| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2010/11/8-2011/1/13 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:53998 Activity:nil |
11/8 Have you read how Bush says his pro-life stance was influenced
by his mother keeping one of her miscarriages in a jar, and showing
it to him? These are headlines The Onion never dreamed of |
| 2009/9/17-24 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:53374 Activity:nil |
9/17 "Teen Birth Rates Higher in Highly Religious States"
http://www.csua.org/u/p2y (news.yahoo.com)
\_ God wants more children. -garrido
\_ Abortion Rates Higher in Non-Religious States.
\_ http://www.publicchristian.com/?p=734
\_ White conservative girls are hotter, so guys pursue them more
than hairy liberal girls.
\_ I actually have to agree with this.
\_ Conservative girls are not career minded, so they pursue the
more traditional route to sucess, which is to find a rich
guy and get knocked up. |
| 2009/9/1-9 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:53314 Activity:nil |
9/1 http://scaeministries.org/2009/08/what-is-the-unborn-a-brief-examination The unborn IS a human being. \_ This guy is an idiot. Are you mocking him, or are you an idiot, too? \_ every unborn has the potential of being born and carrying a gun for The State. |
| 2009/8/12-20 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA] UID:53267 Activity:nil |
8/10 From Aug 9th minutes:
"Evelyn is resigning as President. Jesse will take over all duties of
the president, temporarily."
So, I've been around for a while (since F03), and seen 3 csua pres-
idents resign now. For those of you who have been here (much) longer
than me, is this pretty common every two years or so? -mrauser
\_ reason(s) for resigning?
\_ <sexist>women</sexist>
\_ http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1607#comic
\_ You'll never get it!
\_ By hook or by crook, we will.
\_ I will not be NUMBERED!
\_ I'm not really certain. I heard she just said "personal
reasons." -mrauser
\_ pregnant? |
| 2009/5/31-6/5 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:53062 Activity:nil |
5/31 Tiller terrorist was a classic right wing nut - "sovereign citizen,"
tax protester, Operation Rescue member... I wonder if he had a freep
account.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/31/737357/--Suspect-Identified-in-Tiller-Assassination
\_ Operation Rescue is the definition of domestic terrorism.
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2262376/posts
Not OR. |
| 2008/11/17 [Health/Women, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:52030 Activity:nil |
11/17 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/16/bush-administration-tryin_n_113199.html http://tinyurl.com/5zj242 "lulz" \_ lolz dude this url is from July 2008. CHANGE. |
| 2008/10/24-28 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51669 Activity:nil |
10/24 Palin: "I don't know" if abortion clinic bombers are terrorists
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27343688
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hu1NeI4M1k
\_ I am so pro Abortion. Abortions for all!
\_ Miniature american flags for others...
\_ Bombing for Jesus! Talk about moral relativism! |
| 2008/7/29-8/3 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:50719 Activity:nil |
7/29 Monica Goodling and Alberto Gonzalez routinely broke the law
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/28/AR2008072801007.html
\_ "young political aide" ... "Goodling, 34". Wow, 34 is young. I feel
better now.
\_ 30 is the new 20.
\_ They were following a higher law. God Bless!
\_ Goodling was already granted immunity in return for her
testimony and Gonzalez will be pardoned. Is it really "breaking
the law" if you believe you are above the law and have the
power to get away with it?
\_ Of course it is. Whether you get punished for it is something
else. |
| 2008/7/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Health/Women] UID:50452 Activity:moderate |
7/2 Not a troll: What's the best way to get to a Family Planning
specialist, for abortion? The website for my health care (PPO)
doesn't seem to point anywhere to abortion. Is Planned
Parenthood a good place for this sort of thing, or is it better
for teenagers?
\_ go to Planned Parenthood. there you go.
\_ My wife once got an early-term abortion from her OB/GYN.
\_ I see, was it easier/tougher than Planned Parenthood?
Do they ask a lot of questions and make it even more
difficult than it is now? What was your occassian? Thanks
PLEASE help out.
\_ We didn't try Planned Parenthood. The OB asked a lot of
questions, but they were all medical. She didn't ask any
ethical or moral questions at all like "Why do you decide to
do this?" or "Are you emotionally ready?", or say anything
like "Just call us to cancel the appointment if you change
your mind." which would hint something. The occasion was that
she got pregnant between our engagement and our wedding, which
was way too early for us to have kids. We ended up having our
first kid 4 years into the marriage as planned.
was too early for us to have kids. We ended up having our
first kid 4 years into the marriage.
\_ THANK YOU we're in the EXACT same situation. We just
went to an obgyn and she gave us a lot of information
and time to think about it. She did NOT give us any
trouble or her bias, just information. It was very very
professional and she was very very understanding and
said we have a lot of time to think about it since
it's still really early. Did you do the chemical or
surgery and why? We're leaning towards the chemical
method.
\_ Any particular reason you morons didn't use birth
control if you don't want a baby?
\_ Dude, give it a rest. Maybe the condom broke,
you don't know.
