Post #181,385
10/28/04 9:27:02 AM
|
Dumbest political statement of the season...
..and possibly ever, courtesy of Alan "Carpetbagger" Keyes. Per [link|http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/west/chi-0410270128oct27,1,2955900.story|The Chicago Tribune]: During a discussion on homosexuality and gay marriage, Obama said Keyes engaged in "gay-bashing" on the campaign trail with statements suggesting that adoption by homosexual couples could lead their children to engage in incest.
Repeatedly insisting that his argument was based on "logic and philosophy" and emphasizing points by using his fingers to draw squares in the air, Keyes did not back down. He said children of lesbians have no way of knowing who their siblings may be, and therefore they may end up sleeping with them.
"If you don't know and have no way of ascertaining who your father is, then you can't know who your sisters and brothers are, either," Keyes said. "And if you can't know who your sisters and brothers are, there is no way you could avoid having sexual relations with them." This chump is a raving homophobic. Fortunately, Obama was ready with a refreshing dose of reasonableness: Obama said the argument was wrong and that such logic could lead to the conclusion that all adoptive children, including those raised by heterosexual couples, could also be at peril of unknowingly committing incest. Since Keyes rails against abortion, one would presume that he is in favor of adoption (although he is remarkably silent on that front, too...being the brain-dead fundie that he is, perhaps he believes that a woman having an unwanted pregnancy should be forced to carry the pregancy to term, then raise the child in abject poverty as "punishment" for the sin of fornication). Here, he is caught in the whipsaw of his own hypocricy. Last poll I read had Obama beating Keyes 72%-19%, which would be the largest landslide in Illinois history, even beating some of Hizzoner's landslides. jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #181,412
10/28/04 10:52:51 AM
|
Re: anti-choice but silence on adoption.
This is the heart of the hypocrisy of the anti-choice crowd. They are "very concerned" about "children" up until the moment they are born.
bcnu,
Mikem
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell
|
Post #181,415
10/28/04 10:57:47 AM
|
Talked to a Bush supporter yesterday.
He's vehemently against Roe v. Wade because he was adopted. I didn't go any further; some things are simply too personal to become the subject of argument.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #181,418
10/28/04 11:05:35 AM
|
I, too, had a chat with some one.
It was a while back (86) he was a Democrat, voted for Mondale and was pro-choice. Until his first daughter was born. She was 4.5 months when she was born and spent 1+ year at Baptist in NC. Bankrupted the family, the child had severe, but lens correctable, vision problems (common among premies who are on O2 for a long time) and some hearing problems. But, she's still alive today. Changed his whole opinion on choice, but not mine.
The thing is, I've never understood why abortion rights was ever allowed to be a political issue. IMO, the only thing all can agree on is that it should be rare.
bcnu,
Mikem
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell
|
Post #181,422
10/28/04 11:22:17 AM
|
It was allowed because it _IS_
A political issue that is.
To the hard-cord pro-life people, abortion really is murder. That isn't a slogan, that is a sincere belief Where do you compromise with mass murder?
To pro-choice people it isn't murder, and it really is a question of whether the State has the right to tell women what to do with their own bodies. (Not that it is an issue in the USA, but the base position behind the pro-choice movement is as strongly against mandated abortions as happen in China as it is against bans on abortion.) If the State doesn't have that right, then it doesn't have it and shouldn't be allowed to go there.
So this is an issue involving widespread disagreement about what government can and should do, and what is right for government to attempt or not. How can this avoid being a political issue?
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #181,424
10/28/04 11:28:20 AM
|
So, being pro-life is also being pro-big Government...
I wonder how those Banana Republicans that rail against "big gub'mint" come to reconcile that connundrum.
Oh wait, they don't thave to...
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #181,438
10/28/04 12:27:00 PM
|
Huh?
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,440
10/28/04 12:34:52 PM
|
Anti-abortion laws are government regulations-think about it
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #181,452
10/28/04 12:59:58 PM
|
But ...
...the pro-lifers think it is murder...so they don't support big gubmint beyond existing size and scope.
Its an awful stretch to go there..condidering the decision allowing choice was the one that needed passed.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,466
10/28/04 1:44:55 PM
|
Huh?
I'll agree that in the pro-life view of the world, anti-abortion laws are in the proper scope of government. (Although - Bush's attempts at lawmaking notwithstanding - not the proper scope of federal government in my opinion.)
But the rest of your statement makes no sense to me. Originally it was laws banning abortion, birth control, and so on which were passed. Roe vs Wade simplified the regulatory world - it removed state laws and added no more.
