Hypothetical (but important) question

[BL611]

Would you support us having a full blown Scandinavian style social democracy (national health care, high level of progressive taxation, massive increase in education spending, etc.)if it meant overturning Roe V. Wade and passing a constitutional amendment against gay marriage?

[ewagner]

1. Oh Bartender!

I'll have TWO of whatever the OP is drinking.

[Dr.Phool]

4. Fuck No

And I'll take a couple of those drinks too!!

[Enquiringkitty]

74. Now didn't that open a can of worms!!!!

[efhmc]

2. How in the world could you think both of those positions would

ever blend, much less be passed?

[BL611]

6. Why would they not blend?

Again its just a hypothetical, but there is nothing inherently contradictory

[MAlibdem]

3. maybe

Most/many states would still allow abortion - only 10-20 states would probably ban it in all cases.

If civil unions were thrown in, I'd say we have a deal. (though who am i to make such a deal?)

[Beetwasher]

5. Why? Is Abortion Illegal In Scandinavia? Do They Discriminate Against Gays

I don't understand your hypothetical. Why is it important? Actually, it sounds like an idiotic hypothetical, but I'll withold judgement until you explain yourself.

[MAlibdem]

8. I think the purpose of the exercise

is to evaluate whether economic social justice or civil social justice is more important to us as a party.

I think there is certainly a nice blend of justice.

[BL611]

9. I didn't say abortion was illegal in Scandinavia

It's a matter of quantifying where you place your priorities, I'm not endorsing it as a course of action

[Beetwasher]

11. They Should ALL Be Priorities

Equal rights and Civil rights are one of the most important things you can fight for. Should we allow slavery if we can get universal health care? Same hypothetical (only just a bit more extreme).

[BL611]

13. No its not

Slavery is a HUGE part of a nations economic structure

[Beetwasher]

14. So What?

Yeah, slavery would be great for the economy, so why not go for it? It could allow the free people to pay for their universal health care? :eyes:

[BL611]

15. Actually it wouldn't be

Thats why it was abolished (not because of the moral imperative). If you would like to make a hypothetical on whether slavery would be worth universal health care, I would say no, but that is not along my same line of reasoning, because you are mixing two economic issues

[Beetwasher]

16. No, I'm Not

I'm just bringing the issue of curbing a certain groups Civil Rights to the extreme. If you don't understand that, that's because you don't want to. It most certainly IS along the same line of reason. Accept stripping one group of rights and freedoms for a trade off for YOU. It's selfish and it's stupid.

Slavery was not abolished because it was BAD economically. Are you nuts? The south fought a war because w/ out slaves they knew their economy would be devastated. Do some research on the Civil War, you're totally wrong.

[BL611]

17. The NORTH fought the war

because slavery was BAD for its economy. I suggest you do some research.

Again you are talking about a civil right that has economic consequences I'm not, nor am I trying to be antagonistic, its a hypothetical question you're entitled to your point of view ethier way

[Beetwasher]

19. That's The Dumbest Thing I Ever Heard

It was only bad for the North's economy because the North OUTLAWED SLAVERY. The North could compete if it had slaves. Duh.

Dude, really, you are spouting unbelievable ignorance. If slavery is so bad for an economy, why would the South even want to continue it? :eyes:

[BL611]

27. Industrialization!!!

Slavery is not conducive to an industrialized society, so once the North industrialized,it outlawed slavery since it was no longer economically advantageous. As an agricultural society slavery was STILL economically advantageous in the south. There is simply no industrial society in the world were slavery exists, because it can no longer be profitable. If you think slavery was outlawed in the North because the idea that blacks were equal in society and thus should be free had reached critical mass you are sadly mistaken. This is all well known fact and not relevant to this thread, so this will be the end of my slavery discussion, if you would like some material supporting this I would be happy to cite some material for you to read, but it shouldn't be hard for you to get it on your own since like I said this is well known and not at all controversial.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BL611]

33. I'm trying not to call YOU names

But you are wrong and really just taking the time to do a few minutes of research will clear it up, Dubios' "black reconstruction" is a good place to start in its readability and historical scholarship

As for the third Reich, as I recall its thousand year reign was cut short abit....

[Beetwasher]

35. LOL! You Obviously Know Nothing About Economics

Seriously, learn something about economics. Slave Labour=No Labour Costs (or almose none)=Good for any economy. duh. Very simple.

Just because Germany lost WWII doesnt' mean slavery was bad for it's economy. :eyes: They didn't lose because they used slave labour. Duh.

Along with economics, I suggest you learn logic as well.

[BL611]

38. Actually I'm getting my Ph. D in economics (more assumptions)

You need to learn to differentiate types of capital, the cost of a slave laborer in the south was actually (often) more then a wage worker in the north. Again please research it further you will see your assumptions are foolish and wrong.

[Beetwasher]

40. Sure You Are

:eyes:

If that's true and you think slavery was bad for the Southern economy, that's sad..Really sad.

[BL611]

43. Sigh...

I never said it was bad for the southern economy, I said it was bad in the northern economy, once again difference in utility of capital and labor. If you're going to continue to just call me names, instead of responding with reason, I won't waste my time you (as far as my schooling you're entitled to believe what you want)

[Beetwasher]

44. LOL! Except There WAS No Slavery In The Northern Economy

So how could it be bad? :eyes:

Seriously, logic classes might very appropriate for you.

The slavery in the Southern economy was good for IT'S economy and bad for the Northern economy. But slavery is STILL good for an economy that uses it. You should know that Mr. "Ph.D. in economics student".

Buh bye.

[BL611]

46. The north never had slavery?

Sigh....

[Beetwasher]

47. Playing Stupid?

The slavery in the Southern economy was good for IT'S economy and bad for the Northern economy (after it was abolished). But slavery is STILL good for an economy that uses it. You should know that Mr. "Ph.D. in economics student".

[FromTheLeft]

50. Not necessarily

...it is good for agricultural societies that use it because...

1) Sustenance for such societies is abundant and cheap (It is neither in an industrial society)

2) Often agriculture societies are in warmer climates making shelter cheaper

3) Agricultural jobs require little or no training.

None of these apply to an Industrial society.