\_ I don't. That's why I asked. |
| 2008/1/28-2/2 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:49025 Activity:nil |
1/28 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22885424 State printed license plate to contain pro-life messages. \_ Gov't not abridging the freedom of speech "The Arizona License Plate Commission allows nonprofit groups to highlight their cause on license plates, but the commission in 2002 and 2003 denied the Arizona Life Coalition permission for a specialty plate with the "Choose Life" slogan." \_ Clearly we need a Flying Spaghetti Monster license plate. \_ I saw this on a car two days ago: http://www.rof.com/product_p/2290-pq.htm \_ The liberal 9th circuit strikes again. |
| 2008/1/11-16 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:48933 Activity:moderate |
1/11 Separated-at-birth twins get married - Yahoo! News:
http://www.csua.org/u/kgf
\_ The part omitted is how they found out they were twins.
\_ "Ewww you kiss like my mom!"
\_ Doesn't this imply you kiss your mom the way you'd kiss a
girlfriend?
\_ "Your dick can reach inside me as deep as Daddy's."
\_ Does IVF involve one egg or multiple eggs?
\_ IVF generally involves multiple eggs. It's expensive and hard
on the mother, so they want to make sure at least 1 sticks.
Anyway, I don't think these twins were convieved via IVF.
\_ "Alton raised the case of the married twins -- who were born
after IVF treatment ......"
\_ Oh, I wish my sis and I were separated at birth ......
\_ Why, do you want to do her?
\_ Why else!?
\_ Sounds like something out of a Korean drama series...
\_ Bahahahaha good one! |
| 11/23 |
| 2008/1/8-12 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48910 Activity:high |
1/8 Ron Paul says he didn't wright the vile things in his newsletter.
Ron Paul lies.
http://csua.org/u/kfc [LGF]
\_ Whether or not he's lying, he allowed it to be published. I've
had vague doubts about Ron Paul, and this morning, I finally
realized why. Paul's espoused ideology ultimately comes down to
every man(*) for himself. I don't trust someone who is motivated
purely by self interest, but isn't willing to come out and say it.
-dans
(*) As an aside, I say 'man' here because Ron Paul is a misogynist.
His views on the role of women in society are a throwback to the
middle ages.
\_ Please cite a primary reference for Paul's view on role of women.
\_ a) His stated views on abortion and a woman's right to choose.
b) His newsletters. Go read them. -dans
\_ Anti-abortion == middle ages? You're nuts. Women have the
right to choose not to fuck people.
\_ the constitution is not "freedom to NOT do things."
It's freedom TO.
\_ That's a really stupid statement. You don't have the
freedom to kill a baby. Abortion has little to do
with the Constitution. Personally, I see both sides
of the argument: I don't care about it as an issue
and a candidate's view on abortion doesn't matter to
me.
\_ Odd, it's not "every man for himself", it's that the government
shouldn't intervene in what every man does.
\_ I may be mistaken, but I don't get the sense that Ron Paul
is espousing the ideologically pure libertarian viewpoint I
think you're referencing. I am curious though, if you strip
the government of power, how do you effectively avoid society
turning into a free for all? -dans
\_ The impression I get of him is that he's trying to push
towards a pure libertarian stance. Unfortunately, he's a
hypocrite. However, how do you define "free for all", and
how do you see it as being bad? -emarkp
\_ What is "pure libertarian"? He's not advocating removal
of government. He's advocating limited government based
on Constitutional principles.
\_ That's what I meant by "pure libertarian". -emarkp
\_ Is he really a hypocrite? Let's imagine I am an
opponent of public schools. Am I a hypocrite if
I send my kid to a public school? No, because
that is the existing system. I'm not sure just
what you're referring to however.
\_ He's a hypocrite because he puts earmarks into
bills and then votes against them. -emarkp
\_ He's a hypocrite because of what he's done as a
rep, not because of anything in this
discussion. For instance, he adds pork to
bills, and then votes against them so that he
can bring pork to his district and also say he
votes against it. -emarkp
\_ That's why I brought up the school analogy.
\_ so if you're taking political ideologies to their extremes,
you'd perfer the opposite, where the government controls everyone
and everything, for their own good?
\_ 1st, the things weren't that vile and a couple of them have been
lied about. For example the article in question did not "support PLO
terrorists".
2nd, a philosophy "based on self-interest" is not necessarily
against the common interest. Communism vs. capitalism. We know
that EVERYONE is motivated primarily by self interest, that's
human nature. Even when you help someone else you're doing that
because it makes you feel good. This is how markets work and why
they generally perform better over time than management by fiat,
no matter how selfless the masters. So many supposedly well-
intentioned efforts end up doing more harm than good. Wasting
public resources on pointless wars and bloated government
programs hurts everyone.
\_ please let us know when you finish reading Atlas Shrugged. -tom
\_ let me know when you have anything interesting to say.
\_ Holy shit, I agree with tom. I actually believe in such a
thing as enlightened self interest, but the self-interest
Ron Paul espouses doesn't qualify. -dans
\_ why not?