I fail to understand how removing regulations equates to adding them in your world. That would be one of many things about your political views that I fail to understand.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #181,471
10/28/04 1:50:21 PM
|
The original federal charter
Federal gubmint had no right to override the states on this issue.
By ruling at the fed level, the elimination of the state laws was an expansion of federal power.
>that< is the big government I'm discussing. Its the fed putting its nose in places its not supposed to be.
Not too hard to understand is it?
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,474
10/28/04 1:53:03 PM
|
Except that it was.
[link|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/|http://caselaw.lp.fi...tion/amendment04/]
All I want for my birthday is a new President!
|
Post #181,477
10/28/04 1:55:47 PM
10/28/04 2:05:54 PM
|
As with any good warm-up
Stretching is essential ;-)
Added post edit...
Decision was argued on 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th btw. 9th is most applicable IMO.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Edited by bepatient
Oct. 28, 2004, 02:05:54 PM EDT
|
Post #181,509
10/28/04 2:54:17 PM
|
Supporting Bill's original statement
All of the amendments were not part of the original federal charter. Furthermore when they were added to the original federal charter, they were only restrictions on the federal government, not various state governments.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #181,481
10/28/04 2:03:55 PM
|
Oh, you mean like the 2000 election...
...where the Federal government "[put] its nose in places its not supposed to be." Which you roundly hailed at the time, and still do. You mean that Big Government?
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #181,488
10/28/04 2:22:29 PM
|
Find one
I've said the decision made no difference and it didn't.
Didn't hail it to my knowledge.
You could, of course, produce a post number to back that claim...but I doubt it.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,494
10/28/04 2:33:46 PM
|
Result not important, the action is!
Please try to stay on topic during any one of these threads, OK? Especially during the workweek, as I only eat Red Herring on alternate Saturdays.
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #181,499
10/28/04 2:38:05 PM
|
Why are you blaming me?
You changed the subject.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,519
10/28/04 3:42:48 PM
|
It's clear now, you don't understand basic rhetoric!
OK, here's how its normally done:
Person1: Makes wild-assed statement including generalities that are passed off as fact.
Person2: Refutes WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact.
Here's what happens in a BeeP thread:
BeeP: Makes wild-assed statement including generalities that are passed off as fact.
Other IWETHEYer: Refutes WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact.
BeeP: Changes subject, interjects a varied and sublime mix of invective, red herrings and straw men, which purports to reinforce assertion that WAS is fact.
Other IWETHEYers: Tells BeeP to knock off red herrings, straw men and ignores invective; tells BeeP to get back on subject.
BeeP: Complains that Other IWETHEYer has changed subject when s/he refuted WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact.
Rinse. Repeat.
Now that I understand how that peculiar variant of BeeP Rhetoric works, I (and others here) can be forwarned and forarmed.
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #181,535
10/28/04 4:40:35 PM
|
Interesting
That you were the one making the wild-assed generalization that started this tangent...and then you changed the subject...yet you are blaming me for all of these things.
I'm honored to be such a focus of your delusional reality.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,532
10/28/04 4:29:05 PM
|
Then you are making a judgement
The question before the court was whether the Constitution obliged them to make that decision. The justices do not have the right to make a free choice about what is right or wrong. They have the responsibility of deciding how the existing Constitution, statutes, and precedents oblige them to decide.
When you say that they had no right to make that decision, you are saying that their judgement is wrong. This is not an entirely unreasonable position. Of the 9 highly trained jurors deciding that day, 2 agreed with you. However the other 7 decided that the justices were obligated to make that decision, and therefore making that decision could not have been an extension of their power.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #181,538
10/28/04 4:50:06 PM
|
Not the first time
that the fed used itself to extend its own power and it won't be the last.
Its not supposed to work that way...but it does.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,480
10/28/04 2:01:25 PM
|
OK, here's the BeeP Rosetta Stone
If it passes the "Compassionate Conservative Litmus Test"\ufffd, it is therefore Good Dogma. Good Dogma, by definition:
\ufffd Reduces your taxes (good!)
\ufffd Reduces overall government spending (good!), but
\ufffd Increases government spending on Defense (good!)
\ufffd Reduces government "regulations" (plusgood!)
\ufffd Increases profits for Big Business (doubleplusgood!)
All these things must occur, by definition, with items of Good Dogma.
Restricting abortion passes the "Compassionate Conservative Litmus Test"\ufffd, so therefore it is Good Dogma. Because it is Good Dogma, it therefore reduces government regulations.
It's really quite simple, isn't it?
"Good Dogma...
Now sit, Dogma...
Goooooood Dogma...!
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #181,487
10/28/04 2:20:33 PM
|
You have the wrong guy.