[Beetwasher]

51. That May Be True, And It Depends On The Circumstances

But as a general rule, free or VERY cheap labor is a good deal for an economy (or at least for those at the top of the economy).

But we're talking about a very specific example anyway.

[BL611]

52. No thats NOT true

Classic principle of Keynesian economics: Adequate wage values are necessary to the demand function to maintain equilibrium. (or are you not much of a keynesian?)

As for the specific example, you just contradicted yourself last post and said that slavery WAS bad for the north, you're just going around in circle (and calling me names)

[Beetwasher]

54. Baloney

The SOUTH's slavery was bad for the North. Keep playing stupid and I'll keep saying you're playing stupid.

[BL611]

59. Thats exactly what I've been saying all along

This is ridiculous

[Beetwasher]

64. Yeah, It Is Ridiculous, Because That's What I'VE Been Saying

all along...And if that's what you've been saying then you haven't been doing a good job of it. :shrug:

[BL611]

67. No its NOT what you've been saying

Refer to posts #19,31. You said that slavery was not abolished in the North because of economic reasons, but because it was morally wrong, its right there in your words in yours posts.

[Beetwasher]

69. BULLSHIT! Put Up Or Shut! Quote Me Where I Said That

Never said that. You are full of shit.

I never even discussed the abolishment of slavery in the North (which was done for reasons which are debatable, both economic AND philosophical/moral).

I'll save you the time #19:

"It was only bad for the North's economy because the North OUTLAWED SLAVERY. The North could compete if it had slaves. Duh."

I didn't even discuss the reasons WHY slavery was outlawed in the North, only the implications of it and that it was harder (I'd qualify that post now a bit better in that I'd say they'd be MORE competive with slavery) for them to compete against an economy WITH slaves.

#31:

"The reason industrial societies do not practice out and out slavery these days..."

Obviously in THAT post, the words "these days" has context.

Only someone who is intellectually bankrupt would interpret my posts they way you do.

[BL611]

72. #31, third paragraph

"...The reason industrial societies do not practice slavery these days is NOT because its bad for their economies, it has to do with social pressures and progress on humanitarian fronts that have outlawed slavery. They were spurred on by pressures from the international community. It has NOTHING to do with slavery NOT not being economically feasible..."

I'm intellectually bankrupt? you done nothing all day, but call me names and make statements that are demonstrably false. You must watch alot of Bill O'reily huh?

[Beetwasher]

79. Pathetic

Yes, you are intellectually bankrupt and your only resort is to try and twist my words. Notice the words "these days"? That means these days. Not during the time of the civil war.

As I said, you're full of shit. Case in point.

Pathetic.

[FromTheLeft]

53. In the short run yes

but in the long run everyone needs to be fed an clothed and sheltered and that takes money.

[Beetwasher]

56. Yes, It Does, And Much Less If You're A Slave

Slaves have no rights to deman adequate food, shelter or clothing. They get what they're given. A worker w/ a wage and rights is MUCH more expensive.

As I clarified above, slavery is a good thing for those at the TOP of an economy. Not as good for those at the bottom, obviously.

[BL611]

58. Sigh

No it takes more because slave owners took on the obligation to house, feed, and clothe thier slaves, no such obligation in the north, once again go and do some research...

[Beetwasher]

62. Yes, It Was Such A Bad Deal For Those Southerners

That's why the fought a war to keep their slaves that were so bad for them economically. :eyes:

The Germans too who used the Jews as slave labor. Those stupid Germans! Didn't they know they'd be better off paying them! :eyes:

[Blue_Tires]

73. what?

slaves were fed scraps, lived in rickety shacks and were clothed in rags for the most part (and given NO wages)

how in the hell was that more expensive than paying a living wage to a worker in the north?

[FromTheLeft]

61. but...

In the south food for the slaves was grown not bought, as it would have to be in the north for a mark up. In the south rags to cover ones genatils and breast were sufficent clothing, in the north enough to keep from freezing was nessecary. Shacks and sheds were plenty of shelter in the south, in the north you needed enclosed buildings to keep your property from freezing to death. I was not cheap to keep slaves in the north, it was in the south.

[Beetwasher]

63. That's Why I Said

it depends on the circumstances. Slavery was a good deal for Southerners. There's no denying that.

[Protagoras]

95. Have you been to a Walmart lately?

:D

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

125. Guess he is unfamiliar with private prison contracting too

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

126. dupe

[kentuck]

21. Oh Bartender.....

what he's drinking....?

[BL611]

18. Its also interesting

How you say this is about a trade off for me. As far as I can tell gays,and pregnant woman also do benefit from health insurance, better education, and a generally more economically egalitarian society , you are right I am neither of these groups so if I'm wrong please correct me.

Here's another hypothetical (you probably won't like this one either) If you were a HIV positive gay man would you're right to get married or your health insurance be more important to you?

[Beetwasher]

20. Actually, THAT May Be the Dumbest Thing I Ever Heard

Yes, those people should give up THEIR rights so YOU could have healthcare (maybe them too, but YOU are asking THEM to give up THEIR rights so you can't profess to actually care about THEM). Mindbogglingly idiotic.

[BL611]

28. Not at all what I said

Actually I'm a veteran so I have guaranteed health care and a heavily subsidized education, so no this is not about me.

For someone who evidently prides them self so much on their tolerance you are awfully quick to call people names and demean them when you don't agree with them.

Once again I am not proposing any of this as a suggested democratic agenda, it is merely an exercise for people to think of where they place their priorities, politics is not all or nothing, if you refuse to accept you can't have it all, you will wind up with nothing. By refusing to think about things like this (however unpleasant tipping over sacred cows may be) you are hurting all the ideals involved.

I once again refer you to the example of the HIV positive gay man without health insurance, he has no choice but to think about things like this because to him it is a reality not an unpleasant abstraction.

[Beetwasher]

32. You Are Quick to Make Compromises w/ OTHER People's Freedoms

It has nothing to do with refusing to think about this, it has to do with the very basis of human freedom, civil rights and the pursuit of happiness. You are quick to sacrifice them for gays and women from your comfortable perch.

How do you know I'm NOT an HIV positive gay man without health insurance? For all you know I am.