\_ GOLD STANDARD. |
| 2007/12/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48737 Activity:nil |
12/3 Ron Paul's 2007 speeches to Congress
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3xzf6b |
| 2007/11/30-12/6 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Health/Disease/General] UID:48721 Activity:high |
11/30 http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/11/30/hostin.abortion.pill.cnn Totally awesome man. Spike your mistress' drink with abortion pills and get jailed for killing unborn child. \_ What charges do you think were appropriate? \_ Willful endangerment of mother? Drugging without consent? Perhaps there's a stringent reading of date-rape drug laws that would suffice. -!op \_ So you think forcing an abortion on someone is only worth a minor drug charge? If someone did that to your wife would you be ok with the 6 months probation your list would get someone? \_ Assault and battery? Malicious poisoning? I see what you mean, and I'm trying to get at a suitable charge that matches the egregious nature of the crime against the mother without having to assign citizens' rights to the unborn. \_ Do you think a&b on a woman should yield the same charges/punishment as a&b on a woman that leads to her unborn miscarrying? Does the pregnancy have no value? \_ I believe the pregnancy has value _to the mother_ and should therefore be taken into consideration. I don't think the pregnancy has an innate value apart from to the mother, and the fetus itself has no rights apart from those granted it by the mother (and, in a cold, legal sense, the value it has to the mother). \_ Ok the pregnancy has value to the mother. I don't see where you're going with that. Again: when you are responsible for killing a woman's unborn child what should the right punishment be? And seriously, I'd check with a woman before trying to claim "the pregnancy has no innate value apart from the mother". \_ You misread: I said "the pregnancy has no innate value apart from _to_ the mother." The right punishment depends on whether killing the woman's unborn child is a crime. If she asks you to do so, then no. In this case, yes. As such, the punishment should reflect the loss to the mother. \_ I didn't misread at all. I quoted exactly what you said and kept the context. Now then, of course killing her unborn child is a crime, don't be daft. It wasn't a legal abortion, it was killed. The only question is what is the correct punishment. So far the motd has offered a $50 fine, 6 months probation and banned from practicing medicine in that state. whoop-de-doo. Go ask your wife/gf what the punishment should be and get back to me. \_ 1) You didn't quote me exactly: you missed the "to." 2) I've already agreed with you that it's a crime in this case. \_ All this stuff is a side show. What penalty is appropriate? So far the motd says $50 and 6 months probation. \_ Before I do so, I want you to explicitly state that you won't turn any punishment proposed into into a "Well, if for this, why not the same for abortion?" nonsense spiel. \_ One thing I find suspicious is that most arguments for abortion vanish with sufficient technology. This means that either you should believe morality changes with technology or you should believe abortions are wrong. -- ilyas \_ or it means ilyas is an idiot \_ How about "practising medicine without a license"? I heard even a good samaritan without a CPR license applying CPR to save someone's life can be charged with this. -- !OP \_ Oh yeah right, so that'll get him what? 3 months probation and a $50 fine and he won't be allowed to practive medicine in that state again? Again, if this was your wife who got her child force aborted, what charges would you think were sufficient and would your wife agree? \_ Practicing medicine without a license is a serious felony, with a one year prison sentence as possible punishment. ObGetAClue \_ Yes and the odds of 1 year for a first offense is about zero. So now you think 1 year is enough for killing her unborn child? Is that a good punishment to you? \_ Your claim was that the punishment was a $50 fine. Your claim is BS, as I have demonstrated. I think that is about the right punishment for the crime of "practicing medicine without a license." I don't really know what the penalty is for poisoning someone such that they had an involuntary abortion, but it should probably be a bit higher than that. \_ Not sure about that one, but the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 3 did reverse a Good Samaritan case where a GS moved an accident victim and may have caused paralysis: http://csua.org/u/k4x (About.com) \_ Gee. Was it the crash victim or the family who sued the GS rescuer? |
| 2007/11/29-12/6 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48712 Activity:high |
11/29 Michelle Malkin has collected youtube profiles/images of questioners
from last night's debate. Several of the questioners are openly
supporting Democrat candidates. Don't bother telling me how much you
hate Malkin. Look at the evidence presented about how CNN is
incompetent.
http://csua.org/u/k44 (michellemalkin.com)
\_ I'm confused by the outrage. Same thing happened with the July
debate with the Democrats.
\_ And yet the questions still managed to address significant GOP
issues. How'd that happen?!? Oh, wait, it's because when you're
not MM or AC, thinking outside your talking points isn't that
hard.
\_ Not issues for people voting in the R primary.
\_ I'm voting in the R primary, and they were issues I was
interested in.
\_ Oh really? Which issues?
The Confederate Flag?
Whether they believe in every word in the Bible?
What would Jesus do about the death penalty?
\_ Gun control, abortion, and taxes. Way to cherrypick.
\_ I frankly don't believe you. When you say you're
voting in the R primary, is that because you're a
registered R? Or because you're a D in an open
primary state?
\_ I'm registered R, and I frankly don't care if
you believe me. Also, are gun control, abortion,
and taxes not important to people voting in the
R primary? They were covered in the questions.
\_ Gun control and taxes matter, but abortion
doesn't because a president can't affect it.
\_ Errr.. sort of. The Religious Right is
very interested in what the president thinks
of abortion because the prez appoints
to the Supreme Court. And the SC could
overturn Roe vs Wade.
\_ The RR is a minority part of the R party.
So sure it concerns that segment, but it
does not concern most R at all.
\_ Sure, I'm R and I don't care. But the
RR exterts disproportinal control over
the primary system.
Addendum: For example, Huckabee is
doing so well in Iowa because RRs
don't trust Romney. He who wins
Iowa...
\_ You and MM are right, Democrats should not be allowed to participate
in the political process anymore. No Free Speech For Democrats!
