laugh it off, but they will rationalize it away (849 is a case in point).
I suspect that at some point a good many libertarians will no longer be able to hold their noses and be good little Republican foot soldiers (One - out of 2- libertarians in my office finally gave up on the GOP recently- a party that was going to pick either Romney or Little Rickie was one he just could no longer be a part of- not that he's gonna be voting Dem any time soon- the other Lib says he's going to hold his nose and vote Romney)
I've known quite few Libertarians, had drinks with quite few, I've never quite understood why most seem to feel the Repub party is the lesser of two evils (of course self-professed libertarians who actually ARE conservative Republicans, well their claim to be libertarian is simply untrue...)
I disagree with that view, and with libertarianism in general, but that is their view, and if that is the case, then they are voting somewhat rationally.
A southern state passed a stupid, retrograde, Lawrence Welky law. Now there's a shock.
Because the Republican party is unlikely to stop them from doing anything they want to do, even if it had super marjorities in Congress and the President.
Especially if you are a Pro-Life Libertarian, there's little personal downside to Republican power.
Not at all. But it puts the lie to Ray's assertion that no one is really going to take away a woman's right to choose. Because, you know, forcing a woman to be functionally raped by a doctor with an ultrasound wand in order to terminate a pregnancy is a pretty ####### terrible intrusion on that woman's right to her own body (which, for the record, trumps any right for Ray to not be taxed by the state.)
And there's a reason libertarians tend to be white men...
Also: wealthy people possessing bad taste always seem to love adorning their domiciles with it. Humans have an intrinsic, biological love of it. It's beautiful. And beauty is objective. Duh.
of course self-professed libertarians who actually ARE conservative Republicans, well their claim to be libertarian is simply untrue...
For most of our resident libertarians, their disdain for liberals actually trumps their allegiance to an ideology, which is why they'll twist into pretzels to deny any sort of organized campaign against women's rights. That has been evident on this board for about a decade now.
Every dolt here who thinks the AT GUNPOINT joke is hilarious when the government does stuff they don't care about to people they don't like. When it's something they actually give a #### about, suddenly they're making hysterical and impassioned libertarian arguments.
I'm just amusing myself highlighting the paucity of thought and morality on the part of the BBTF left, people who refuse to respect the rights of others, but demand that others respect theirs.
Of course a trans-vaginal ultrasound is no more a rape than a prostate exam is. I still think the law is stupid.
And lots of people don't recognize any "right to her own body" that involves killing an unborn child.
And there's a reason libertarians tend to be white men...
And there are plenty of reasons Democrats tend to belong to certain racial and demographic groups, what of it? Doe the fact that Democrats tend not to be white men undermine there legitimacy?
Not really; that's why I noted that it was one state.
Your tragic misunderstanding of who the dolts are is your first mistake. Equating paying taxes to medical rape is your second. Sometimes you don't think too good, not your fault.
There's no campaign against women's rights. There's a debate over what is and is not a right. No one is looking to deny women any right that they claim men have.
In fact, the Pro-Choice movement is hypocritical on this issue. Its position giving sole control over abortion to the mother is a fundamental denial of equal rights. The father has no choice in the matter. Once he has had sex with the mother, he has no say over whether he is going to be forced to support an unwanted child for 18-25 years, or is going to see a wanted and loved child killed.
Could you please drop the hyberbole. Is every man raped when he visits his urologist?
And never even voted on, much less passed into law.
Under what circumstances would the law dictate a man see the urologist?
EDIT: Oh, and what other method might someone inspect his prostate. The normal ultrasound does everything a vaginal ultrasound does except penetrate the vagina.
I'm not arguing that the proposal was a good one. I'm just seeking an accurate definition of the act.
You could equally argue that the woman can simply avoid the ultrasound by not seeking an abortion. You wouldn't consider that a good argument, would you?
It's also a little weak b/c the procedure she is seeking to have is equally intrusive as the ultrasound.
A minority of the people in this country agree with that, a majority -- a strong majority if you include those add 'rape/incest' exclusions, and then by proxy, deduce that it simply cannot be "killing an unborn child"... and the simple fact is that the state doesn't recognize that reading, either.
A man is free to to choose not to undertake an invasive ultrasound if medical science deems such procedure unnecessary to a subsequent procedure.
In the case of an abortion, medical science has deemed these invasive ultrasounds UNNECESSARY to the subsequent procedure.
So can we please drop the too stupid by half reading that they're the same thing or even similar?