[BL611]

34. How did you know I'm not?

You've been drawing conclusions (on no basis) about me this entire thread.

You just assumed now that I have a "comfortable perch"

Two minutes ago you assumed I didn't have health insurance

I've also never said what my opinion was on the original question

You might do best to follow you're own advice

As far as I can tell we are far from fulfilling "the basic agenda of human freedom, civil rights, and the pursuit of happiness" all I am asking is for people to think of what the best best way to achieve this is. I am not quick to sacrifice, but willing to sacrifice for the greater good. If you're not, you will accomplish nothing, but self aggrandizing abstract moralizing.

[Beetwasher]

37. I Assume Nothing

Except it's not YOUR rights that you are willing to give up. As long as it's someone elses rights, it's okey dokey w/ you though! Sacrifice away all you gays, women, blacks etc, it's for the greater good you know! :eyes:

[BL611]

39. Really

I just previously listed several unwarranted (and wrong) assumptions you've made about me...

[Beetwasher]

41. Yes, Really

Yeah, whatever you say Mr. "Slavery was bad for the South economically" who's getting his Ph.D. in economics :eyes:

[BL611]

45. OK expert in economics....

lets reverse this entire argument. Lets say we could have abortion and gay marriage, but it would mean a more neoliberal laissez faire economy. Since you're a democrat I'm assuming you're a proponent of Keynesian demand function market equilibrium, which would mean you believe that an extension of current "starve the beast" right wing economics would eventually lead to a depression that America may never get out of (for reasons you already know Mr. economics expert), would you be more willing to accept that scenario?

[Beetwasher]

48. I Won't Play Your Games

There's no reason to make the trade off as one is a matter of civil rights and freedom and the other is a matter of economic equality. It's an idiotic hypothetical to begin with and serves no useful purpose except to try and divide people. There's no reason why a society can't have BOTH civil rights AND more economic equality.

[BL611]

68. There IS a reason...

We have a republican President,House, and Senate, things are moving along real well right?

[Beetwasher]

71. If It Means Throwing Some People's Rights To The Wolves

I'd fight to the last man to avoid that...Obviously you have no principles and are selfish. Civil rights and freedoms are non-negotiable. If they are for you, then the right party is in power for you. You must be very happy.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

111. So it's gay people's fault? Is that what you are saying?

[Misunderestimator]

131. The Right To Get MARRIED... No fucking question about it...

Because I would want to leave the PERSON I LOVED WITH SOME SECURITY. WITH MY PENSION AND MY SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS... and the RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT MY FUCKING LIFE.

:wtf: are talking about?????? :wtf:

[frankly_fedup2]

99. So reading between the lines suggests that you are in favor of a one-

party Government. PWAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAH! Probably only believe that Christian monuments should be displayed on government property as well . . . PWWWHHAHAHAHAHAHAH, ROFLMAO!!! Phew! I usually don't get my laughs for the day until Randi comes on the air. This was a good one.

[applegrove]

7. We should all word to make abortion rare. We should all work to

make discrimination rare. We have no choice but to open our boarders to the emerging markets since that will be where all the growth takes place in the world (middle classes created). So Nordic countries may not be able to afford everything they love so much. They may have to pick and choose what really is important to them in the years to come.

Who the hell are you? Faust?

[MAlibdem]

10. a little Friedman in there?

I think I heard a Lexus and an Olive Tree poking out.

[applegrove]

23. Friedman? Look at the car and the street and the school & the

stores & the universities & the city near where you live. An awful lot of pavement eh? Now look at the same street near a city in Middle Brazil, Middle India, Middle China, Middle Africa, Middle Russia, etc... Lots more work to be done in those places. Lots more productivity to get out of the people who are being totally underused.

If you think of growth like 'room to grow' them is the places where all the 'big changes’ take place. And yes the internet will mean continued grow and changes in Middle America. But - come on. USA won WWII and USA & CANADA had huge growth in the 1950s to early 1970s. Then competition started from Europe and Japan again. And the incredibly good times sort of ended. Now with countries like India, China, Brazil & Russia, who together because of their populations will make for markets 10 times bigger than the current total of all Western nations today, about to compete with us in North America... times will be tough. Much of that toughness will be hid by lower costs of all things (except oil). We will all do okay just as countries like Australia did or like Britain has done in the last few years even though it is at the very, very end of empire (I mean they lost Hong Kong like last Wednesday or something.. just kidding). Britain is in the EEC where open trade gives you other options to make work for yourself and specialize.

So all of us in the West will not see the incredible growth like we did before. Nordic countries will likely (and have likely) cut back. In Canada we have made things much more efficient and then can expand to child care that make life very much better for single moms and the poor. But to assume we have the choice of the status quo is simply wrong.

As for calling me Milton Friedman - no. But we do have to teach ourselves about the harsh realities of the world or the elites (who see us as competitors) will make every recovery a 'jobless' one - or will change immigration policy to make it harder for you to make a killing by working for the two decades behind the baby boomers retirement when American workers will be rare - unless these visiting workers with temporary passes are allowed in en mass. For sure they will be paying Sales taxes but they will also remit so much money outside of the USA. Is this really something we want if we a Liberals. Do you know? Cause I don't. Could be a chance for middle class and poor to do really, really well and be like a "transfer of wealth back to the people". And I'd like to know more about how migrant workers affect and economy before I'd vote to give up the $60 an hour I may be able to charge anyone who hires me in 10 years. But the elites will never give you that choice. We have to know economy if we are to be IN CONTROL of our countries.

[MAlibdem]

29. not milton friedman

thomas friedman.

you mirror his argument in the Lexus and the Olive Tree. Generally a good book. A little overly mechanistic, but good.

[applegrove]

83. Duh - bad with names. Funny thing is after I responded I picked

up Chomsky's book and kept reading from where I was from the night before. Thomas Friedman's name pops up. I went - :wow: wrong Friedman.

Will have to read Friedman's book if I get the time. I have so many books to read.

[MAlibdem]

94. I would also suggest Joseph Stiglitz

"Globalization and Its Discontents"

and William Greider's "One World, Ready or Not"

and Susan Ariel Aaronson's "Taking Globalization to the Streets"


(note, all accept globalization as happening as a basic premise, the goal is to tame the beast and make it work for the people)

[BL611]

12. That doesn't change the question

Actually Sweeden (with slight modifications to thier welfare state)is doing quite well now in the global world (much better then most more neoliberal economies)

Ummm no, I'm not Faust....

