This is, in fact, where we have the problem. The “drown the government in the bathtub” crowd has somehow convinced many people that the government is the problem. It’s not the problem. The problem is that so many people in the United States think, “What’s in it for me?” instead of, “What’s in it for us?”
Frankly, I don’t know if it’s possible for that view to be reversed. It may be too late.
Just curious are you still doing your pretend to be liberal but only ever express conservative viewpoints except for when someone says retard schtick? I only casually read the boards every now and then nowadays.
Hillary and the DNC’s decision to change the way DNC fundraising is handled prior to the nomination of a single candidate is a remarkably stupid idea: it works to Hillary’s advantage, of course, which is why it’s being done, but it opens the door to endless corruption of the primary process down the road. Here’s an explanation that I found particularly useful.
Well, liberals always argue that when the government is the problem, it’s because it didn’t get enough of our money. That argument has been just a tad unconvincing to taxpayers.
Debbie Wassermen Schultz is my nominee today for her explanation of superdelegates.
“Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists”
Really tone deaf statement for a party chair while we are in the midst of primaries. And a statement that makes rank and file voters think superdelegates are a stupid liberal idea.I don’t think that superdelegates are a terrible idea, nor do I think what Wasserman said was stupid, except in the sense that she accidentally told the truth. The Democratic Party goes to great lengths to keep their base at arms’ length lest they end up with the Republican Party’s current troubles. Sanders is making that increasingly difficult.
Kentucky lawmaker wants men to swear fidelity to their spouse as a condition for getting a prescription to Viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs.
While it is doubtless a noble cause it is likely not the way to go about and IMHO, stupid.
This is not a stupid liberal idea, it is a liberal mocking stupid conservative ideas. It’s a bit like the bill proposed in Virginia by a female legislator a few years back calling for mandatory rectal exams for men as a way to mock a bill that would have required vaginal probe ultrasounds for women who want to have an abortion.
I think it’s an idea that’s ahead of it’s time. I suspect that the way things are going, adultery will be considered a serious matter, especially since most victims of adultery are women. I’m actually surprised were not there yet.
Interesting idea, since adultery used to be illegal (and still is in many states though it is almost entirely unenforced).
But the motivation behind this bill isn’t adultery, it’s mockery of violation of privacy.
True. And I don’t think adultery will ever become illegal, I just think it will be right up there with other abuse of women in terms of how society views it.
Maybe, but I doubt it. It’s not quite domestic abuse where women are almost always the victim. LOTS of women cheat too. 100 years ago when women were dependent on husbands and had fewer opportunities to cheat, this might have made sense.
Poorly worded, I think (which is bad for a political leader). The official theory is that, given a choice between voting for me as a delegate, or voting for Claire McCaskill, the average Democrat is going to vote for Claire. By giving Claire and other bigwigs a pass, it opens up slots for the grassroot folks.
Of course, I’m sure there is some “we don’t want to risk some VIP getting voted down” also.
I honestly have not the single slightest clue why you could possibly think this. Seriously, it’s so bizarre to me that I have trouble even knowing where to start.
Except, I guess, to suggest that every single trend over the past century has been *away *from rigid and arguably antiquated definitions of marriage and relationship.
Only he can say, but I thought he was either genuinely concerned about adultery as a bad thing or he was trying to counter-troll the liberals by tapping into their stated concern for women’s issues.
Are you saying most adulteries are between married men and single women?
Are you also saying that adultery is tolerated less today than, say, 100 years ago?
Adultery is tolerated more, but I don’t think it will last. Once we all agree that rape, sexual harassment, sexism, etc. are bad, then adultery is eventually going to be a major item of concern. Taking adultery fairly lightly is a male attitude. For women, adultery is generally a much more serious matter, especially since they tend to bear the consequences in a disproportionate manner.
But no, both sexes commit adultery, just as both sexes commit spousal abuse and both sexes sexually harass and both sexes commit sexual assault.
I could be wrong, it’s just a theory of mine, given that womens’ attitude towards adultery is MUCH more adamant than men’s. Given that disparity in opinions on the subject, it has to become identified as a “women’s issue” at some point. I don’t think there will be laws governing it, but it might become as socially unacceptable as other mistreatment of women. And really, that’s what it is when someone cheats: it’s abuse, plus places that person at risk.
I don’t think so, and I don’t think you’ll find too many others who think so out there.
Ok, I think I get where you’re coming from here.
I can’t agree that women take infidelity more seriously then men. But it’s certainly perceived differently, and certainly US men are socially conditioned to some degree to minimize their own infidelities. (They certainly still take their partners’ infidelities seriously, though.)
But I think you’re also missing some deeply important social trends: those attitudes are changing. The idea of marriage as sexual possession–the idea that drives men’s traditional rage at female promiscuity or infidelity–is thankfully fading. The very term “adultery” is rapidly becoming antiquated, and societal concepts of marital infidelity–particularly among young people–are changing as the concepts of marriage change. If and my spouse agree that having other partners is an acceptable part of our marriage, f’rinstance, then it’s not adultery–as long as we play by the rules.
As more and more people are willing to talk openly about what a marriage is for them, defining it for themselves, “adultery” becomes relegated simply to the violation of promises between two people.
That’s still not a happy thing. It’s awful, it’s a betrayal, and it could certainly destroy a marriage (although I contend it’s less and less likely to do so, and also that dissolving a marriage is less and less of a Very Terrible Thing). But it’s *not *assault, and it is *not *specifically a women’s issue.
.
Well yeah, right now we tend to have a live and let live attitude to such things, but we seem to be moving back to a different sort of puritanism. Adultery is an uncomfortable subject because it harkens back to the old puritanism that the sexual revolution was supposed to do away with. But ironically, I think that with gay marriage being accepted, that we’re actually getting towards marriage being MORE sacred again. After all, if marriage is a fairly valueless compact, then what was the fighting all about? And if marriage is revalued, then adultery becomes more serious.