You do realize that the precious metals markets have been actively manipulated for years right? The recent surge in gold and silver prices is a breakout after years of suppression. If you are foolish enough to believe the government when it tells you that inflation is 1-3% and has been for years, that's fine, but if you are like 90% of the rest of the North American population you will have noticed that your dollar isn't going very far anymore, and you're probably not getting much of a raise each year. The price of gold is a far more accurate reflection of something's value than a US dollar.
tshipman - do you own any gold? A wedding ring maybe? Why didn't you just get a steel or brass one, if gold has no intrinsic value? If gold doesn't have any intrinsic value, why do you think it has been in demand since the dawn of civilization? Why do you think that only precious metals were used as coinage for centuries? Why was it used as a benchmark for currencies around the world? Why are they even called precious metals? Maybe its because they are shiny.....that must be it. I'm not expecting anything but more dismissive snark because you've demonstrated that's pretty much all you have to offer when you encounter an opinion that doesn't fall in line with what you learned in school, but it would be interesting to know where the dismissive attitude comes from. I'm only presenting rational facts.
I suppose it is anyone's choice to believe the fountains of ######## that have been spouted by 90% of mainstream economists over the last 50 years, but at some point their positions have to have some tie to reality. Like I said upthread, I would far rather trust my own observations of what is happening all around me and make judgments accordingly.
Well, society has deemed it to be necessary, so if you don't like it, you can just move to your own island someplace by yourself and live off the land. We all must give up some of our rights to be a part of society, right? Your hilarious screeching about how "But this is different!" is not particularly compelling.
Let's see if you're actually learning anything from being on BBTF. Can you articulate an argument why your preferences should be given any more weight than anybody elses preferences? Feel free to steal my pedagogy for your own uses.... lord knows any kids unfortunate enough to be stuck with you can use all the help they can get.
Even I can see taxation as an "infringement" of liberty, does anyone see it as the "greatest infringement?" I don't think that argument can be made in good faith or held rationally.
You have no idea how hard you are making it for me to continue to be pro-life... I mean siding with you on something is just so creepy...
I do not think that viable fetuses should be aborted, at some point abortion becomes infanticide. I do not know when that point occurs, but it's sometime before birth but after conception.
I'm fine with that actually.
Why do you think it's breaking out now?
So what is the "real" rate of inflation?
I like how conspiracy theorists are always the plucky underdogs.
“The news that the innocent have nothing to fear is guaranteed to strike fear into the hearts of innocents everywhere.”
Your inability to distinguish a zygote from a human being isn't my problem, per se, Snap.
that's a big part of it yes.
shiny, resistant to corrosion, relatively rare, can be readily transported and handled without damage.
you need a medium of exchange, and you need some way of regulating that medium, gold has many features that makes it good to use for that purpose- since in some ways it is self-regulating, but it doesn't make it "extrinsically" valuable.
platinum :-)
Coming from the author of the "it's over" meme, that is hardly reassuring.
I guess I would say that the 'father' made his choice when he chose to have unprotected sex with a woman without discussing the ramifications of a possible pregnancy that might result from that unprotected sex. I'll grant that such a 'decision' wasn't likely made rationally or logically, but there it is.
I perfectly well accept that there are differences between men and women -- and from a male perspective, if you didn't have that discussion prior to the act of creating a pregnancy, you've already forfeited an equal share in that post-fact decision making. At that point - while the male is hemming and hawing, ultimately trying to decide between fatherhood or not (not to mention, the fact that he can change his mind on a dime without consequences) - the woman now has a physical condition that will impact her life for the better part of a year to deal with.
I suspect that it's extraordinarily rare for a situation to occur where a committed couple who HAS had that precoital discussion to come out with different opinions on the other side.
Diamonds are already common as dirt. The only problem is that one cartel owns virtually all of that dirt, so they just dump the stuff into warehouses, in order to generate artificial scarcity.
Maybe that's why I just don't get the whole gold obsession. I've always thought it was kind of ugly. Give me platinum or silver or colored jewel-stones any day of the weak...
edit:
good man
Not really; that's why I noted that it was one state.
You have your head up your ass if you don't see the coordinated strategy the right has been using on abortion-- put as many obstacles as possible in the way of the procedure and hope that'll discourage women from having it-- if they really want that abortion, make 'em work for it.
But as long as "a" state does it, it's not tyranny. When "the" state does it, tyranny. And you wonder why we think libertarians are power illiterate.
===
In fact, the Pro-Choice movement is hypocritical on this issue. Its position giving sole control over abortion to the mother is a fundamental denial of equal rights. The father has no choice in the matter. Once he has had sex with the mother, he has no say over whether he is going to be forced to support an unwanted child for 18-25 years, or is going to see a wanted and loved child killed.
Snapper, your denial the US's history of institutionalized patriarchal power has been noted. Again. Thanks.
Is every man raped when he visits his urologist?
The procedure is medically unnecessary-- the only reason for it was to satisfy the whims of rapid anti-choice activists. It is 1) unwanted, 2) unnecessary, and 3) mandated by the state. What else would you have it called, other than state rape?
===
Your hilarious screeching about how "But this is different!" is not particularly compelling.
I'm not expecting you to be compelled. You're a nutter.
