Ellen Barkin Hopes Hurricane Kills 'Every Pro-Life, Xenophobic, Gay-Bashing SOB' At The RNC

reply to post by spiritualzombie

Dear spiritualzombie,

Thank you for that post, I needed some humor today and you did it very well. Sort of like Swift's A Modest Proposal.

I enjoyed the contrast you made between being "for peace and equality for all mankind," your desire for "less intolerance," and the rest of your post which called for death, inequality, and intolerance. It was a nice counter balance and I hope you post again.

Again, thanks for the laugh,

With respect,
Charles1952

Is it safe yet???

I think that this particular event ( thread, issue, and all the other bits ) speaks to a larger, underlying concept. The perception of the right, from the POV of the left, and vice-versa.

Abortion has been a horribly divisive issue - as the past two weeks of threads demonstrate. And it all comes down to a perception, by all involved, that the "other" side is trying to force or impress their views upon anybody who doesn't agree.

I can honestly see it from both sides. And from D-list celebrities as well.

As a person with liberal leanings I do have to say that I find it hard to get my mind around. I lived in New Hampshire during my childhood and remember being taught "live and let live" as a child. This is deeply ingrained in my psyche and the ideal shapes most of my views.

So, how then, do I "live and let live" when others want to impress their views upon me, and the rest of society? How can I be true to my own beliefs without offending others here?

If I say "Let individuals decide for themselves" then there will be those who say that others having this right is an offense to them. They say that the only proper answer is to take choice away...

Quite a quandary...

~Heff

Originally posted by PvtHudson

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by guohua

 

Celebrities are now the voice of the entire Liberal movement?

Really?

What a lame attempt at partisan hack divisionism. The left and the right are all the same people, to say that any of them are better than the rest is nonsense.

It is kind of hilarious that people use isolated events to blanket statement millions of people. Hell I'm not even a liberal and I'm offended at the notion that those people would 'represent' liberals accross the country.

On twitter no less...

Ah and here we have the ATS liberal moderator, here to down play anything that's at all critical of the people on his side. You do know Obama trots out Hollywood constantly because they support him, right? You do know the media constantly does the same?

edit on 28-8-2012 by PvtHudson because: (no reason given)

But the Republicans don't trot out celebrities? Don't be dense.

The constant left vs. right rhetoric on here is absurdly stupid. Neither side seems to have the slightest bit of self-awareness.

reply to post by Hefficide


Not quite.

In order to let a woman who wants to choose abortion to "live and let live" I've got to refuse to let that baby "live and let live". If I choose the other side, I'm generally not affecting the "live" part, but the "let live".

reply to post by tothetenthpower

I agree. One liberal saying something does not mean he or she is speaking for the entire liberal world, just like one Republican saying something does not speak for the entire conservative world. Yet people will take things these people say, and say that makes the entire party ignorant. Which, in my own personal opinion, makes them ignorant for jumping to such a bold conclusion.

Originally posted by Glass

Originally posted by PvtHudson

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by guohua

 

Hell I'm not even a liberal...

Ah and here we have the ATS liberal moderator...

Ah and here we have a typical ATS member devoted to perpetuating the two-party false dichotomy.

Notice how he labels others as liberals even when they state themselves that they are not liberal, and attacks those who think critically about the topic of discussion rather than instantly taking sides and engaging in partisan bickering.

Meh.

He's just here to troll during the elections. I can't wait for ATS to calm down in 2013.

No problem- just get rocky & queenie to put up the big bucks to have haarp send "Isaac" to the vatican and then on to the middle east. This is, of course, assuming they give him more juice than a piddly cat.1.

I have to say... I have yet to see Republicans fight the good ethical fight on anything.

There may be this one woman hoping for a hurricane to wipe out the ignorance of the country. But then you have an entire party pushing war propaganda, trying to restrict gay rights, trying to reduce women's rights, seeking govt assistance for the rich while vilifying the poor. I see so much peddled hate from the right, so much ignorance. It's not in one person's voice, but in their FOX News mouthpiece, in their political stance, in the policy they push, and in the ridiculous topics that draw their fire.

