Faiblesse Des Sens Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Just eyeballing the graph they look pretty even. Plus, that wasn't the entire issue. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) He didn't point out flaws in my data. It's not my data. He clearly didn't read the methodology or even bother to look at any other numbers in the write ups. He took a value out of context to be argumentative in order to backup someone else's completely erroneous statement. You said "PP pays more for administration than Komen." This was, in a raw numbers as well as a percentage perspective, bullshit. I pointed this out. Don't blow your top at me that you didn't check your own sources. It's possible I'm reading this stuff wrong. I mean, it looks straightforward to me, but this is not my field. If it is, by chance, your field, maybe you could explain how I'm wrong rather than just insulting me. As far as the "methodology", that's not relevant, because I didn't use their converted "scores." I used straight budget numbers and percentages. Edited February 4, 2012 by SixTwoSixFour 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxw4uZAezaI Apparently this is real. I don't even know where to begin... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovach_ Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 These campaign videos are getting sillier by the hour it seems... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 We're bound to get some good memes, at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 So is it real? Any US folks up for confirming it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 I wouldn't doubt it. I mean, this isn't the dawn of looney campaign ads, especially when it comes to local/state campaigns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 Oh man. The election season is always such a shit show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 We got ten more months to get more insane. Going to be such a fun show... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 So is it real? Any US folks up for confirming it? Debbie Stabenow is Michigan Senator up for re-election and Hoekstra is indeed the man in that commercial and is running against her. The ad is not surprising, considering the GOP has been a racist institution since the 70's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMW Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 The public gave their response too; that they would stop supporting Komen. No, the very vocal political left gave their response to stop supporting Komen. Others have opted to donate to Komen and their fundraising went through the roof. I also find it sad that Komen ever gave money to Planned Parenthood in the first place. It is not some righteous organization by any means. Instead it's an organization radically outside Mainstream America in its views that was founded on the basis of eugenics. I think I can recast this exchange in a way that'll illuminate a few things. Some people disliked Komen's decision. The political left definitely disliked Komen's decision. The political right was pretty okay with it. The question is, where does mainstream America fall? First of all, how are you planning to define mainstream America? Battra, I live in a state with a strong democratic party and a long standing liberal tradition (lol, isn't that an oximoron). In my region, the mainstream opinion is definitely not your own. But Duke? You live in Oklahoma, you KNOW that in some areas the general will of the public is against abortion services. So what counts as mainstream? Are we just going to look at a breakdown of the nation's opinions and call whoever has the most people on their side mainstream? If so, then why don't we look at the hard data? I've got it right here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx So what does this tell us? It looks like "mainsteam America" remains mostly in the middle of the road. At this particular moment in time public opinion is swinging in an anti-choice direction, but the vast majority of Americans still report that they feel Abortion should be legal under certain circumstances. Basically, it looks like the extreme right is bigger than the extreme left but neither is in touch with the actual majority of the population. It is also worth noting perhaps that historically the radical left opinion has been far more "mainstream" than the radical right position. Our current state of affairs is an irregularity. There! Now I don't want anyone else talking like mainstream America is on/not on anyone's side. Not fair. Use data to justify your positions. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 you KNOW that in some areas the general will of the public is against abortion services. And unfortunately, these idiots think that 3% of what Planned Parenthood does is all that it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 Some interesting notes from that Gallup link. Seems like most of the respondents who are infavor of abortion in certain circumstances are making that statement on the bases of the life of the mother. it seems 80% of people want to make it legal to have an abortion to save a woman's life or to protect her health. If you look at the data for "woman's mental health" the number drops sharply to 60%. I found that interesting. It's also about 50/50 split on abortions if the baby may be physically or mentally impared. and as far as one thing I've heard from several of you guys so far, "family cannot afford to raise the child" that only has about 35% support. Anyway, seems those "certain circumstances" are mostly when the life of physical wellbeing of the mother is in danger and to a lesser extent the "psychological" wellbeing of the mother. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 Also, if you wanted some info on the above ad: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/hoekstra-super-bowl-ad-raises-racial-sensitivity-questions-with-language-references-to-china/2012/02/05/gIQAabZNsQ_story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) Frosted, you have a great point, so I'll just state flat-out what I believe; I think that abortion at any point in the process is absolutely acceptable, that women should be able to do what they will with the fetus growing inside them, and that to say otherwise is incredibly unfair and disrespectful to women everywhere. I also think that making abortion illegal would be allowing religion to influence this country, which is something that should never, ever happen. It's already gone too far, and we need to decrease religious influence, not increase it. You may disagree with me, but I don't see why abstract religious concepts like souls and spirits have any place in a progressive, intelligent society (though intelligent may