[applegrove]

84. Yes but don't you think that those nordic countries will face tough

wage competition from the Ukrane and all those newly free former Soviet states. There is/will be alot of pressure on all of us(in N. America) we have never faced.

Will be very different amounts of wealth & growth produced in the West. Prices will fall.

[BL611]

87. Precisely....

The secret to Sweden's success is in the tech fields thanks to their strong emphasis on investing in human capital. The only way stay on top of the global market is through constant innovation that can only be achieved through investing in the youth of the nation.

[applegrove]

88. Specializing and investing in humans. Yes - tis sad that neocons

don't see the logic in that.

[karynnj]

22. Trade offs

I think your question is very interesting. Interpreting it to mean that if it was found that the Democrats could get over 50% of the vote if they had the listed position as their platform, would it be worth jettisoning the two values issues. (Also, it is found that we can not get the same support if we want to retain the values issues.) I think it would be a hard decision. So I would want to do a little bargaining. First, we also get a President who will favor diplomacy and alliances with other nations rather than endless war.

Now, let's start the bargsining. I would want a position where civil unions were allowed and were from a stand point of rights treated as a marriage equivalent. Roe vs Wade is more difficult. The strange thing is the blue states probably have or would have state abortion rights, so what we are really fighting for are the rights of poor women in red states who could not afford to leave the state to have a legal abortion. Now I doubt that it would be illegal to set up a fund that would help women in these states with transportation, lodging, and medical bills. This would ease some, but not all of the hardship caused by this change.

I would then accept that platform, with difficulty initially, as the rights I'm giving up don't affect me personally. This actually makes it harder to think of. For gay couples, this deal would be a major improvement over today. So, I'm left with everyone getting a far superior safety net and social services, better foreign relationships and a better President (think Kerry, not Bush). But the cost will be born entirely by people wanting abortions in states without the state right. I would take it because weighing everything, I think we would be better off. I would feel guilty though.

[rockymountaindem]

24. I wouldn't support any of those things.

If the Scandanavians want that kind of government, then they're welcome to it. I, for one, would definately not be willing to go that far. Social services are one thing, but 60% taxes are excessive to say the least.

So first of all, I don't want the supposed gain you present. Therefore, I wouldn't trade anything to get it.

[Clarkie1]

25. how can there be national health care if Roe V. Wade is overturned?

So the answer is no.

[Greybnk48]

26. No. I will not abandon women's rights or the gay community

I will never agree to be anti-woman or anti-gay--that's a sellout. Either everone is treated with respect or I leave the party. No compromises with these hideous pricks.

[Hello_Kitty]

30. Kinda mutually exclusive to me

I don't see how you could have "full blown" social democracy if you deny women reproductive rights and restrict their access to a medical procedure. Nor would you if you deny civil rights and benefits to gay citizens. It would be only a partial social democracy.

[Guaranteed]

36. This is messed up. I'd have to say

that I'd be willing to sacrifice gay marriage, but not Roe v. Wade.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

80. well..half a thanks, buddy...and half a __________ you

[Guaranteed]

81. Yeah, Tiny Tim says thanks to you. nt

[steelyboo]

42. My question is why are people like you insistent on coming onto

DU with these inane hypotheticals that haven't a snowball's chance in hell of EVER becoming reality? Any particular reason for people to constantly play "Devil's Advocate" (thats such a bullshit way of saying "I want to be an argumentative asshole for a minute, even though I don't believe my premise") on DU?
Are you testing us, as 1 poster suggested? If so, Why? What do you feel it will accomplish?

[BL611]

55. I'm not testing you

I'm asking you to really evaluate where you place your priorities, it's ashame so many people are taking this as me attcking gays and woman because I've done nothing of the sort.

[steelyboo]

65. I dont take it as an attack on those groups, but I do see it as a

pointless exercise meant only to divide. What country would say,"yes we want everything the liberals in the world ask for, but women can't have abortions, and gays are not allowed to marry." So, if you are actually serious in your inquiry, then let me be the first to say its perposterous.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

49. What's so important about your question?

Other than you simply wish to see if people will sell ONE LARGE group of people down the river for another large group.

If you were making an argument for the benefit of many versus the benefit of a few, I might see where you are coming from, but you are making an argument for the benefit of many versus the detriment of many.

I also sense (or shall I say SMELL) a backdoor swipe at those who argue that many women don't choose to give birth due to economic concerns.

I say spill your agenda before you push poll people here.

[BL611]

57. No agenda at all besides asking where your first priorities lay

Like I've said earlier in this thread, you can't have it all in politics, you have to make rough decisions sometimes on where your priorities lay, if you don't you will get nothing accomplished...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

66. Sometimes you need to take no prisoners and make their life a living hell

I'd favor violent revolution before I would take your trade off

[MadisonProgressive]

60. HELL NO!~

[Bridget Burke]

70. No.

It's like the old joke--"Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"

After she answers "Yes", he replies: "Well, now that we've established your profession, let's negotiate on the amount."

You don't really have a million dollars & we aren't whores.

Play your mind games elsewhere.

[Swamp Rat]

75. 3, 2, 1...

:hi:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

77. No blast off yet

:nuke:

[Misunderestimator]

86. Shocking...

or not... :shrug: I've grown used to the white noise... kind of.

[Swamp Rat]

141. INDEED!

:shrug:

[JerseygirlCT]

76. No. How the heck would those two things work together anyway?

I've no problem with the Scandanavian style democracy. But not at the expense of civil/human rights!

[American Tragedy]

78. No fucking way.

Material comfort is meaningless when one doesn't possess civil liberties.

The point of this little exercise is to test our priorities, and I know mine very well. In a choice between a candidate who promised the ultimate big government blend of Scandinavian socialism and authoritarian social policy, versus someone who strove to guarantee individual freedom, I think it would be a very, very easy choice for me.

[Digit]

82. There is no consistency in their ideologies

A govt who supported those social programs would not discriminate against gays nor rule out women having control over their own bodies in my opinion.