But thats ok. Anyone not appearing to support the liberal viewpoint held here is automagically a Bush Butt boy.
I've understood that for some time.
I'm voting for [link|http://badnarik.org/libertarian.php|Badnarik] in case you were wondering.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,496
10/28/04 2:34:46 PM
|
This Rosetta Stone far antedates the "Bush Revolution"
As does the original!
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #181,505
10/28/04 2:45:14 PM
|
Re: You have the wrong guy.
Next week, you're ALL Bush Butt Boys. For the next four years.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
|
Post #181,511
10/28/04 3:06:31 PM
|
C'mon...read the polls.
TOO CLOSE TO CALL!
Gotta keep that excitement going so we all watch the commercials on our 24 hour news networks!
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,522
10/28/04 3:53:14 PM
|
I wouldn't brag.
Blair Butt Boy.
bcnu,
Mikem
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell
|
Post #181,618
10/29/04 3:08:18 AM
|
Who's bragging?
Touch insecure, there?
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
|
Post #181,646
10/29/04 10:43:30 AM
|
You'd be insecure, too.
If you lived in a country whose populace might elect George Dubya Bush.
bcnu,
Mikem
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell
|
Post #181,550
10/28/04 6:03:59 PM
|
I thought Libertarians were pro-choice?
|
Post #181,552
10/28/04 6:11:30 PM
|
They are.
As am I.
I don't agree with their entire platform, as I suspect many Dems don't agree 100% with theirs and many Reps don't agree 100% with theirs either.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,559
10/28/04 6:30:12 PM
|
Oh, come on...
Libertarians are assholes. Malthusian milquetoastes. Darwin butt boys. If you really want to see your vote count (as I do every 4 years in the "by county" tallies) vote for Adlai Stevenson (or even Julius Caesar, etc.)
We can change the world, Beep! NOT!
If you only allow your ethos to overcome your logos, you can almost see God... Funny how in discussions about mythos noone actually questions the atheists on motive. If you don't get a woody during the SSBanner - if your nipples don't get hard when you think of baseball and apple pie - if you don't feel almost breathless as the assclown of "your party" tells you what you want and HOW TO BELIEVE... "If you only BELIEVE, we can eliminate the national debt, stop that great big sucking sound, etc. Can I count on your vote?"
How can you possibly be a conscientious member of American society. Damnit, it's your obligation to VOTE! Libertarian... please, why don't you just become a communist or... a child molester... or move to France!
Just a few thoughts,
Danno
"You know that the hypnotised never lie... Do ya!"
P. Townsend
|
Post #181,562
10/28/04 6:48:50 PM
|
Its simple, really.
I would normally pick between the 2 parties. I may still change my mind...though I'm not undecided.
Both candidates suck too much. And since the "real" candidates suck that bad, I can feel free to vote party.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,566
10/28/04 7:21:27 PM
10/28/04 8:44:41 PM
|
I've gone that way in the past, but not this time.
According to [link|http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Pennsylvania_Fall%202004.htm|Rasmussen], PA is leaning toward Kerry with 49:46. It's still pretty close, and I have no idea how accurate his polls will turn out to be. It's close enough that your vote might have an impact.
I'm probably going to vote for Kerry, but since I live in VA it probably won't affect the outcome. And Kerry should probably prefer that I not vote for him - I haven't voted for the winner yet (not since 1980). ;-)
The Libertarians have some attractive positions, but they muck it up by going so far overboard on idealogical purity. I see nothing wrong with having a toll-free interstate highway system, for instance. They should find a libertarian issue and push to get that in the forefront of political discussion. Perot was popular, when he was popular, because he hammered on the federal budget deficit. Not because people liked his position on bananna imports or something. The Libertarians should have learned from his success.
Anyway, I can't vote Libertarian any more. Nader got my vote last time, but I disagree with too many of his positions to go that way again.
If I may, I'd recommend looking at where you want the country to be 4 years from now and voting for the person that you think will be more likely to help the country get there.
We'll see what happens.
[edit:]
And if, say, you're from a state like, say, oh, I don't know, [link|http://www.rasmussenreports.com/New%20Jersey_Fall%202004.htm|New Jersey] that is 53:44 with Kerry in the lead, well then you can vote your conscience without worrying about whether your vote will make a difference. And safely ignore my comments. ;-)
Cheers,
Scott.
(You know what free advice is worth. :-)
|
Post #181,567
10/28/04 7:33:08 PM
|
Except...
