Go Back   Irish Envy | Notre Dame Football Discussion > Outside The Lines > The Leprechaun Lounge > Political Threads
Front Page Forums REGISTER NOW! Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read
Live Chat Game Arcade Varsity Club

Welcome to IrishEnvy.com! Founded in September of 2004, IrishEnvy.com has grown into the premiere web portal on the Internet for mature and intelligent Notre Dame Fighting Irish athletics discussion!

You are currently viewing our boards as a Guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our FREE online community, you will have access to post and respond to discussions, communicate privately with other members, and access many other special features.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely FREE, so join the IrishEnvy.com Community today! If you have any problems with the registration process, please contact support and we will assist you.

If you already have an IrishEnvy.com membership account but forgot the username and/or password, use our password recovery tool to access your account information.

View Poll Results: Who will you vote for in the Presidential race?
Obama 135 38.03%
Romney 174 49.01%
Other 46 12.96%
Voters: 355. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-04-2019, 01:28 PM   #20854
BleedBlueGold
Starter
 
BleedBlueGold's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,680
Cash: 1,000,015,132,632.91
Bank: 0.00
Total Bankroll: 1,000,015,132,632.91
Donate
BleedBlueGold should be giving advice to Kelly!BleedBlueGold should be giving advice to Kelly!BleedBlueGold should be giving advice to Kelly!BleedBlueGold should be giving advice to Kelly!BleedBlueGold should be giving advice to Kelly!BleedBlueGold should be giving advice to Kelly!BleedBlueGold should be giving advice to Kelly!BleedBlueGold should be giving advice to Kelly!BleedBlueGold should be giving advice to Kelly!BleedBlueGold should be giving advice to Kelly!BleedBlueGold should be giving advice to Kelly!
Chicago Cubs Chicago Bears Notre Dame

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskeyjack View Post
Here's a brief blog post by David Myers titled "Should Social Conservatives Be Economic Progressives?":
The mention of Tucker Carlson's blog piece from about a year ago is worth the read too.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tuck...ts-infuriating
BleedBlueGold is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Don't like this ad? Register to make it go away!

Old 12-04-2019, 01:37 PM   #20855
Whiskeyjack
Mittere Margaritas Ante Porcos
 
Whiskeyjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 18,498
Cash: 5,000,240,240.94
Bank: 10,643,828,322,940,956,672.00
Total Bankroll: 10,643,828,327,941,197,824.00
Donate
Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!
Notre Dame




Quote:
Originally Posted by wizards8507 View Post
Secular economic progressivism necessarily ends in eugenics, full stop. It's the only logical end.
It's the "secular" part of that leads to eugenics, not economic Progressivism per se. A big part of the reason that social conservatives have done nothing but lose ground over the last several decades is because they're in a coalition with economic libertarians who scream "socialism!" every time someone proposes using the state to advance a concrete agenda (never mind that something, usually unaccountable corporations, is always rushing to fill that gap regardless).

Social conservatives have to get comfortable with fighting to win and actually ruling once in power, because their enemies have no illusions on either of those fronts. And as it relates to this blog post, that means being willing to pay for policies that support stable family formation.
__________________
Whiskeyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2019, 02:41 PM   #20856
wizards8507
Varsity Club Member
 
wizards8507's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Bristol, CT
Posts: 20,034
Cash: 1,100,192,487.30
Bank: 261.05
Total Bankroll: 1,100,192,748.35
Donate
wizards8507 should be giving advice to Kelly!wizards8507 should be giving advice to Kelly!wizards8507 should be giving advice to Kelly!wizards8507 should be giving advice to Kelly!wizards8507 should be giving advice to Kelly!wizards8507 should be giving advice to Kelly!wizards8507 should be giving advice to Kelly!wizards8507 should be giving advice to Kelly!wizards8507 should be giving advice to Kelly!wizards8507 should be giving advice to Kelly!wizards8507 should be giving advice to Kelly!
Boston Red Sox Boston Celtics New England Patriots Boston Bruins Notre Dame