I'm just not going to buy this b.s. that both sides are the same. The people who vote Republican vs Democrat are very different. I have talked to my racist Republican friends. Not fun talks, but the unspoken racist remarks show up every time. The hints of hatred toward poor people, toward blacks, toward mexicans, toward muslims. Oh it's all there. Not the same at all.

reply to post by Hefficide

Dear Hefficide,

So, how then, do I "live and let live" when others want to impress their views upon me, and the rest of society? How can I be true to my own beliefs without offending others here?

If I say "Let individuals decide for themselves" then there will be those who say that others having this right is an offense to them. They say that the only proper answer is to take choice away...

Quite a quandary...

May I play with that for a minute?

Government impresses it's views upon us daily, we usually allow it to and accept it as appropriate. But by government, at least in this country, we mean people who are supposedly representing other people. Even Constitutional rights, such as bearing arms, are restricted by other people, the Supreme Court in this case.

But restricting Constitutional rights are tricky and must be approached carefully. Prior to Roe and it's companion cases, the States had the power to choose their own laws on the subject of abortion. The Court said that was wrong, and the States should lose that power. Many people saluted that as the correct and humane decision. But please believe me that, solely as a piece of legal resoning, Roe was one of the most clearly wrong decisions of modern times. Any law student presenting that opinion would have been given a "D" or worse as a grade. Many people believe that the final decision was correct, but I don't know of many legal minds that say the reasoning was anything but rubbish.

I don't believe abortion is the one right in all the Constitution that can't be limited in some way. Speech, religion, etc. all have some limits. So, if abortion can be limited, why not let the States do it instead of the Federal Government? The current administration does not want to limit it, but the current administration will not last forever. Perhaps some other administration will want to limit it, and from that decision there is no appeal.

Roe insures that the States can't do anything to oppose an abortion ruling, because now it's a Constitutional issue, the States can only tinker around the edges. What happens when the Supremes rule that the Constitution prohibits abortion? But if it had been left as a State issue, there would always be some States allowing it, based upon the decisions of the people in the State.

If the goal is to let the people decide, isn't it better to do it at the State level instead of the Federal? Not only is that more responsive to people, but it allows States to protect themselves from Federal interference. As you, can tell, I'd prefer the decision be returned to the States.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


The issue for me here is that states sometimes seem to show disregard for civil rights. Any Google search on the topic will show the bad track record for states in this regard.

A primary concern of the framers in drafting the U.S. Constitution was to balance power between the states and the federal government. One method of striking this balance was to give the states a measure of control over the selection of federal officers and, as a result, the operation of the federal government. Thus, article I, section 2 gives the states an active role in determining electoral qualifications for purposes of electing members of the U.S. House of Representatives; article I, section 3, as originally ratified, gave each state equal representation in the U.S. Senate and required each senator to be selected by the state legislature; and article II, section 1 gives the states an active role in selecting presidential electors.

Another method of striking the balance between state and federal power was to provide certain powers to the federal government, specifically divest states of certain powers, and reserve certain powers to the states. Thus, article I, section 8 lays out the specific powers, called the “enumerated powers,” of the U.S. Congress. Article 6, called the “Supremacy Clause,” provides that the U.S. Constitution, the laws of the United States, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, are “the supreme law of the land.” In addition, article I, section 10 prohibits the states from engaging in numerous activities, including coining money, passing ex post facto laws or laws impairing the obligation of contracts, and, with certain exceptions, engaging in war. Finally, the 10th Amendment further provides that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” These provisions establish the boundaries of federal preemption of state laws. Under the Supremacy Clause, if a state law is preempted by the U.S. Constitution or a federal law or treaty, the state law cannot be enforced.

Source

I am not arguing whether or not Roe V Wade was a good decision or not. Only that the SCOTUS upheld it as a right to privacy under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. This means it's the law of the land and falls into the Supremacy Clause.

Given the bad history of individual states on issues such as abortion, equality, immigration, etc... I think the decision is best left to Federal law and to our elected representation. If change is to happen on this issue then it surely will be because of pressure upon that representation and not because a state or ten changes state law, thus creating a situation where women end up needing to go to another state to get an abortion because their home state has forbidden it...

Imagine what kind of Las Vegas cottage industry would turn up in a nation where abortion was only legal in a handful of places?

~Heff

Originally posted by charles1952

If the goal is to let the people decide, isn't it better to do it at the State level instead of the Federal? Not only is that more responsive to people, but it allows States to protect themselves from Federal interference. As you, can tell, I'd prefer the decision be returned to the States.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Every woman - meaning entire United States (Federal) - - must have availability.