\_ Excellent straw man sir!
\_ Isn't that what you are complaining about? I don't get it,
do you really think that Democrats should not be allowed
to ask Republicans questions during debates?
\_ The people in question aren't simply Dems, they're openly
supporting different candidates. They're not interested in
the answer, they're just bomb-throwing.
\_ I am pretty sure you don't lose your free speech rights
simply because you declare allegiance to a particular
candidate. Did these people lie and claim they were
undecided, so that they could get permission to ask
questions by CNN? Otherwise, I can't imagine what your
beef would be. Can I go to a Romney rally and ask him
a question, even though I am an Edwards supporter? Why
the heck not? I might even change my mind!
\_ Wow, are you really this clueless? I didn't say you
lose any "free speech rights". However, there is a
difference between honest questions and
bomb-throwing.
\_ Yes, only questions pre-screened and OK'd by the
candidates should be allowed near any Republican.
\_ Or Hillary
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/diamond_v_pearl_student_blasts_1.php
\_ I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
What you call "bomb-throwing" I call healthy
debate and integral to the democratic process.
It is pretty funny for a MM reader to complain
about bomb-throwing.
\_ And it's pretty funny when someone uses "free
speech rights" in this context. Wow.
\_ How do you even register to post in that blog?
\_ The problem was that CNN was deceitful. If they had put "General
Bob Smith, (D) Activist" next to the name of the guy they flew in
and put in the front row, then it would be lame but not piss anyone
off. These were supposed to be "undecided (R) voters" which
several clearly were not. And this is the same motd crowd that was
so concerned that Foxnews was going to abuse their position if they
ran a debate, yet you find this a-ok. Sheesh.
\_ Again, same thing happened in the Dem debate. No one cared
until CNN released a statement saying there would be no "gotcha
questions" in the R debate. The other MM (media matters) noted
this and pointed out the multiple gotchas they let into the D
debate. Now, if Malkin had been complaining about gotchas after
they said they wouldn't have them, she might have a point. With
this post she's just a crybaby.
\_ I don't read/watch Malkin so I have no idea what she said
and don't really care. In the Dem debate we had Hillary
plants there for her. In the Rep debate we had Hillary,
Edards, Obama, and CNN plants. Neither situation is
acceptable to me. This just further enforces my belief
that the US 'main stream media' is biased to such a degree
that they should be dismissed entirely as the yellow rag
'journalists' they are. I would like to note that we didn't
see Rep plants in either debate but that's another matter.
\_ In the Dem CNN/YT debate, there were questions that were
most likely from R supporters. But no one went and tried
to pin them down as R supporters, because attacking the
questioner rather than answer a valid question is in the
R playbook. Not so much with the D's. You're showing
your bias in trying to determine cnn's.
R playbook. Not so much with the Ds. Being of the other
party does not negate one's right to ask a question in an
open debate. Instead of running from them, or whining
about them, why not try and give cogent answers and, y'know
try and persuade people...
\_ Which questions? And who do you think did the tracking?
Random people on the net who post on (R) blogs. Nothing
is stopping you from tracking down the qusetioners to
see if your allegations are even true. If they are,
then let us know, until then you're blowing smoke and
tossing out red herrings. No one said you don't have a
right to ask a question. That's a strawman. It has
been stated quite clearly the issue is they were
falsely presented as "undecided (R) voters" or in the
case of Hillary plants at the D debate, as "undecided
(D) voters" when in fact they were political operatives.
And in the case of the (R), they did answer, even though
several of the questions were stupid. That was a good
effort at distracting from the real point about dirty
politics on the part of CNN and Hillary but no dice.
\_ When/where did CNN say the questions came from
"undecided (R) voters"? This is important. If they
did say this, then you have a point. I don't think
they did, though. And as you've based your entire
argument and outrage on this point, I suggest you
look carefully.
\_ Both debates were choosing people in that context.
This is how questioners have been chosen in
debates in recent years. This is nothing new.
So, if I'm right and they said these were supposed
to be undecided voters in each debate, then what?
Do you finally agree the debates were fucked?
And frankly, even if that weren't flat out stated,
they should still have properly identified the
people, but that's a hypothetical. I don't want
to go off on some tangent about that at this
point.
\_ You repeat your assertion with no supporting
evidence. Show me where CNN said "This is how
we're choosing the questioners". IMO, these
questions were decidedly less offensive than
those of Russert or Blitzer (raise your hand?
seriously?). I would love to go back to LWV
moderation with decent questions and actual
discussion, but these complaints are overblown
and really crybabyish.
\_ No, this is not generally how questioners are
chosen in debates, not in the ones I have
watched over the years. You are just blowing
smoke at this point and I think you know it.
\_ Wow, way to make shit up to cover for lame
debate moderators and slimey tactics from
the (D). Even the LATimes published a
piece on how shitty CNN did. When the LAT
not only doesn't support your left wing
agenda but out right bashes you, you have
a problem. You=CNN in this case. I notice
you completed ignored my question and just
magically decided with no knowledge that I
and everyone else who has been saying these
were supposed to be normal citizens and not
activists is wrong. I think I've been
trolled. You have yet to answer a single
question I've posed in this thread and
instead just keep throwing bombs.