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskeyjack View Post
It's the "secular" part of that leads to eugenics, not economic Progressivism per se.
Come on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathol...al_abuse_cases

Massive administrative apparatuses devolve into corruption at best and downright evil more often than not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskeyjack View Post
A big part of the reason that social conservatives have done nothing but lose ground over the last several decades is because they're in a coalition with economic libertarians who scream "socialism!" every time someone proposes using the state to advance a concrete agenda (never mind that something, usually unaccountable corporations, is always rushing to fill that gap regardless).
The issue is not "policy A is socialism and socialism is bad, therefore policy A is bad." The issue is "the feds couldn't implement policy A if their lives depended on it because they suck at everything besides killing people, which they're experts at."

I've said it before, but the issue with integralism is a pragmatic one. I have no a priori issues with the idea of a benevolent king, but I have a pragmatic objection based on the observation that a benevolent kind has never and will never exist because it's contrary to human nature.

Last edited by wizards8507; 12-04-2019 at 03:10 PM..
wizards8507 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2019, 03:10 PM   #20857
Old Man Mike
Fast as Lightning!
 
Old Man Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan & Wheeling, West Virginia
Posts: 6,564
Cash: 40,052,107,339.15
Bank: 1,134,169,688,792,612,480.00
Total Bankroll: 1,134,169,728,844,719,872.00
Donate
Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!




On the "free college for everyone business" : I've mentioned several times here that Kalamazoo got it right with its Kalamazoo Promise. The Promise says that any student graduating from KPS school system can count on free tuition wherever they go, BUT THEY MUST BE ABLE TO GET ACCEPTED. Once they flunk, the assistance stops.

This is not free college for everyone. This is giving everyone a chance to go to college even if they cannot pay the tuition. If they blow it, either in HS or afterwards in college, too bad for them.

The "forgiveness" of student debt is an entirely different issue, and should be addressed accordingly without confusing two almost opposed things. If we all did "The Kalamazoo/USA Promise" there would be no student debt to forgive, but there still would be lazy bums or otherwise incompetents who did not earn college degrees, and didn't last long or even get admitted.

Kalamazoo Promise simply gives everyone a full chance to grab the college opportunity --- but limited by their own effort in pursuit of such opportunity.

People arguing that some disgraceful "colleges" would lower standards to just get the free bucks along with a bunch of dolts and bums, are partly correct to worry but mostly not. Established colleges and universities whom the academic establishment recognizes as organizations whose degrees actually MEAN something, will not, and really CAN not, suddenly expand their campuses and faculties to handle a bunch of possibly marginal students. Only students passing their entry requirements will get in anyway.

So-called "distant-learning" pseudo-colleges would be the problem to watch, as they could conceivably expand without limits. Some method of serious standards checking by a national academic organization would be needed to allow such, or any, institutions to participate in a Kalamazoo/USA Promise.

There are always jerks who will slip through the cracks --- I saw them regularly at WMU --- they did not pass my classes. The number of prospective students from poor families who would succeed because of this, however, would dwarf the screwasses, and would be well worth the minor waste in the system.

By the way, ALL Big Systems, industrial, business, agricultural, you-name-it, have a percentage of "waste." That's the way BIG goes. We all accept that amount of "waste" to get the products that we want. I've always felt that people objecting to "people programs" just because they have flaws and some waste have some other personal hang-up as to why they single this sort of thing out. Chemical pollution, rotting garbage, white-collar crimes, somehow all of that waste is tolerable. But PEOPLE --- oh, no. They're bad.
Old Man Mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2019, 03:39 PM   #20858
Legacy
Team MVP
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,006
Cash: 5,076,166.52
Bank: 0.00
Total Bankroll: 5,076,166.52
Donate
Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!