Bill lives in NJ... ;-)
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #181,569
10/28/04 7:51:49 PM
|
a lot of people vote in both places :-)
that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
|
Post #181,570
10/28/04 7:55:47 PM
|
vote early, vote often
|
Post #181,578
10/28/04 8:39:44 PM
|
D'oh! I knew that. My excuse-he talks about Philly too much.
|
Post #181,580
10/28/04 8:42:55 PM
|
Jersey burbs of Philly.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,581
10/28/04 8:44:04 PM
|
Over by the Delaware-Water Gap?
|
Post #181,583
10/28/04 8:49:55 PM
|
Actually...
..the Delaware Water Gap is way north of here...in the Northwest part of the state.
Beautiful country...you'd never associate it with New Jersey :-)
I'm in southwest Jersey..
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,579
10/28/04 8:41:49 PM
|
Jersey still about 8 points...
in the Blue.
They're a bit worried...but not enough to get Kerry here...only the Veepster candidate Edwards.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,588
10/28/04 9:03:53 PM
|
worried around here, we had edwards Yesterday
and Kerry back again tomorrow, I have already voted but the crap going on I might escort my wife to the polls in case some dickwad has a problem.
regards,
daemon
that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
|
Post #182,270
11/2/04 2:32:45 PM
|
Andrew Tanenbaum says NJ is tied 42:42. You voted yet?
[link|http://www.electoral-vote4.com/|Electoral Vote].
Make sure it's your fault, OK?
;-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #181,500
10/28/04 2:38:45 PM
|
Sorry, it is not.
Emphasis Mine.
To the hard-cord pro-life people, abortion really is murder. That isn't a slogan, that is a sincere belief Where do you compromise with mass murder?
And how do you reconcile the Establishment Clause with the government assessing and implementing policies based upon a belief?
So this is an issue involving widespread disagreement about what government can and should do, and what is right for government to attempt or not. How can this avoid being a political issue?
Because the White House is not the House of God. Articles of Faith/Belief have no place in the political discourse of this country.
bcnu,
Mikem
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell
|
Post #181,502
10/28/04 2:41:56 PM
|
So...
..thou shall not kill
means that murder laws are anti-establishment clause?
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,512
10/28/04 3:20:09 PM
|
Church vs State - a recap for your benefit
The State does not have the right to pass laws that support this religion or that.
But citizens have every right to want the State to pass laws based on their beliefs. Regardless of whether those beliefs are religious in origin - the ballot box doesn't care. Given that we are a democratic country, those citizens may succeed. If the laws do not promote one religion over another, then those laws pass the Establishment Clause. Regardless of their origins.
It is rank hypocrisy to be against this when it comes to the pro-life movement but to have been for it when religious leaders like Martin Luther King were for civil rights. (And I say this as a pro-choice atheist.)
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #181,521
10/28/04 3:51:56 PM
|
Sorry, forgot one word.
When I said "belief" I meant "religious belief/conviction". Which in the case of fundamentalist Christians, it is. I know you better than to think that you would actually advocate legislating fundamentalist Christian beliefs, but you're close to doing that here.
bcnu,
Mikem
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell
|
Post #181,533
10/28/04 4:37:37 PM
|
You don't know me very well then
For I do indeed support the right of fundamentalist Christians to attempt to legislate their beliefs, where those beliefs are Constitutional. (Of course I also support efforts to make those attempts fail where I disagree with those beliefs.) I likewise support the right of murderers and rapists to get legal representation. (Even while I deplore murder and rape.)
My reasons why were very eloquently expressed in A Man for all Seasons, you can find the relevant passat at [link|http://www.radix.net/~bbrown/amfas.html|http://www.radix.net/~bbrown/amfas.html]. (If you've seen the movie, then you'll appreciate the irony of Roper being the one arguing for cutting down laws to achieve your ends.)
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #181,536
10/28/04 4:47:27 PM
|
Commandments
About as funamentalist as you get.
There's some laws in there.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,514
10/28/04 3:28:19 PM
|
God can't have anything to do with it
considering the pro-lifers are also usually pro-capital punishers.
GWB is the most murdering (capital punishing - that is) governor ever.
Pretty hard to reconcile those positions. Its about more than "life is sacred".
Anyhow, if you don't favor abortion - don't do it. Leave me and mine alone though.
Banning abortion didn't stop em anyway - just made them riskier, more expensive, and un-hygenic.
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
Step 1: THINK!
Step 2: VOTE!
|
Post #181,516
10/28/04 3:34:53 PM
|
Complicating factor of money
Insurance coverage? Governments subsidation of healthcare...all these are complicating issues.
In general, I'm with you...fed has no business even entering the discussion.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,518
10/28/04 3:42:30 PM
|
Amen.
bcnu,
Mikem
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell
|
Post #181,417
10/28/04 10:59:33 AM
|
One quick google..