[autorank]

85. Right after you swear off the blow! What a bizarre question.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cry baby]

90. BL611, you sure know how to get the sh*t flying, don't you?

My answer is "no" to your question. Why do you ask?

[comsymp]

91. No

NT

[mandyky]

92. No and many Democrats would NOT support

a social Democracy. I will not sell out the rights of my gay friends to marry or civil union with their choice of partner, and I still think abortion is a privacy right for women to choose when they bring a pregnancy to term, between them and their doctors and conscience.

[GOPBasher]

93. Depends on if they also banned civil unions or not.

As long as that amendment wouldn't ban civil unions, I'd be for it. But if it banned civil unions, then no.

Overturning Roe V. Wade doesn't scare me much, because that wouldn't outlaw abortion; it would just leave it up to the states. Blue states would generally keep it legal, and most red states would probably outlaw it.

As far as banning gay marriage goes, my greatest concern is getting civil unions, so they can have the same benefits as heterosexual couples. I don't think actually calling it "marriage" really matters. (I'm sure I'll get flamed for that, but I'll just say that as a person in a heterosexual marriage, I couldn't care less if the government actually calls it "marriage" or not, as long as we have the benefits and we call ourselves married. The benefits are the important thing.)

[frankly_fedup2]

100. Roe V. Wade will never be overturned and I can tell you why I am 100% sure

. . . because no Supreme Court has EVER, NEVER, ever, never overturned a previous court's decision. Simple as that!

So no matter what one believes regarding abortion, it will always be legal. Even if the Supreme Court majority is conservative (like now), that law will stand.

So to those Conservative Christians out there, who believe killing an abortion doctor by shooting through his/her window at his/her home, or blowing up clinics with people in them, is justifiable homicide, please take note of this.

To those of you out there that lean conservatively on this one issue, when a politician says he is going to stop "abortions," they are talking out of their asses and they know it.

Bush thinks he has kept his word to his "Moral Majority" on the Religious Right (or Rapture Right), by signing the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban," with some of our Democratic leaders joining in with bipartisanship. With this law's misleading legislation now banning this so-called procedure, which is called an D&E. It does not even specify an exception if the woman's life is in danger. This is very dangerous legislation when an unborn fetus has more rights than a living female. In all actuality, the D&E was only performed when the woman's life was in danger OR the fetus died in-utero in the last trimester.

In short: Political propaganda to keep the Religious Right happy as well as propaganda using the news media to appear like the Democrats have a voice, especially, some that state they want abortion legal but limited. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is so vague that some courts have overruled it and called it anti-constitutional.

I believe most Democrats who are pro choice do not mean they are "pro abortion." Pro choice to me means the woman's right to choose; however, who does not want abortion limited? I would think everyone, even pro-choice advocates; however, no one has the right (albeit government or individual), to tell anyone what they can and cannot do as far as abortion is concerned. That decision is a private one by the individual and her physician.

The RU486 pill is being used in some states during the first trimester, immediately after a woman is raped, after incest, and for some woman who would rather take this pill then have a clinic abortion.

[BL611]

104. I agree entirely...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

108. Brown V Topeka invalidated Plessy V Ferguson. 2 different USSC's

So while you and the threadstarter are in agreement, agreement does not make the crux of your argument correct.

[Protagoras]

96. Would you support the horrible torture and murder of 50

people if it would extend the lives of 50 (100/1000/100000000) other random people by 10 (20/30/50/100) years?

whatever...how about a 3rd alternative that doesn't exist on the far and misty edges of the slippery slope?

still the thread is amusing, heh.

[BL611]

103. If you would like

to discuss a third alternative feel free, one more time I AM NOT SUGGESTING THIS AS POLICY, I don't know why I even bother explaining that at this point because people are clearly going to believe what they want to believe....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

106. Sorry but you are the one that framed this hypothetical question

and are now using it to claim that if others don't see things as you do then economic justice is not a priority for them.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

97. Back for another question

How come you asked if we'd sell out two minority issues rather than asking if people would forego the right of labor to organize? It would seem to me that that would be the more faustian bargain. Again, I question why you chose two issues that don't affect you at all.

[BL611]

101. If you refer to post #45

I reversed the question, if you would like to tell me your thoughts on that scenario instead, feel free.....

On edit: Every issue affects every other issue, nothing in politics (or in life for that matter)exists in a vacuum, I am affected by these issues every bit as much as you are effected by the issue of ten million children without health insurance (which I would hope you atleast feel bad about, but doesn't appear to be at the forefront of your consciousness)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

110. No. Every issue does NOT affect every other issue. Feel free to expand

that unproven hypothesis if you'd like, I'll be here all day waiting.

[BL611]

112. Certainly....

I hate to break it you, but politics IS in a way a Faustian bargain, (ask any politician), there is always a balance between constituency's, not only one being in direct conflict with another, but in that the more time you spend on one issue, the less you can spend on another. You can't be trying to pass legislation for gay marriage and child health care at the same time (you could have them both pending at the same time, but you know what I mean...). Not only can't you pass legislation at the same time , but you can't advocate or raise awareness. When you give your money to NARAL, you're n giving money to NARAL instead of a group like ACORN this means NARAL has more resources to put its issue in the forefront of the debate then ACORN does. So yes, whether its a conscious decision or not you've chosen abortion over poverty.

On a personal level as you seem to have already discovered (I believe it was you who brought it up, if not my mistake) I did work on for the DNC during the election, while being based in NY, I spent quite a bit of time in Ohio, in which I spent quite a good deal of time talking with volunteers and even did a bit of canvassing myself. You may or may not know that Ohio has been one of hardest states hit economically,especially in the manufacturing sector, it is also a very socially conservative state(One of the first people to make me aware of this was the head of ACT in Ohio who also happens to be a lesbian and a feminist, Jill Harris I believe was her name although I may be mistaken on her last name). While I forgot the exact numbers at this point, the percentage of people who consider themselves "pro life" is as high as most bible belt states, and there is no doubt that there were huge mobilization efforts in conservatives area's of the state on the issue of gay marriage (which on election day obviously proved effective). Talking with people there was definitely a sizable potion of voters who did not like Bush' economic policies, but said they could not vote for a pro choice candidate, and I myself monitored several Democratic mostly black districts in Columbus on election day,. Many voters came out of the polling places worried thy they had voted the wrong way, not on Kerry-Bush, but because the gay marriage amendment question was worded strangely they were afraid that they had voted AGAINST the amendment to ban it.

