It was allowed because it _IS

Post #181,422 by ben_tilly 10/28/04 11:22:17 AM Reply	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 by jb4 10/28/04 11:28:20 AM Reply	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 by bepatient 10/28/04 12:27:00 PM Reply	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 by ben_tilly 10/28/04 12:34:52 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 10/28/04 12:59:58 PM Reply	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 by ben_tilly 10/28/04 1:44:55 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 10/28/04 1:50:21 PM Reply	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 by inthane-chan 10/28/04 1:53:03 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 10/28/04 1:55:47 PM 10/28/04 2:05:54 PM Reply	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 Expand All History
Post #181,509 by ben_tilly 10/28/04 2:54:17 PM Reply	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 by jb4 10/28/04 2:03:55 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 10/28/04 2:22:29 PM Reply	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 by jb4 10/28/04 2:33:46 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 10/28/04 2:38:05 PM Reply	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 by jb4 10/28/04 3:42:48 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 10/28/04 4:40:35 PM Reply	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 by ben_tilly 10/28/04 4:29:05 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 10/28/04 4:50:06 PM Reply	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 by jb4 10/28/04 2:01:25 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 10/28/04 2:20:33 PM Reply	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 by jb4 10/28/04 2:34:46 PM Reply	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 by pwhysall 10/28/04 2:45:14 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 10/28/04 3:06:31 PM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 10/28/04 3:53:14 PM Reply	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 by pwhysall 10/29/04 3:08:18 AM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 10/29/04 10:43:30 AM Reply	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 by Simon_Jester 10/28/04 6:03:59 PM Reply	I thought Libertarians were pro-choice?
Post #181,552 by bepatient 10/28/04 6:11:30 PM Reply	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 by danreck 10/28/04 6:30:12 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 10/28/04 6:48:50 PM Reply	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 by Another Scott 10/28/04 7:21:27 PM 10/28/04 8:44:41 PM Reply	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. :-) Edited by Another Scott Oct. 28, 2004, 08:44:41 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #181,567 by admin 10/28/04 7:33:08 PM Reply	Except... Bill lives in NJ... ;-) Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #181,569 by daemon 10/28/04 7:51:49 PM Reply	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 by ChrisR 10/28/04 7:55:47 PM Reply	vote early, vote often
Post #181,578 by Another Scott 10/28/04 8:39:44 PM Reply	D'oh! I knew that. My excuse-he talks about Philly too much.
Post #181,580 by bepatient 10/28/04 8:42:55 PM Reply	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 by Simon_Jester 10/28/04 8:44:04 PM Reply	Over by the Delaware-Water Gap?
Post #181,583 by bepatient 10/28/04 8:49:55 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 10/28/04 8:41:49 PM Reply	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 by daemon 10/28/04 9:03:53 PM Reply	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 by Another Scott 11/2/04 2:32:45 PM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 10/28/04 2:38:45 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 10/28/04 2:41:56 PM Reply	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 by ben_tilly 10/28/04 3:20:09 PM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 10/28/04 3:51:56 PM Reply	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 by ben_tilly 10/28/04 4:37:37 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 10/28/04 4:47:27 PM Reply	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 by tuberculosis 10/28/04 3:28:19 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 10/28/04 3:34:53 PM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 10/28/04 3:42:30 PM Reply	Amen. bcnu, Mikem "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -Bertrand Russell

Welcome to IWETHEY!