Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Congressional Line Dance

by Mac McMullen / March 20, 2006 1:59 PM PST

If you?ve been watching and reading about the aftermath of the great ?port sale of the century? as played out this past week you have observed what I?m dubbing ?The Congressional Line Dance.? The only things dumber than the dance were the dancers who couldn?t figure out which way they were supposed to go next. First, they stepped toward national security. Then they retreated toward sticking it to the president. Next they moved toward expelling all foreigners from any American strategic business, and finally they expressed the sentiment that only congress had the wisdom to protect the critical interests of the country.

All the time they danced they sang lyrics written by some elitist for the consumption of the masses: Bush is selling our ports to the terrorists, tra-la. He?s in cahoots with the money changers, tra-la. The lyricist was always careful to say ?ports? even though he knew the word should be ?terminal.? It was always ?sell? and never ?lease.? It was always ?control? the port and never did they say ?operate? the terminal, and invariably, it was ?take responsibility for security? rather than ?guard the gate.?

Antics by the boot-stompers on both sides of the aisle have been an embarrassment. They have played deceitful politics to the hilt. The underlying game has been an effort on the part of far too many congressmen to expand their political importance. They want to investigate everything the administration does so they can second guess the president and criticize his decisions. In the process, many have resorted to fabrications and misstatements that served only to confuse an already uneducated public that is easily aroused.
While I?m in an apologetic mood, let me touch on a subject that some readers are sensitive about. I frequently refer to groups as if there are no exceptions to their composition. That is, I may write ?Liberal thinkers suggest?? ?Democrats oppose?? ?Conservatives are advocating?? ?Liberal theories are failing??

I?ve had a number of liberal friends take issue with my seemingly all-inclusive statement, because it doesn?t reflect their personal view and they would prefer that I write, ?some liberals? so that they could find themselves among the ?not some liberals? group. I think I can understand not wanting to be counted as thinking in a particular way when I actually don?t agree with the stated concept. But that opens up a larger question: Are ?some? liberals liberal in name only? Is it possible they are closet conservatives occasionally peeping through the crack?
Read **** Tunison (Only dedicated politicians can do the dance) at http://justconsider.blogspot.com/

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Congressional Line Dance
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Congressional Line Dance
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
I think you are falling into same trap
by Diana Forum moderator / March 20, 2006 9:52 PM PST

You are equating all liberals and all conservatives with the extremes.

Most people are moderates. They don't ascribe to either end of the spectrum. Just because the ends get most of the press doesn't mean that is the way most people think.

I am pro-choice because I would rather a woman abort a baby she doesn't want than beat it to death at 3 or neglect it. Don't harp at me about adoption. I lived before abortion was legal and toddlers were considered unadoptable because they weren't babies. I've seen kids that would be snatched up now that would never have real parents.

You think there's a foster home crisis now, make abortion illegal and watch the problem quadruple. Ask all these protesters how many children they have adopted and how many more they are willing to take on. Are they foster parents or run an orphanage?

On the other hand I don't believe in aborting babies that would survive if born. I believe in abortion on demand in the first trimester. I believe in a parent's right to decide in the second trimester if the child is going to be born with a life-ending illness but not because you don't approve of the sex. I believe in early third-trimester abortions if the mother could die. I don't believe in late third-trimester abortions at all unless the baby is dead - these are called births.

I believe in a handup not a handout. I believe that people on the dole should work even if it is just picking up the trash on government property. WPA got things done and taught skills. They may say they have to take care of their kids but a lot of mothers work outside the home. One of them can train to be a day-care provider. If nothing else it gives them a work ethic that they don't have around them.

I also don't believe in the projects. I believe that people on welfare need to see people going to work everyday and taking care of their families. I believe they have to be taught to take care of their homes and none this nonsense that caused the outrage in California that it was racist to suggest that blacks didn't know to take care of their homes. Ten years later it was condemned as uninhabitable.

I also hate that blacks can get away with things that whites would be condemned for. A black student union is OK but a white student union would be racist. The million man march is OK but the Promist Keepers are racists.

I believe that people with disabilities should be helped but I also believe that too many problems are now considered disabilities.


Collapse -
by Evie / March 20, 2006 10:37 PM PST
I've seen kids that would be snatched up now that would never have real parents.

Times change, huh?

I would rather that women who don't want babies choose sterilization rather than kill the ones they don't want. At least that would be a choice they would make for themselves! Too permanent? Abortion is terminal, at least the woman gets to have a life uninterupted by inconvenient pregnancies.
Collapse -
If wishes were horses
by Diana Forum moderator / March 21, 2006 3:15 AM PST
In reply to: Interesting

I would rather that every child conceived was wanted and loved and cared for by both parents. Don't think either one of us is going to get our rathers. Sad


Collapse -
I suppose not ...
by Evie / March 21, 2006 3:34 AM PST
In reply to: If wishes were horses

... but my "rather" would be a choice a woman would make for herself, not one she would make for another life.

BTW, where abortions are concerned, we're talking putting infants up for adoption. Often help with the medical bills of the pregnancy, etc. Where foster care is concerned we're talking about public policy that has had a destructive impact on the family and has removed children from one family and is trying to place them with another. It is quite a different thing to take on a foster child or older adoptee than to adopt a supposedly unwanted baby. You really can't compare the two.

Collapse -
I'm just saying that the older kids
by Diana Forum moderator / March 21, 2006 11:09 AM PST
In reply to: I suppose not ...

have a better chance of being adopted today than 40 years ago because the babies are snatched up with a waiting list.


Collapse -
So people are WAITING for ...
by Evie / March 21, 2006 11:25 AM PST

... and SNATCHING up babies. Think about all of those aborted babies that were wanted after all.

With older foster children, there are usually other factors in play that make them less attractive to adopt. Perhaps some more are being adopted now, but I doubt it's anywhere near a direct offset from the lack of infant supply. I knew a couple that adopted a kid out of the foster system. It was two years of gutwrenching legal wrangling (the birthmom came back into the picture just before a statute of limitations ran out) followed by behavioral problems in the child that weren't apparent prior to the adoption. If you adopt a child out of the foster care system, you are often subjected to years of home inspections, etc. From the State's point of view, that is understandable. From the POV of the prospective adoptive parents, it's a privacy intrusion they may not be too keen on taking on.

I think your attitude that folks should adopt these kids or shut up (that's what it seemed to boil down to) to be rather offensive. Should someone have to volunteer to take care of every convalescing senior to feel an obligation to protect that person's life?

Collapse -
How long would it be before
by Diana Forum moderator / March 21, 2006 1:04 PM PST

everyone that wanted a baby got one? Then there would be a glut.


Collapse -
Extreme ?...Hardly........
by Mac McMullen / March 21, 2006 4:47 AM PST

I can agree with arguments from either side. As for the Port deal, once the politicians and the media were tutored as to the difference between Ports, Piers, and Terminals, they should have corrected their speils. As for ''Foreign'' influence in the water ports, they should have taken it to the full measure, rather than just concentrate on one country. Or, country owned companies or not, are the British not foreign ? What about foreign influence in the water ports on the west coast, including ''red'' Chinese influence ? Or, was this in fact just one more Bush bashing, using the foreign influence aspect to incite a public who, for the most part, also learned something about port operations in all of this.

Collapse -
I kind of agree with you
by Dragon / March 21, 2006 3:01 AM PST

I might liken the congressmen and senators as dolls with strings that people have pulled in order to hear a voice, instead of see these same congressmen and senators activate their brains. I don't want to see a song and dance routine from meaningless rote. I want to see them doing their jobs, brain included (those that have one).

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?