Unfortunately we live in a country that tends to be center right on cultural issues, however also veers center left on economic ones. Once again I did not mean the OP as AN ACTUAL DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM, the point was to point out a contrast in EXTREMES and for people to weigh in on what they thought about that EXTREME HYPOTHETICAL. As I had mentioned above I do not believe there is any chance of Roe wade being overturned (I don't think the Republicans really want it overturned anyway), and NO I DON'T SUPPORT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT against gay marriage, but I do think it is interesting (and relevant) to see where people stand when faced with this extreme scenario, to see where we should focus our agenda (without being as extreme as the OP proposes).

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

114. I hate to break it to you, but I have 24 years exp with labor policy on

the state level. I understand that every state is not California, but while the national level orgs lament social liberalism as being the petard on which they are hoist, most in labor realize that the Dems LET the economic conversation get away NOT due to social issues such as abortion or gay rights but by jumping on board the laissez faire bandwagon from the late 1980's to present.

Furthermore, I'd love to see you back up your center right allegations about this country on policy when even if many are against gay marriage, I believe the last credible national poll on the subject demonstrated that most would be fine with civil unions.

The manner in which you parse these issues is EXACTLY what is wrong with the party and why people feel abandoned. We could just as easily turn the table on economic issues, but much like so many Democrats are afraid of standing up for what they believe where choice and gay rights are concerned, they recoiled like sissies when Reagan accused them of class warfare and then nominated Bill Clinton who continued with much of the LAW AND ECONOMICS (read FEDERALIST SOCIETY's) programs and concepts.

on edit: And for as much as Clinton gave lipservice to labor unions, he sure didn't mind campaigning on Arkansas' economic revival which was largely due to the fact that they were a state business flocked to after being one of the first to pass RIGHT TO WORK laws which defunded labor unions.

BTW..>the ACORN of the 00's is a farce and can hardly be compared with the effective ACORN of the 70's so citing them buys your argument no credibility with me.

[BL611]

116. You answered you're own question

So if there is a higher percentage of the country in favor of civil unions, why not work with them to get that instead of aggressively pushing the more polarizing gay marriage position, which alienates people from the overall liberal agenda (if you're going to start with the whole you're a gay basher thing again, then I guess Human Rights Campaign, are gay bashes also because they've adopted the exact same position).If there was one issue Clinton didn't capitulate on it was abortion.

I hate to break it to you , but the Democratic party is not losing elections, because pro choicers and gay marriage advocates feel abandoned,

ACORN was used as general example if changing it MDRC, UFE or some other group with a similar agenda will make you feel better, go ahead.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

118. Because right now civil unions are not recognized across state lines

and if a constitutional amendment passed against gay marriage, then my rights end at my state line.

I hate to break it to you , but the Democratic party is not losing elections, because pro choicers and gay marriage advocates feel abandoned

And I hate to break it to you but they will lose votes from those groups.

Furthermore, since you are an advocate of reading and history, might I suggest Kevin Phillips Wealth and Democracy..specifically the chapter where he discusses the radical middle.

Furthermore, HRC RECENTLY changed their leadership and their position.

Last but not least, the Democratic party did NOT actively campaign in all 50 states. When you write off whole regions and don't make an effort to make inroads..it's awfully convenient to assign your woes to other sources.

But thanks for proving my point yet again that your post and this thread is indeed scapegoating.

[BL611]

120. So instead of pushing for Gay marriage

Push for federalized state unions
ON edit: Civil unions (I'm guessing you could figure out what I meant)

If someone refuses to vote for a Democrat because they refuse to be crucified on gay marriage, well the point of thread is to discuss if its worth it, maybe if instead of accusing me of trying to rally people to firebomb abortion clinics and run over gay people on the way there, this question was actually discussed, it might have been a more productive conversation.

I'll read the Phillips book, you read Arther Schlesinger's The Vital Center especially the third chapter "the failure of the left" when he discussed Utopian liberalism vs. utilitarian liberalism

We can only make inroads when people leave their dogma behind and try to build bridges (which is different from giving in) with people who don't agree with them 100%.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

122. Cool it with the melodrama. no one has accused you of anything

You framed a hypothetical question that generated in my view the appropriate response. In the future, if you have all the answers and wish to lead people somewhere, then phrase it as a declaration and not a question since the question wasn't really a question at all.

I've read many of ArthUr Schlessinger's writings, I'll be happy to visit that chapter and see if his point happens to be yours.

We didn't build bridges with segregationists who were also annointed by God (although at the time we had a FAIRNESS DOCTRINE which went a long way to mitigating their views) and somehow we prevailed largely on that issue.

Your selective use of history is a bit disconcerting.

[BL611]

124. You just said why don't we campaign in all 50 states

I hate to break it you, but Wyoming doesn't have a particularly large chapter of the rainbow coalition.You can't have it both ways.

I never purported to have all the answers I just asked a question, my only declaration is to be open minded enough to ask the question.

The Vital Center was written in 1949, gay marriage and abortion were not the big issues of the day then, the book is mostly about extremism and that specific chapter is about understanding we live in a less then perfect world, but fighting to make sure what we do benefits the greatest amount for the most people (IMO such fighting to put a ring on your finger when there are ten million children without health insurance)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

128. Ever hear of the Laramie Project?

Interesting that you would cite Wyoming since it is the perfect place to make inroads.

It is NOT about a ring on my finger and I resent your minimizing this issue. It is about the children of GLBT's..it is about GLBT's being able to insure their spouses, it is about end of life and other urgent medical or emergent decisions made everyday in the lives of married couples.

You claim the high road on this argument but your demeaning, dismissive side comments are quite contradictory to your own impression of your words.

[BL611]

130. You don't want to build bridges, but you want to make inroads?

I'm not clear on your point.

I believe the Laramie project was the HBO thing on Shepard, I wasn't aware it was in Wisc, and have not seen it, so I can't follow that part either.