be something of a stretch), and with an overpopulated Earth, we might as well let them remove it before it becomes even more of a burden. I know that many of you think that this is a cold, heartless thing to say, but I'm just saying how I feel on the matter. While I don't think sites like the National Review are decent, and I disagree with most of what Yantelope and Battra have to say on this subject, I will respect their opinion on the matter. Edited February 6, 2012 by DukeOfPwn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) You can't separate religion from government entirely any more than you can take the heart from a man. The ideas of separation of church and state were about the government endorsing a religion or giving preferance to a religion. People must be free to believe what they want and the government should not be pressuring them one way or another. However, what you believe to be morally right or wrong will always be intangled in religion and since laws are based on morality then you can never fully separate them. You make a statement "women should be able to do what they will with the fetus growing inside them, and that to say otherwise is incredibly unfair and disrespectful to women everywhere" which is wholly based on your morality which is based on your worldview. This is hardly different than someone who makes a moral statment based on his religious worldview perhaps unless you're going to say that an moral opinion based on science is somehow more vaild. Also, is this true? "In Sweden, expressing a moral objection to homosexuality is illegal, even on religious grounds, even in church, and a pastor minded to cite the more robust verses of Leviticus would risk four years in jail." Edited February 6, 2012 by Yantelope V2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 As far as I know, so-called moral objections to homosexuality would under Swedish laws be hate speech and is not protected by religious motivations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 People are free to believe what they want though. If people believe that same sex couples shouldn't marry, or that women shouldn't abort, they're free to not get married to the same sex or free to not abort. The government isn't forcing them to do that. What they shouldn't be doing though is taking their beliefs and enforcing them on everyone else, which very much seems to be the case. If someone believes that same-sex marriage is a-okay, but the religiously inclined government has forbid that then they are being pressured to be one way and not the other. Also morals and religion are not entangled at all. It wasn't a land of zero morals and then some guys wrote the bible and poof suddenly everyone was like "shit, I'm not meant to murder by neighbours stolen ox?". Morals existed before religion, and they'll exist long after religion is gone. Religion does not dictate laws. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) Wow, maybe we need a sweedish politics thread... Morals existed before religion, and they'll exist long after religion is gone. A statment assumed by your belief in evolutionary theory. Edited February 6, 2012 by Yantelope V2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 For one person to discuss politics? edit: yes, my "belief" in evolution, because we evolved morals in our moral bladder. p.s I'm all up for splitting this into a religion thread if that's what folks want? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 You can't seriously be implying that you think hate speech should be protected by religion, Yante. I really hope that's not what you're doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 Johnny, hate speech is protected just like any other speech here in America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 Can someone more informed than me clarify how it works in the UK, please? As far as I can work out hate speech is acceptable as long as it is not directed at an individual (where it becomes harassment) nor designed to incite hatred in others so it's OK to say "abortions should be illegal" but not to say "we should attack abortion clinics as they should be illegal". Is that basically correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) Johnny, hate speech is protected just like any other speech here in America. This is mostly correct. Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, so long as it is not targeted at a specific individual or individual. You can say (and I apologize for saying it, it's just an example) "all gay people should be killed." You CANNOT say "my gay neighbor Frank should be killed." In Sweden, the law prohibits publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect based on skin color, race, regional or ethnical origin, faith or sexual orientation. It does nothing to regulate statements made in private, or anything considered relevant to a debate. The UK's appear similar to the US's, but with more severe penalties. Basically, you cannot say hateful things targeted at a specific person, or you'll pay. Addendum: The case Yant refers to is a man named Åke Green, and his conviction was overturned. The Supreme Court (of Sweden) declared that his Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion provided by the European Convention on Human Rights were superior to the Swedish law. So basically, they overturned it because if they hadn't, it would have gone on to some bigger, European rights court, which would have overturned it. Which is a weird case to me, but hey. Addendum Side Note: The "four years," however, is complete nonsense. He was going to serve one month before the ruling was overturned. Edited February 6, 2012 by SixTwoSixFour 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 Ok, back at my desktop, taking a proper look at this now. Taking a look at Yantelope's link, it seems to be just an invented hypothetical example and not anything that actually happened. Doing some digging, I could find no example of a priest risking jail because of anything said about homosexuality and the bible. My google-fu is weak. Åke Green was to serve a month in jail but was eventually acquited. A far cry from the claimed four years in the National Review's article. That said, as far as my understanding* of Swedish law goes, the example given would probably be illegal. I above called it hate speech, and I am reasonably certain that is the closest english term for it. In Sweden we call it "hets mot folkgrupp", and would be directly translated to "inciting against group of people." Basically, it's illegal to- Basically, what Six said. *I'm not an expert. I honestly play closer attention to international events than local ones, and the particulars of Swedish law do at times escape me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.