Lost children of Francoism
Legacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2020, 02:46 PM   #20859
Irish YJ
Cannonball Coming
 
Irish YJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Atlanta (From Indy)
Posts: 22,539
Cash: 19,473,648,186,626,248.00
Bank: 45,970,796,198,203,301,888.00
Total Bankroll: 45,990,269,846,389,932,032.00
Donate
Irish YJ should be giving advice to Kelly!Irish YJ should be giving advice to Kelly!Irish YJ should be giving advice to Kelly!Irish YJ should be giving advice to Kelly!Irish YJ should be giving advice to Kelly!Irish YJ should be giving advice to Kelly!Irish YJ should be giving advice to Kelly!Irish YJ should be giving advice to Kelly!Irish YJ should be giving advice to Kelly!Irish YJ should be giving advice to Kelly!Irish YJ should be giving advice to Kelly!
Chicago Cubs Indiana Pacers Indianapolis Colts Indiana Germany




lol

Maxine Waters' phone call with 'Greta Thunberg' was apparently the work of Russian pranksters

__________________
The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
Of the big lake they called Gitche Gumee
Irish YJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2020, 01:29 PM   #20860
Whiskeyjack
Mittere Margaritas Ante Porcos
 
Whiskeyjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 18,498
Cash: 5,000,240,240.94
Bank: 10,643,828,322,940,956,672.00
Total Bankroll: 10,643,828,327,941,197,824.00
Donate
Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!Whiskeyjack should be giving advice to Kelly!
Notre Dame




The Atlantic just published an essay by Erika Bachiochi titled "The Troubling Ideals at the Heart of Abortion Rights":

Quote:
Many Americans think of Roe v. Wade as the defining Supreme Court decision on the issue of abortion. But a 1992 high-court decision actually governs abortion law. That ruling rested on fateful assumptions about the relationship between abortion and women’s equality. But in so doing, it has served to enshrine social and professional inequalities, which mothers must fight against every day.

In that case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a mere plurality of justices on the Court affirmed Roe, not because they thought it was good law but because of its “precedential force.” Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter wrote that the “certain cost” of overruling Roe was just too extensive 19 years later—“even on the assumption that the central holding of Roe was in error.”

What were the costs that persuaded these justices to affirm a prior—potentially erroneous—constitutional decision? Judicial conservatives point to the joint opinion’s concern with the threat to the high court’s integrity and legitimacy in overturning long-established precedent. But another concern was just as operative: The plurality writes that the country so “relied” upon the right bestowed in Roe for women’s economic and social progress that the Court could not now stand in the way.
More in this series

Behind this logic is a kind of nontraditional, sociological rationale undergirding stare decisis—the legal principle of deferring to precedent. But the Casey plurality is also paying tribute to a long-popular argument among pro-abortion-rights legal thinkers: Abortion rights are necessary for women’s equality. Indeed, for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the cadre of other like-minded legal thinkers, the right to abortion, currently based in substantive due process, would be better secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—or, better still, the long-proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Justice Ginsburg, who defended abortion rights as equality rights in scholarship in the 1980s, more recently argued in her dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart that a constitutionally protected right to abortion is even necessary for women’s “equal citizenship stature.”

Equality arguments for abortion rights have become so pervasive in law and politics that it’s easy to overlook just what is being claimed, and how very different this idea of equality is from that of those who first advocated for women’s full legal, political, and social equality in this country.

Consider, as one striking example, Victoria Woodhull, a leading suffragist and radical, and the first woman to run for president of the United States, nominated by the Equal Rights Party in 1872. With her peers in the 19th-century women’s movement, she asserted, among a host of other rights, the right to be free of the common-law sexual prerogative that husbands then enjoyed over their wives. Understanding the asymmetrical consequences of sexual intercourse for women, Woodhull anticipated a time “when woman rises from sexual slavery to sexual freedom into the ownership and control of her sexual organs, and man is obliged to respect this freedom.”