NO ONE - - - but the woman making the decision should have any say. Not the "people" - - because it is none of their business.

THAT IS MY FINAL COMMENT ON ABORTION. Why is it being discussed in this thread?

reply to post by Annee

Dear Annee,

I'm so sorry we got to this point, and just a few posts after I said I wanted to get away from it. May I put some of the blame on that big, old, nasty, Moderator, Hefficide? It's his fault, he made me do it.

But just talking about rights in general, the right to "X," for example. If the US decides that X is covered by the Constitution, that takes it out of the State's hands. The only people who have any say on the issue from then on is the Federal government. If a new administration puts in anti- "X" justices, (or several other possibilities) that's the end of the game. Pro-"X" people have no choice.

But if the Supremes say, "Nahh, this isn't a Constitutional question," then it doesn't matter if the Justices are pro- or anti- "X." It's out of their hands. My fear is that some day the rules will change to something we don't like and we'll have nowhere to turn, if it's been declared a Constitutional issue.

Hefficide is worried that some states, under that arrangement, may take a position he doesn't like. And he's quite right, some will. Others won't. But if it's a Constitutional issue, the Court can say anything, and we're stuck with it all across the country.

I'm not trying to reduce anyone's freedom, I'm trying to make sure that, whatever happens (including a goofy administration), we at least have that right in some states and we can persuade legislators to grant it in states that currently don't.

Really, Annee, I'm on your side on this one, at least in the long run.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Hefficide


We don't have to imagine. We can go look at history and see them.

reply to post by guohua


Who is Ellen Barkin? Lot's of people say strange things and the worst of them will arm themselves and take people out. Wishing death is like saying "drop dead" to someone. It really is just hot headed talk. I remember people saying aids was Gods revenge on the gays, and other people say the poor deserve to starve to death. Unless this Ellen chick is running for office I wouldn't put too much stock in what she says. Next we'll be taking Rush seriously. lol I've never heard of her and I'm a liberal, democrat. Needless to say she doesn't speak for me and sounds like she might have been drinking.

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
I have to say... I have yet to see Republicans fight the good ethical fight on anything.

There may be this one woman hoping for a hurricane to wipe out the ignorance of the country. But then you have an entire party pushing war propaganda, trying to restrict gay rights, trying to reduce women's rights, seeking govt assistance for the rich while vilifying the poor.

Rush Limbaugh must not have geard about the Ellen Barkin controversy! He wants an entirely different group of people to die because of the hurricane, mind you!


Get rid of poor people by supporting levee with bags of moneyinstead of sand

Im not trying to distract from Ellen. Her comments were just as bad, but Rush has followers strictly because of his poitical views and DOES carry clout with some Republicans who repeat his words and ideas a lot.

Plus, it seems serandipitous that he said this.

reply to post by guohua


Democrat, Republican, Ehhh Who even cares.
What is even the point of all this?
The point of Politics?
Our country goes through the same process year after year.
Speeches are made.
Debates are had.
All I see is a repeating loop of regurgitated information and plans.

And yet I see no point in it all.
We still experience the same stuff no matter who's president or which party is in office.
And we well get told the same lines of hope and freedom blah blah through a mic on a pedestal time after time.
But I don't see anything drastically changing for the better when all is said and done?
Not that I expect positive progression to occur from the hands of gov/politics.
I'm not deliberately being negative either

Are we all just bored or something and need to immerse our ways of life into politics so we have something to do?

reply to post by nunya13


Thanks nunya13 for contributing that link, I had to go and read the transcript.
Should never had been said, hopefully he will be criticized by his listeners.

I think she's just trying to get free publicity for her new, soon to be cancelled, sitcom. She popped up at the Roseanne Barr roast (the worst one yet) recently and was clearly intoxicated.
Whatever pops out of her mouth has the same value as what pops out of her butt.

She will have her day of judgement, just like everyone else. No amount of fame, no amount of money, no Dodd paying off politicians will help her avoid it.

Truthfully I dont care for the politics but I can't help but see the hypocritical use of the word xenophobe. When wishing a specific group dead you display an irrational hatred or fear to something/someone different than yourself. I mean hey if thats how you feel and you want to voice your opinion go for it. Just mind the terminology you use, you could look like a complete fool.