\_ You are talking to more than one person,
btw. Yes, if a questioner signed some
waiver or made a verbal agreement with CNN
that they were an undecided (R) voter,
then it would be immoral to violate that
agreement. Happy? Now, show me your
evidence that this was the case, or
just admit that this is you and MM's
made up rule, not something that
other people agree to, or even would
agree to, unless they were partisan
loons.
\_ From your source: "Beside considerations\
like these, CNN's incompetent failure
to weed out Democratically connected
\_ From your source: "Beside considerations
like these, CNN's incompetent failure to
weed out Democratically connected
questioners pales." Even the LA Times
agrees that it is no big deal.
\_ "We were looking for people who were
interested enough in the process to ask\
a question," Sam Feist, CNN's political\
director, said Thursday. "We didn't
inquire about people's ideological\
beliefs, and that wasn't relevant. . . .\
We were looking for questions that
would make for an interesting debate."
interested enough in the process to ask
a question," Sam Feist, CNN's political
director, said Thursday. "We didn't
inquire about people's ideological
beliefs, and that wasn't relevant. . . .
We were looking for questions that would
make for an interesting debate."
\_ I'm now trying to imagine Fox News running the Dem debate:
"First question: When did you first start hating America?"
\_ You'll have to keep imagining since Fox was never given a
chance. Do you think CNN should be allowed to hold further
debates after this last performance? How about the previous
one where more Clinton activists were planted in the audience
and there was zero followup to her answers from Blitzer? Was
that a well run debate? |
| 2007/10/15 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic] UID:48323 Activity:nil |
10/15 Sexist and racist remarks deleted, regardless of proofs & facts.
\_ Can facts be sexist? I've always thought only untrue statments can
be sexist or racist. Is "men are generally stronger than women"
sexist? What about "black people are darker than white people?"
Or, "men cannot become pregnant?"
\_ Reality doesn't have liberal bias after all. |
| 2007/9/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:48022 Activity:nil |
9/11 http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062706C Beliefs as trust cues. (This guy apparently is affiliated with Cato, although this doesn't appear to be a Cato-related essay.) -- ilyas \_ Good article. \_ Agreed, a good article. However, I found two of his references suspect: Lawrence Summers' remarks vis-a-vis diversity, while based loosely on good empiricism, drifted into speculation not necessarily supported by empirical observation; and Wade's comments on the objective assignment of race by way of genetic markers tied to continent of origin ignores the fact that races are overly broad categories that ignore immense genetic variation within the target population while reinforcing popular misconceptions of varying aptitudes and social tendencies among members of given races. Mind you, the trust cues I get from this piece ID Kling as a Conservative, but I gather that he thinks of himself as more of a rationalist. |
| 2007/8/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47607 Activity:moderate |
8/13 http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xosmq (The Economist) The Republicans have failed the most important test of any political movement: wielding power successfully. They have botched a war. They have splurged on spending. And they have alienated a huge section of the population. It is now the Democrats' game to win or lose. [No doubt another partisan screed] |
| 2007/7/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:47425 Activity:high |
7/25 He's right.
"Without going into all the specifics, I think we are now moving into
a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly
ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the
constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the
statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.
If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into
precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be
permanently changed."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015836.php
\_ "Without going into all the specifics" is pretty damn stupid.
Isn't this guy supposed to be a smart dem?
\_ Did you just arrive from Mars or something? Have you been
ignoring the news for the last 6 years?
\_ I have been following the news extremely closely.
\_ And none of FISA, Gitmo, Geneva Convention, War Crimes
Act, Justice Department firing and ignoring subpeanoas
rings a bell? At all?
\_ Bah, the constitution got thrown out decades ago when courts
started making their own laws from whole cloth on a long list of
topics. We're already and have been for a long time nothing like
the founder's vision for how government should work.
\_ ...what exactly do you see as the purpose of the courts?
\_ Courts apply the law. In the case of SSC and USSC they are
also empowered to overturn laws that violate the State/US
constitutions. They are not to make up laws the legislature
has not passed. What do you think courts are for?
\_ Adjudicating grievances between parties; interpreting the
law as legislated by the Legislative branch and signed by
and/or executed by the Executive branch; determining the
constitutionality of those laws and the actions of the
other two branches. In the course of determining the
constitutionality of certain laws and in the interest of
not wasting taxpayer time and money with legislation that
is doomed to be deemed unconstitutional, I see no reason
why a court could not suggest an example of the sort of
legislation that would not be considered unconstitutional.
This suggestion is not, in and of itself, legislation.
\_ ob more hunting trips with mr. scalia and mr. cheney
\_ Ok so we basically agree. Now then, are you opposed to
courts legislating from the bench, even in such cases
that you agree with the outcome?
\_ Please indicate where you see the courts legislating
from the bench?
\_ You're kidding, right? The classic is Roe v Wade.
\_ Awesome wingnut logic. Roe V Wade justifies
the current administration's destruction of
checks and balances.
\_ What? I said no such thing. You're also
way over stepping assuming you know my
opinion of if abortion should be il/legal
or not simply because I think RvW was a
bad ruling based on bad law. I figured you
would get personal if I tried to discuss it
intelligently with the best known example.
I was right. Thanks for not disappointing.
\_ I am not the guy you were talking to
ealier, but I think that the problem of
judges legislating from the bench pales
in comparison to the problem of the
Executive legislating all the time
when it is not their job to do it.