But owning and controlling one’s body did not extend, for Woodhull and other advocates of “voluntary motherhood,” to doing what one willed with the body of another. Rather, these women sought sovereignty over their own bodies in part because they could claim no legitimate authority to engage, in Woodhull’s words, in “antenatal murder of undesired children.” An outspoken advocate of constitutional equality for women, Woodhull also championed the rights of children—rights that “begin while yet they remain the fetus.” In 1870, she wrote:

Quote:
Many women who would be shocked at the very thought of killing their children after birth, deliberately destroy them previously. If there is any difference in the actual crime we should be glad to have those who practice the latter, point it out. The truth of the matter is that it is just as much a murder to destroy life in its embryonic condition, as it is to destroy it after the fully developed form is attained, for it is the self-same life that is taken.
Nearly 100 years later the arguments shifted, and women’s-equality advocates began making arguments in favor of abortion rights. In 1969, in a first-of-its-kind legal brief, attorneys for 300 women challenged New York State’s then–relatively restrictive abortion law. The attorneys in Abramowicz v. Lefkowitz rightly brought attention to the same stubborn reproductive asymmetries to which advocates of voluntary motherhood had sought to respond. But rather than call men to join women at a high standard of mutual responsibility and care, as prior generations of women’s-rights advocates had done, the attorneys argued for a different kind of sexual equality. Because “the man who shares responsibility for her pregnancy can and often does just walk away,” the plaintiff's brief maintained that the woman ought to enjoy that same freedom—through abortion. As the Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe would articulate the concept two decades later, “While men retain the right to sexual and reproductive autonomy, restrictions on abortion deny that autonomy to women.”

But abortion restrictions do not deny sexual and reproductive autonomy to women; reality does. While pregnant, a woman is carrying a new and vulnerable human being within her. Unlike a biological father, a pregnant woman cannot just walk away; to approach the desired autonomy of the child-abandoning man, a pregnant woman must engage in a life-destroying act.

So in a twisted imitation of the common-law dominion husbands once wielded over their wives, women would now seek sexual equality through the ultimate dominion over their unborn children. To make matters worse, this dominion is now thought necessary for women to achieve, in Justice Ginsburg’s view, “equal citizenship stature.”

Yet this view of “equal citizenship” seems to be in some tension with Ginsburg’s definition of “full citizenship” in the opinion for the Court in United States v. Virginia, the much-heralded 1996 sex-discrimination case. Ginsburg defined a person’s full citizenship as the “equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society based on their individual talents and capacities.”

But those capacities are not the same for men and women, at least when it comes to sex and reproduction. If citizenship is understood along the traditional, male model—the capacity to remain physically autonomous from the reproductive consequences of sexual intercourse and unencumbered by the demands of caregiving—the affirmative attachment and nurturing required of young children and those who care for them become symbols of dependence, and anathema. To celebrate autonomy as the defining feature of citizenship undervalues both men and women who have caregiving responsibilities, especially when those responsibilities impede one’s capacity to live and work unencumbered.

The market economy, ever seeking efficiency and profits, already carries a bias against time-consuming and often-unpredictable parental duties. Given feminism’s tendency today to associate equality with autonomy, it is no wonder that work-family balance remains a foremost issue, and that women’s status as mothers still results in the most acute social and professional inequalities, even as women have made tremendous gains overall.

Perhaps the strongest illustration of the brokenness of these ideas comes in the form of a counterfactual: Imagine a world without Roe and Casey, but with Ginsburg’s rightfully celebrated anti-discrimination successes in the 1970s. In this world, workplaces and other institutions better acknowledge encumbered women, duly encumbered men, and the child-rearing family’s demands generally. Rather than being “free to assume Roe’s concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to act in society,” as the Casey plurality contemplated, employers are burdened instead by the reality—now too easily cast aside—that most working persons are, and wish to be, deeply encumbered by their obligations to their families and the important work they do in their homes. In such a world, authentically transformed by women’s legal, political, and social equality, today’s overburdened mothers and fathers just might receive the respect they deserve.
I'm amazed this appeared in The Atlantic.
__________________
Whiskeyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump




Copyright © 2004 - 2013 IrishEnvy.com. All Rights Reserved. All material on this Notre Dame Fighting Irish discussion forum is strictly for entertainment purposes only. This site and any pages within are in no way affiliated with the University of Notre Dame, the Big East Conference or the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Any images, copyrights, or trademarks used on this site are used under the "Fair Use Provision" of the Copyright Act for purposes of comment, criticism, and news reporting. SEO by vBSEO 3.7.4