Once again there is no difference in emergency decisions between civil unions and marriage, you know that.

Well I guess we have both felt demeaned....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

132. Laramie is in Wyoming..the state you referenced in your post #124

The relevance of it being that this is an area where gay scapegoating would NOT make great gains if properly addressed since the death of Matthew Shepard rocked that area..it also happens to be one of the more populous centers of Wyoming...

Um..yes there is a difference across state lines re marriage/civil union..your marriage is recognized in every state in the union.


I guess if you owned your actions, you would see that your own posts have put you in the hot seat.


Oh and as to your subject line..again...did the civil rights movement build bridges with Sheriff Clark? Or did they cross them IN SPITE of him?

[BL611]

138. Ok you go find me a state that doesn't allow gay people in school's

and I will go freedom ride.

As I said I was not aware that that was the state of the Shepard incident,however I still don't see the point, are you saying that democrats would fare better if they were stronger supporters of gay marriage in rural area's

Once again federalize civil unions, I'm pretty sure you know what I mean

If people didn't like the question they should have left the thread for those who did (if you take a look at the begininng of the thread there very several people who found the question interesting and wanted to discuss it further)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

145. When you start a thread asking if people will gladly sell some people's

rights down the river in exchange for other people's rights and I am aware of it, you can count on me to post on it.

As far as allowing gay people in schools, that response was so outright ridiculous (given the manner in which gay students are treated) as to earn an award for obtuseness. Furthermore, each and EVERY right every gay individual has has been obtained via lawsuits and landmark cases, and legislation protecting their rights as human beings at the state level every step of the way...


Stop putting words in my mouth regarding the gay marriage issue and rural voters. Nobody said to take the issue to Uncle Cousin who is busy fingering his daughter and see what he thinks about it.

[BL611]

148. We've been through this

I asked people to do no such thing,one more time for good luck it was a hypothetical question, as I have also said many times I do not support either action.

If you equate how gay people are treated to how black people were treated in the south, thats ridiculous (I'm not saying there no discrimination, but its quite a different situation)

I still do not see your point, on one hand you say democrats should take their message to every state, yet at the same time you concede that democrats shouldn't take the issue th "uncle cousin" who makes up too much of the populace to overcome in the states democrats don't bother with.

Unfortunately at this point in time I have to attend to other business, if you would like to respond, I'll be happy to continue tomorrow.

[Misunderestimator]

152. Edited...

in order not to be deleted...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

154. Whatever you do, don't insult him even if his arguments insult you to

your CORE!

[Misunderestimator]

155. Yep

that's the rules... :hi:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

153. Ok my point is pure and simple. Some people will NEVER..I repeat

NEVER vote for us. Tossing aside our base on a gamble that some people in the middle will vote for us would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Case in point...based on MY EARNINGS, it is far more in my interest to vote Republican except that I favor labor rights ( not a flagship Republican position) reproductive rights and gay rights. GO to the middle for a few of those Bubbas and you take away your competitiveness with a large swath of voters.

Again, you CLAIM you don't support either action, but throughout this thread all you do is argue about how they cost us votes. If anyone can't have it both ways, it is you.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

98. Oh and another question. Wasn't this the trade-off the German's made?

Social programs in exchange for scapegoating?

[BL611]

102. Please quote ...

when I scapegoated anyone, or demonized anyone for that matter, if you would feel better to look at the reverse of this scnerio as I just posted above feel free.....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

105. When one SETS up the conversation as though economic justice

will not be possible nor imminent without said trade off, one is, indeed, setting up scapegoating.

[BL611]

113. UMM the conversation was set up by a HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

115. OK, then HYPOTHETICALLY scapegoating

but you may wish to reread a post upthread in your own words where you lament the gains of Repubs on these issues and imply that this is the reason they control all three houses. ( see your post #68)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1636190#1639004

Denial ain't just a river.

BTW...abortion and gay rights may be convenient focuses today, but the movement that brought Republicans to power was a team of think tanks going back to the 70's when gay issues barely registered on the national conversation.

[BL611]

117. If by scapegoating

You mean acknowledging culpability for a polarizing political issue that takes a huge amount of political capital in comparison to the issues effect on peoples lives, OK then I'm scapegoating. If you mean I said the Democratic party should turn on the gay and pro choice communities (or anything even near the realm of the Nazi's which is the context you used), no thats not the case.

PS BTW: It was also the same time republicans began courting the religious right, which have certainly used these issues to broaden their base.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

119. I'm getting dizzy with all this nuancing

Let's replace gay issues and women's issues with the Civil Rights Act and see if all of your positions and nuances still hold water.

If not, then I stand by my prior assessments.

[BL611]

121. The civil rights act

Gave black people the right to voting, education, and protection against job discrimination.
I am 100% in favor of that for gay people, and if someone tried to take that away it would be on the top of my agenda.
As I believe I already discussed with you on a post on another thread, if I would have to sacrifice my right to marriage to protect issues that result in life and death in many cases, I would do it gladly.....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

123. Interracial marriage was outlawed until the 1967 Loving decision

and you appear to not know the difference between the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

BTW..there is no federal protection for the jobs of GLBT people. Might I now expect it to be bumped to the top of your hierarchy of values?

[BL611]

127. You're talking to me about nuances?

You did not mention the specific act so I did not feel the need to make the distinction,I don't see at all how that changes the point.

My girlfriend is black, as ridiculous as it sounds that we shouldn't be able to get married, if its between that and making sure our kids(or anyone else's) have health insurance, its not a hard decision.

Yes I think equal employment opportunity for everyone is an important issue, nowhere have I suggested it wasn't.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

129. I'm not nuancing. You used something to bolster your argument.

I demonstrated that your use of it did not bolster your argument. Oh and I love how if HYPOTHETICALLY you couldn't get married it would gladly be sacrificed by you for the greater good. I am sure a shrine will be erected somewhere memorializing all you WOULD give up if you had to..but since you don't the point is MOOT!

[BL611]

133. Actually it bolstered your argument

You brought up the civil rights act, since I didn't know whether you were talking about the 64, or 65 act, I pretty much just spoke of fruits of the entire movement, I don't know how that changes my argument that I would support strongly equality in school, voting, employment, whether its based on race or sexual orientation.