But they are both problems, imho.
\_ Just because another branch may be
abusing their authority, does not
mean what the courts have been doing
for decades hasn't made a complete
mockery of our constitution. The
system is supposed to have checks and
balances. I see none anymore. I see
courts making laws. I see the exec
branch (and not just this one, kids)
making laws. "Stroke of the pen, law
of the land, cool!" Go look that
quote up. And congress is sitting on
their collective thumbs apparently
concerned about nothing important
and certainly not doing their jobs.
\_ Am rereading Roe v. Wade right now, and while
I don't agree with a lot of it, I'm still not
seeing the legislating you're referring to.
Can you be more specific about this, please?
\_ It's conservative dogma that judges are
legislating from the bench, and as such,
cannot be examined or questioned.
\_ Thanks for contributing nothing. Come
back when you'd like to have a discussion
instead of a smear fest. Thanks again.
\_ Ok, let's get right to it. What is the
basis underlying RvW? Once we agree on
that I'll go to the next step. |
| 2007/7/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:47216 Activity:nil 85%like:47212 |
7/7 Curtains for Fred:
http://urltea.com/xgc (latimes.com) |
| 2007/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:47212 Activity:nil 85%like:47216 |
7/7 Curtains for Fred:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-thompson7jul07,0,54260.story?coll=la-home-center |
| 2007/6/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46978 Activity:nil 76%like:46895 |
6/16 Romney is not a flip-flopper, he was just "won over"
http://www.csua.org/u/ixt |
| 2007/6/8 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:46889 Activity:nil |
6/8 In case you're wondering where I met my Republican girlfriend:
http://www.google.com/search?q=dating+republican
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dating+republican
Check out RepublicanPeopleMeet and ConservativeMatchMaker.
In case you love Republicans, make sure to click on these ads.
You never know, you may find your dream mate! In case you hate
Republicans, make sure to click on these ads as well. You may
incur expensive advertisement costs. |
| 2007/5/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:46727 Activity:high 77%like:46720 |
5/22 We're in trouble:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=329
The full report shows how many registered Republicans think Al Qaeda
is just fine.
\_ Go Bush Go!
\_ ???
\_ Is that a cheer or a command?
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/ir1
ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS!
\_ I find both of these responses bizarre, as well as the altering
of the text of the op. A poll that shows that 5% of American
muslims think Al Qaeda is A-OK, and 27% decline to answer isn't
troubling? Or is worth belittling? And this was a PEW research
poll, not Fox News. -emarkp
\_ 5% is essentially zero in a poll like that.
\_ Did you miss the 27% decline to state? That suggests it's
higher than 5%. Furthermore, native-born muslims are more
likely to support AQ, with black native-born muslims the
most likely. -emarkp
\_ On what data are you basing the assumption that
"decline to state" == support?
\_ Why would you decline to state that you're opposed to
Al Qaeda? Part of it may be the "never criticise a
muslim" but what would Mohammad Atta have said?
-emarkp
\_ I dunno, if I was part of a feared and hated
minority and some pollster called me up in the
middle of the night to interrogate me about
Al Qaido, I might not answer either. Just
a guess, but I don't think "decline to state"
can be assumed to be support.
\_ How often do pollsters call you in the middle
of the night?
\_ The overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in the
United States in the last thirty years have been by
Christian terrorist groups. You are worried about the
wrong group of extremists. But you probably think that
abortion bombings, like running over cylists, is appropriate.
\_ Hi anonymous troll! You're wrong about me (I've never
thought abortion bombings or killing abortion doctors was
appropriate, and I have only thought "running over cyclists"
is appropriate when they're surrounding and/or assaulting
\_ So wait, you'd run over an otherwise peaceful
group of bikers for simply surrounding your car?
I'm not so sure I'd even run over bikers for
assaulting my car! There's a large asymmetry
in power if I'm in a car and they're on bikes!
Do you think it's appropriate to kick babies who
are trying to bite your ankles? Bikers who
assault your car are assaulting your car.
Assaulting a biker *with* your car is to risk
causing bodily injury to the biker. Is
a possible increase in your car insurance and
$500 in deductable a justifiable cause for
injuring someone? I would NOT want that on
my conscience. Further, I'm an athiest--
I'm surprised your Mormon conscience allows you
to calculate the moral problem the way you do!
^ see below, he
doesn't just mean
"surrounding" alone.
your vehicle). And I think you're insane to think we face
the same risk today from "Christian terrorist groups" as we
do from Al Qaeda. -emarkp
\_ I recently was at a planned parenthood clinic.
Considering the amount of security they had there I
suspect that the people who work there take Christian
terrorist groups very seriously indeed.
Considering the amount of security they had I suspect
that the people who work there take Christian terrorist
groups very seriously indeed.
\_ So wait, you'd run over an otherwise peaceful
group of bikers for simply surrounding your car?
\_ No. -emarkp
\_ But if you happen to be behind a group of them
that isn't doing anything at all do you other
than making you go slower than you want to,
it's OK to run into them intentionally. Or
so emarkp says. -tom
\_ Nope. If they're agressively stopping traffic,
and a driver is in fear of assault, then they
should expect to be hit. Babble your nonsense
if you must tom, but don't put words in my
mouth. -emarkp
\_ you endorsed the videotaped actions of a
driver who was not in any danger of assault.