Can you articulate an argument why your preferences should be given any more weight than anybody elses preferences?
Are you back on the "principles/preferences" thing again? Your "principle" is just a masturbatory fantasy you use to justify your social position. That's all you guys ever do here, and that's why you'll never deal with libertarianism's origin story-- then you'll have to realize it was made up by particular men at a particular time for a particular purpose, rather than just coming down on stone tablets from the gods.
Feel free to steal my pedagogy for your own uses
Wait, was your "I'm a tree don't you dare talk about the forest!!!" bit about regulatory uncertainty a lesson in pedagogy? Was the lesson how to teach people stupid?
Yet the distinction is the utter core of the issue and the disagreement. I think your position is nutty too.
But where does that get us. If we assume the other side is coming from a position of good faith on their disagreement, the dialogue is far healthier.
Not true. The majority of Americans define themselves as pro-Life, vs. pro-Choice. 51%-42%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
The fact that a lot of those people would allow exceptions in extremis (that would apply to <1% of actual abortions) doesn't really change the picture.
As many people think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (22%) as think the current law is right (23% legal in all circumstances).
So let me get this straight. When we don't agree with you that the government is too big and intrusive, we are thieves and socialists. We we DO stand up against the government being too big, we're simply lying hypocrites. That seems... not sensible.
This brings to mind when I told Ray I would give up something I found important - arts funding - in order to help show in good faith that I was willing to balance the budget. When asked what he might compromise with in response, the answer was: nothing. Because either we agree with him or we're stupid and dishonest.
Tell me, Good Face, how is this not about personality as opposed to politics? Other than simply agree with you, on, well, everything, what else is there to do?
In a case where large numbers of people have different definitions of whether a zygote constitutes a human being, I guess I just fail to grasp the logic in the idea that everyone should decide what's best for their own zygotes.
I understand that one of the two competing positions does sort of demand minding someone else's zygote - but sometimes you get stuck with the philosophical viewpoint that has the short end of the logical stick.
I perfectly well accept that there are differences between men and women -- and from a male perspective, if you didn't have that discussion prior to the act of creating a pregnancy, you've already forfeited an equal share in that post-fact decision making. At that point - while the male is hemming and hawing, ultimately trying to decide between fatherhood or not (not to mention, the fact that he can change his mind on a dime without consequences) - the woman now has a physical condition that will impact her life for the better part of a year to deal with.
I suspect that it's extraordinarily rare for a situation to occur where a committed couple who HAS had that precoital discussion to come out with different opinions on the other side.
Well, I say they both made their choice when they decided to have unprotected sex.
Snapper, your denial the US's history of institutionalized patriarchal power has been noted. Again. Thanks.
Hah, hah, hah. When you start talking about the "patriarchy" it's a good sign you don't want to debate the actual issues.
There is no "father" of a fetus. A fetus is not a person.
1: I have noticed prices increases more than usual the past year or two
2: BUT it is nothing like the late 70s
The reason he knows it has a soul is because his bible tells him so.
Because his bible is the absolute word of God, we all have to obey whatever is in it.
Who needs logic, when the Magic Sky Pilot and the Man in the Pointy Hat are there to tell you what to do and what to think?
You're using bad data --
Your position is one of absoluteness.
Find me a poll that includes the questions of rape/incest/woman's health. People may have a hard time accepting that they're actually "pro-choice" -- but only the true believers, ~1/3 if memory serves -- believe in the absolute position that you and the church believe.
It's easy to self-identify as "pro-life"... no one - not even the fanciful feminists - are "pro-abortion"... but once you carve out exceptions, and most Americans do -- then it's no longer a logically tenable argument to say that you're "pro life", as in life begins at conception.
The pro-life caucus has simply gotten better at Lakoffing the question, that's all...
Why wasn't that the position on Civil Rights?
Large numbers of people had different definitions of whether Blacks were equal to Whites. Why didn't we let every store owner, and landlord decide what was best for their own business, and admit or exclude blacks at their discretion?
Why isn't that the position on welfare?
Everyone has different definitions on who is worthy of charity, and in what amounts. Why don't we just let each individual decide how to support charity in their own way, and at what they cosnider the appropriate level?
Even if that's all true, discouragement isn't the same as taking away the right to choose. If that really is the "coordinated strategy" of the right, its aim isn't taking away the right to choose, so there's less to worry about than first let on.
But as long as "a" state does it, it's not tyranny. When "the" state does it, tyranny.
When a state does it, you can flee to another state. When the federal government does it, you can't.
And if that father throws the mother down the stairs, and the child dies, he'll be tried for homicide as well as assault.
That's the whole freaking thing we disagree on. You can't assert away the difference.
The first step to debating this issue is acknowledging that there's such a thing as patriarchal power. You belong to an institution that has fought tooth and nail to cling to it. And yet you continue to function as if it's just something feminists made up because they were bored being housewives.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main