I'm sorry I'm heterosexual, that doesn't change that I find other issues more important then marriage. You know I'm sorry about whatever discrimination you face, but as a (I'm assuming if I'm wrong please correct me) middle class American woman, you still have it better then 99.999% of people who have walked this earth regardless of your sexual orientations. We all have our problems I won't bore you with my life story, but everyone faces their own adversity, that doesn't change that we have bigger problems then gay marriage.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

139. Oh lord this is getting fucking HOPELESS!

I'm not sorry you are heterosexual. I am sorry that you cannot seem to understand the issue of EQUAL RIGHTS and defend that refusal with some of the most obtuse responses I have ever read on this board..and then lament that WE are all so closed minded.

[BL611]

146. I understand the issue of equal rights

However I think health insurance (to name one example)is a more important right and its far from equal, I could say the same about your seeming obtuseness toward that issue.

[Misunderestimator]

149. LOL... Health insurance? That's one of the basic issues for gay marriage.

A married person has the right to employer supplemented health insurance. Wow... what IS your point?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

156. No you are deliberately commingling a strawman

Me HAVING rights does NOT affect whether others have health insurance. Case in point. Bill Clinton had the house, the senate and the congress the first two years of his presidency...did anything happen? No. And all I got out of it was don't ask don't tell.

[Misunderestimator]

135. Wait until one of you has a terminal illness... you'll get married...

if you actually love eachother. That would be a pretty pitiful sacrifice in the name of politics otherwise.

[BL611]

140. And yet

I would rather have insurance for my children so if they have a terminal illness they'll be covered.

This is a question I broached earlier on the thread, I don't know if you saw it, but I'm curious as to your opinion on it: To an HIV positive gay man (or woman I suppose) what do you think would be more important heath insurance or the opportunity to get married?

[Misunderestimator]

144. And I would like the right to adopt children...

which I do not have as a gay person in Florida. By the way... I already answered your other question, and I would much rather protect my partner through the benefits of marriage. Your question is a ridiculous one in any case. Kind of like King Solomon asking two women if they would like him to cut the child they both claimed in two... IF they had both somehow been the legitimate mother. There are no unreasonable claims here. Just a question of equality.

[Misunderestimator]

147. Just one more answer to your hypothetical question about if I was HIV...

positive... What if my partner was ALSO HIV positive, and I was the sole breadwinner? Are you then asking me if I would sacrifice my partner's life for my own? I'm rather insulted by that question, actually. Do you really think about what you write before you write it? Or do you have such a specific agenda against equality that you post whatever pops into your head?

[BL611]

150. NO

As far as partners go, as I said earlier the answers easy, federal civil union legislation.

The question is if you Re single and destitute

BTW If you're implying I'm a republican, I really feel sorry for you.

[Misunderestimator]

151. Ha... you feel sorry for me... that's the best laugh I've had all day...

really... LMAO... Federal Civil Union is something that DOES NOT EXIST!!! Hello? I would be perfectly ok, if the federal government had civil unions that carried all the same rights and benefits as marriage. But YOU just were asking ridiculous hypothetical questions about whether gay marriage was important enough to fight for. What are you TALKING ABOUT? Why are you talking in circles? Apparently, you don't believe in equal rights for gay citizens, because you ask us to choose between equal rights (i.e. gay marriage) and health insurance. How transparent of you.

[Misunderestimator]

134. "Political Capital"

where have I heard that before?

[BL611]

142. Yup, you're right the Republicans get it

Thats why they can destroy the country and stay in power.

[Misunderestimator]

143. Yep... they are certainly clever, no doubt...

and persistent.

[kodi]

107. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

look, you just can't throw shit out there without context. that which drives a population to employ the power of the state to provide for national health, high educational funding, etc., is derived from an enlighened understanding of the intricacies of the social contract and the value of each human being in the system. such a viewpoint is inherently at odds with restricting the rights of women and homosexuals.

you might as well ask if a nation committed to pacifism can have the most power army in the world capable of blowing up the world with nukes.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

109. Great moments in hypotheticals

Would you chop off your head if you knew it would stop you from being shot in the head? :)

[Misunderestimator]

136. LMAO

Damn... best analogy of the year.

[Swamp Rat]

137. HAHAHA!!!!

:spank:

:toast: nothingshocksmeanymore!

[kodi]

160. B-U-T-FULL!

we ought to take this one to the lounge,

as you say, "Great moments in hypotheticals"

[Tsiyu]

162. Would you give up your right to vote

for a complete right to free speech?


( yours is better)


"Sophie's Choice" comes to mind with this thread.

[Freebird12004]

157. No!

[BushIsBurning]

158. Hypothetical (but very foolish) question:

Can't you dream up something worthwhile for people to comment on ?

[Tsiyu]

159. This is like when my kids asked which one I would save

if I had to choose a kid.

Stupid and pointless in my opinion.


I value every human life. I value the lives and privacy of women. I value the lives and privacy of adults.

I believe in a wealthy nation, in a moral nation, in a nation that will last through generations. The health care of its people, if a nation will last, is of primary concern, and not some game to play, coercing other humans into giving up their rights and privacy to receive what should be progressively and generously and responsibly provided anyway.


This is a sad, sad question.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

161. The false dilemma espoused by the thread starter throughtout is

that if you believe in women's rights and equality for gay citizens then you must not value healthcare for children.

[Democrat Dragon]

163. Yes, it's tradeoff

overturning Roe v. Wade means banning ALL abortion. But maybe it could still be legal to abort in cases when the baby is going to be "born dead", going to suffer severly, or if the mother's life is in danger.

As for homosexual marriage, there can be a loophole. A gay "civil union" doesn't have to be a "marriage". In other words, technically it would be "marriage" but it would not be called "marriage", instead it would be called "a civil union" ;) .

[agincourt]

164. Yes and heres why,

Unless you live in a full blown police state, cultural and personal repression need economic repression to make them thrive. Without economic repression this hypothetical world would quit persecuting gays and pregnant women in a short period of time

[Moderator]

165. I'm locking this thread

Reason :

It's not providing productive discussion