Or at least, wasn't in any danger until
he intentionally ran into a bicyclist. -tom
\_ That was your read of the video. I
disagreed with your interpretation.
-emarkp
\_ LA LA LA LA LA! THEY WELCOMED US AS
LIBERATORS! THEY GAVE US THE UNIVERSAL
SIGN OF APPROVAL, THE THUMBS-UP!
THE GOLDEN TABLETS DISAPPEARED! LA
LA LA LA LA LA!
\_ Okay, you think I am insane, I can live with that. If
you take out the WTC 9/11 fatalities, which was a one
time lucky strike, imo, more people have been actually
killed in this country by Christian terrorists than
by Al Qaeda. And the number killed by both is so
small as to be insignificant. We should focus our
time, money and attention on real threats, not bogeymen
invented by politicians to scare us into giving them
our hard earned tax dollars.
\_ If you saw a poll with the same numbers of Christians
approving of terrorist groups, would you be concerned?
Oh, and speaking of 9/11 did you note the low numbers
of muslims believing that 9/11 was committed by
muslims? -emarkp
\_ What percent of Christians approve of abortion
clinic bombings? I am sure it is more than 5%.
Yes, I did see the 9/11 numbers and that was
more disturbing to me than the ones that concern
you.
\_ You have a poll to back that up or are you just
pulling those numbers out of the air?
Considering the juvenile understanding of
religion on motd, I'm not surprised at your
belief. -emarkp
_/
Googling finds me:
""All of the 1985 surveys show condemnation of
abortion clinic bombings. In the Harris poll,
81 percent think that such bombings amount
to terrorism; 83 percent say that such violence
"is not the American way"; and 71 percent
say the attacks "are probably being conducted
by fanatics"; 56 percent do not believe
that the damage to abortion clinics "is
minor compared with the fetuses whose lives
are taken in abortion clinics."
Eighty-two percent in the CBS News-
thing as terrorism." Only 14 percent believe
that "there are a lot of other crimes that are
just as serious," and just five percent think
that the bombings "should be treated as a
forceful kind of political protest" if no one is
killed or injured.
Eighty-eight percent in the ABC News
poll think the clinic attacks are "criminal
acts"; only 12 percent classlfy them as "civil
disobedience."
In the Gallup survey, 95 percent feel that
bombing clinics hurts the antiabortion cause;
91 percent believe the same about "destroying
files and causing other nonviolent disruptions
at abortion clinics"; but only 54percent
feel the same way about "personally confronting
and lecturing pregnant women entering
abortion clinics" (19 percent, however, have no opinion)."
(Source: Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 17, No. 2.
""All of the 1985 surveys show condemnation of abortion clinic
bombings. In the Harris poll, 81 percent think that such bombings
amount to terrorism; 83 percent say that such violence "is not the
American way"; and 71 percent say the attacks "are probably being
conducted by fanatics"; 56 percent do not believe that the damage to
abortion clinics "is minor compared with the fetuses whose lives are
taken in abortion clinics." Eighty-two percent in the CBS News- thing
as terrorism." Only 14 percent believe that "there are a lot of other
crimes that are just as serious," and just five percent think that the
bombings "should be treated as a forceful kind of political protest" if
no one is killed or injured.
Eighty-eight percent in the ABC News poll think the clinic attacks are
"criminal acts"; only 12 percent classlfy them as "civil disobedience."
In the Gallup survey, 95 percent feel that bombing clinics hurts the
antiabortion cause; 91 percent believe the same about "destroying files
and causing other nonviolent disruptions at abortion clinics"; but only
54percent feel the same way about "personally confronting and lecturing
pregnant women entering abortion clinics" (19 percent, however, have no
opinion)." (Source: Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 17, No. 2.
(Mar. - Apr., 1985), pp. 76-78.)"
So it actually looks like 12-15 percent support abortion clinic
So it actually looks like 5-15 percent support abortion clinic
bombings, or at least do not consider them "terrorism" and another
19 percent have no opinion. You are worried about the wrong extremists
if you are really concerned about making America safer and not just
pushing a misguided GWoT agenda.
\_ Oh, a poll from 20 years ago. Well, that settles it. -emarkp
\_ Do you have more recent information? The ball is in your
court here to prove that American opinions have significantly
changed since then. And that was more than one poll, it
was at least three.
\_ No, sorry. We discussed this back in the 80's, and hashed it
out. It's your job to show the danger in the here and now.
Go back to your cage. -emarkp |
| 2007/5/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:46661 Activity:nil |
5/16 Abortion wasn't a big issue for the Christian right until long after
Roe:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michelle_goldberg/2007/05/falwells_folly.html |
| 2007/5/15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:46643 Activity:nil |
5/15 Pros and cons of various Republican presidential candidates
http://mcsweeneys.net/2007/5/2moe.html |
| 2007/5/3-7 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46524 Activity:moderate |
5/3 Anyone watch the Republican debate? Only Ron Paul sounds like a real
conservative (besides the debatable abortion stuff). The rest just
toe the standard R line. I never heard of him before. He seems like
one of the few who actually stands by clear principles, even if I
don't agree with them all.
