1 - 10 Next
You touch on a key attribute of liberalism: When judging whether any policy proposal is a good idea, they consider only the benefits, and not the costs. Of course in real life there are lots of things that are good, but not worth the cost. If you asked me if I'd like to have a big fancy new car, I'd say sure. But if you ask how much it's worth to me, the answer is close to $0, because my beat up old car still runs and gets me where I want to go.
Women have already made their decision, so the law makes no difference. So then why are you putting up such a big fight about it? If the argument is that it requires an extra trip to the abortion center, then surely we could easily forge a compromise to let the mother see the ultrasound without having to make an extra trip, and then you should be completely happy, right? If not, then the extra trip wasn't really the point, was it? The point was that you are afraid that some women may choose -- CHOOSE -- not to abort. Funny that they insist they are not pro-abortion, they are pro-choice ... except that anything that might encourage a choice other than abortion they fight tooth and nail.
In response to:

Abortion Protesters Don't Count?

mjohansen Wrote: Jan 28, 2015 3:21 PM
We can complain about the media, but they're not going to change because we complain. The message for conservatives has to be: find more effective means to advance your causes. Techniques that work for liberals don't work for us, and we should have learned that a long time ago.
In response to:

Defense Against Demagogues

mjohansen Wrote: Jan 28, 2015 3:13 PM
Decades ago I heard this little story, maybe you've heard it: Two men are walking past a construction site where a huge bulldozer is moving tons of earth. The one man turns to the other and says, "That bulldozer is causing unemployment. If it wasn't for that bulldozer, there could be 100 men out there working with shovels." And the second man replies, "You're absolutely right! Or a million with spoons."
In response to:

Defense Against Demagogues

mjohansen Wrote: Jan 28, 2015 3:10 PM
You often hear people say that a company is a monopoly and can "charge whatever they want". No, they can't. If there was only one oil company in the world and there were absolutely no regulations on them, could they charge $10,000 a gallon? No. People wouldn't buy at that price. Oh, a few rich people, like Al Gore, might, but that would be it. Even at less absurd prices, if they tried to charge $100 a gallon or $20 a gallon, people would find alternatives, ranging from taking the train to riding bicycles to electric cars to whatever. And inventors would have a strong incentive to develop alternative forms of transportation.
In response to:

Defense Against Demagogues

mjohansen Wrote: Jan 28, 2015 3:07 PM
No, they can't. Because if by dropping the price they run drillers in North Dakota out of business, then once they jack the price back up, it will become profitable for drillers in North Dakota again. And "drillers in North Dakota" is not one person or even one company, there are potentially thousands of them. And people don't give up on a business the instant it becomes unprofitable, so OPEC can't rely on driving someone out of business today, jacking the price up tomorrow, if a week later another competitor comes along cut it for a day or two until they decide it's unprofitable, then jack it back up, etc. It's not that simple. What happens in real life is that a low-cost producer keeps his price just low enough to discourage competitors from entering the market but high enough to maximize his own profit. Which is to say, at just a shade above the price that the low-cost producer could charge. So the consumer still gets most of the benefit of the potential competition.
Pretty much every generation in history has, to one extent or another, rebelled against their parents. Sometimes they follow through on that rebellion and change society, for better or worse. Other times they give it up as they get older and end up somewhere very close to where their parents were. I recall a young woman, just out of college, that I worked with recently. She once commented that her parents were absolutely astounded when her generation rebelled against their (mostly liberal) beliefs. They just assumed that the next generation would join them in rebelling against THEIR parents. When instead the next generation rebelled against them, well they just couldn't understand it. :-)
The accusation that liberals are squeamish about killing people when it's necessary are completely false and unfair. Liberals have no qualms about killing people, as long as those people are unborn babies or old people in nursing homes. Liberals are only squeamish about killing people if those people are convicted murderers or thugs in the act of attacking a policeman or terrorists. Liberals believe that killing the guilty is a moral outrage that makes the soldier or executioner the moral equivalent of the criminal or enemy soldier ... but killing the innocent is a grand and noble act. The more helpless the victim, the more the killer should be praised for his courage.
In response to:

Republicans Unanchored

mjohansen Wrote: Jan 23, 2015 4:58 PM
Well, wait now. It's not like we're talking about torturing convicted killers or terrorists. That would be outrageous and unconstitutional. We're just talking about torturing innocent babies. What's the big deal?
In response to:

Republicans Unanchored

mjohansen Wrote: Jan 23, 2015 4:56 PM
Personally, I am very encouraged. It took OVER A WEEK before the newly-elected Republican majority betrayed the voters who elected them and caved in to their enemies on a point where they had a clear moral case and where every poll shows that a strong majority of the people supported them. Who could have predicted last October that the Republicans could have stuck to their principles for so long?
1 - 10 Next