[link|http://forums.adoption.com/t169254.html|http://forums.adoption.com/t169254.html]
...to put a dent in your sweeping generalization.
Keyes is an idiot. Pick someone else to base generalizations on at least. It will make you sound a little more "reasoned".
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,419
10/28/04 11:06:13 AM
|
Some one else? Jerry Falwell, perhaps?
bcnu,
Mikem
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell
|
Post #181,454
10/28/04 1:02:25 PM
|
If you want...
...I'll be happy to marginalize your opinion even more ;-)
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,423
10/28/04 11:24:27 AM
|
How 'bout the pResident's brother, JEB!
As seen through another [link|http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/132/51.0.html|"quick Google search] \t
Christianity Today, Week of August 19
Weblog: Florida Adoption Law Causing Abortion, Say Lawyers
Plus: Giving Drew University the finger (of George Whitefield), and other stories from online sources around the world.
Compiled by Ted Olsen | posted 08/23/2002
Florida'a adoption notification law under fire
The state of Florida requires that mothers who want to give their children up for adoption must notify the child's father. That sounds awfully family-friendly, doesn't it? But the law goes further: mothers who don't know who the father is must place a newspaper advertisement announcing she plans to do so. The National Post of Canada reports, "It requires that they publish details of every sexual encounter that could have caused the pregnancy, along with names\ufffdif possible\ufffdand descriptions of the men, in the local newspaper where the incident took place, so any men who may be the father and want to contest the adoption can come forward."
And that, say critics, is not only ridiculous, it's anti-life. Lawyers fighting the law claim mothers are choosing to have abortions rather than submit to such embarrassment. Just how bad is this law? Find another abortion-related issue where Jerry Falwell and the National Organization for Women have joined forces.
"Gov. Jeb Bush, who allowed the legislation to become law without his signature, supports a system that allows men who believe they might have fathered a child to put their name in a confidential registry that must be checked during adoption proceedings," reports the Associated Press. The St. Petersburg Times notes that 30 other states already have similar registries But this shouldn't surprise anyone, now should it? (Not even you, BeeP) jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #181,453
10/28/04 1:01:34 PM
|
Not surprised at all
to see idiotic legislation passed anywhere..especially in FL.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,459
10/28/04 1:24:30 PM
|
But would it surprise you to see...
that the vast majority of such comes from FL & TX, and that there is a correllation between the ersatz governors of those states and the volume of said legislation?
Shouldn't....
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #181,473
10/28/04 1:52:38 PM
|
No...what surprises me...
...is that you try to limit such idiocy to those states to try and prove some point.
The issue of idiot laws being passed is not confined to FL and TX, trust me. Take it from a guy who's state government tried to ban Ladies' Night.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,482
10/28/04 2:06:02 PM
|
Agreed -- NOT limited to FL & TX
Just that most of it eminates from there...for a reason....
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #181,489
10/28/04 2:23:33 PM
|
Aren't you in TX?
Might just be the skew in your media coverage.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,497
10/28/04 2:35:45 PM
|
Not in your life!
I'm expatriate New Messican, hiding here in the Midwest around Chicago.
Go Cubs!......er.....
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #181,501
10/28/04 2:40:31 PM
|
oops. My mistake...I knew that.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #181,498
10/28/04 2:35:53 PM
|
Texas is as self-centered in the U.S.
...as the U.S. is to the rest of the world.
Be glad when the elections are over as the neighborhood is littered with Martin Frost / Pete Sessions signs - definitely ranks as one of the most carved out gerrymandered districts of all time. Surprisingly, the Dallas Morning News endorsed Frost (probably felt guilty about all those Repub endorsements they've been handing out right and left).
Locally speaking, the Frost/Sessions campaign is as vicious as the Presidential campaign is in the contested states. Haven't seen a single Kerry ad (but it'd be a waste of money anyhow).
|
Post #181,520
10/28/04 3:47:09 PM
|
One does not hand out Repo endorsements "right & left"
One hands out Repo endorsements right....
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #181,551
10/28/04 6:06:33 PM
|
Actually they encourage abandonment, not abortion...
as Florida has an abandonment law as well. All a mother has to do is leave the child at an abandonment center (most Firehouses), and there are no questions.
|
Post #181,560
10/28/04 6:42:17 PM
|
better than bodies in dumpsters during prom night
that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
|
Post #181,561
10/28/04 6:48:30 PM
|
That's nine months AFTER prom night.
|
Post #181,564
10/28/04 6:51:48 PM
|
not in joisey
[link|http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/24/prom.baby.presser/|http://www.cnn.com/U...rom.baby.presser/]
regards,
daemon
that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
|
