(06-12-2019 01:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 01:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 12:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Not speaking for George of course, but how you propose addressing that without wielding power?

Ciao, friends. Maybe I can check in from the airport and se haow this is going.

How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!

So, what I hear in your “whadabout “response is a tacit admission that progressives want more power to enforce their view on environmental issues. Is that incorrect?

No. No more so than either side wants power to move forward legislation that they consider important.

Quote:What border wall? Some very powerful powers are keeping it from happening. I guess in this sumo match they are the heavyweights.

I don’t care about abortion, pro or con. Women can kill all their children AFAIAC. Would that b good public policy? Or should we require a license to kill?

Whether or not you support abortion is not relevant. I am saying that the conservative goal of making abortion no longer available to women is the height (the fing height as Tanq would say) of "wielding power".

I would say the military draft I was subject to was he height of wielding power. They literally had the power of life and death over me. Pleas of “its my body” and I don’t want it where you want it were unheard by those with the power - LBJ et al.

On more modern terms, I would say the IRS wields a lot of power, and the more taxation, the more power.

Yes. Nobody would argue either of those points.

Outlawing abortion will also lead to a life or death situation for some women.