\_ It's interesting that he hasn't gotten anywhere near as much\
attention as Kucinich for being the only other guy running who
\_ It's interesting that he hasn't gotten anywhere near as much
attention as Kucinich for being the only other guy running who
voted against the Iraq war, against the Patriot Act, and against
suspension of habeus corpus. I'm actually planning to register
as a republican for the first and last time in my life to vote
for Paul in the primary, just to send a message to the fucks
who run both parties that it's time for both of them to start
running pro-freedom candidates.
\_ Not terribly interesting. Kucinich = far left. RP = Republican.
\_ http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2072835,00.html
\_ Does not mention RP. I agree the others didn't look so hot,
especially McCain, although Giuliani was bland enough.
especially McCain. Brownback, Giuliani, and Huckabee were bland
enough. I thought it was funny when one of them stumbled all
over himself to pander to the Jews ("by the way a threat to
Israel's existence is a threat to the existence of the US!")
\_ Because we know "The Jews" are all evil clones who all have
the exact same beliefs. But I'm sure it's ok for you to say
that because you "have a Jewish friend".
\_ What? ok replace it with "Jews"
\_ That's not pandering to Jews, that's pandering to Christian
righties.
\_ I didn't watch it (is it on youtube or something?) but I thought
this littlegreenfootballs poll of who won was interesting.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-poll.php
(You may need to use the pull down menu to get the right poll.)
\_ I don't know about youtube but you can watch it at msnbc.
(Have to wade through the mess to find the links... I watched
it in three pieces.) Interestingly I saw a poll on I think
msnbc that had Ron Paul leading.
\_ "Gosh, I love America." --Mitt Reagan^H^H^H^H^H^HRomney
\_ yep this guy came off like a total douchebag
\_ Not as much as Chris Matthews. What a moron. |
| 2007/4/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:46356 Activity:nil |
4/18 USSC upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Law:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6569007.stm
\_ Yeah, and with a horrific procedure like this, the decision was 5-4
\_ I guess it's a victory for the pro-hurt Women side. This
procedure, "horrific as it may be" is used to protect the
mother's life and health. Outlawing saves not a single fetus
but endangers the life of the women who have it.
\_ That's a ridiculous argument. How can this procedure help
protect a mother's life? Or her health?
\_ Your comment is stupid enough to not deserve an answer,
but I'll feed the troll. If a pregnancy is endangering
a womans life or health, and medical induction (read RU486,
etc) is counter-indicated, intact d&e is the best way to
avoid abdominal surgery (always dangerous), the risks of
sepsis and hemmorhage from nonintact d&e.
\_ The partial birth process induces labor, then before the
head leaves the birth canal, the brain is sucked out of
the baby. How does giving birth protect the woman's
health from...giving birth?
\_ You are clearly too short for this discussion.
\_ Read Ginsburg's dissent. Removing the fetus intact,
instead of in pieces, protects the life of the mother
by a) reducing the number of times surgical
instruments are inserted and b) reduces the amount
of fetal tissue left behind in the womb which can
cause complications. Medical science doesn't rate
procedures on how "icky" they are, but in how
effective they are.
\_ Since when has this administration ever paid
any attention to science?
\_ Think this'll have a role in the 2008 election"? --psb
\_ Think this'll have a role in the 2008 election"?
I dont imagine OCONNOR will make a another statement
from the sidelines, but it would be awesome if she said
more. This isnt quite right, but ALTIO like ALBERTO is
probably going to be a hack. |
| 2007/4/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:46355 Activity:nil |
4/18 Legal eagles, can someone explain this. Today's partial-birth abortion
ban law states:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html
(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,
knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human
fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2
years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth
abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life
is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical
injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or
arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day
after the date of enactment of this chapter.
** BUT Ginsburg's dissent clearly states: **
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/05-380_All.pdf
in Casey, between previability
and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since
Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception
safeguarding a woman
** Can someone explain the Ginsburg interpretation? It looks like the
law DOES have an exception yet she plainly states it does not **
\_ There is no such thing as 'partial birth abortion'. bleah
\_ I'm just using the term as quoted in the law.
\_ There is a difference between "life" and "health".
\_ The law provides for threats to the *life* of the mother, but not
the mother's *health*:
"This subsection does not apply to a
partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life
of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical
disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including
a life-endangering physical condition caused by or
arising from the pregnancy itself."
In other words, as long as the mother can live, even in a life-
supported coma, without resort to Intact D/E, Intact D/E is illegal.
\_ Thx I didn't notice that |
| 2007/3/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Health/Women] UID:46080 Activity:nil |
3/23 http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/23/texas.abortion.reut Texas lawmaker offers choice: Abortion or $500. God Bless America. |
| 2007/2/1-6 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Recreation/Dating] UID:45638 Activity:nil |
2/1 Watermelons:
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/433/mamagoesbustli3.jpg
\_ This jpg contains some pictures and a news story about some
poor unfortunate woman whose boobs grew like mad during
her pregnancy.
\_ Uh, it's from The Globe. Don't believe everything you read.
\_ I found a clip from the old Montel Williams show about it
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qAzx7dAFuJc |
| 2006/10/31-11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45062 Activity:nil |
10/31 "Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part
of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in
federal money that will be available to the states under revised
federal grant guidelines for 2007."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-30-abstinence-message_x.htm
Goddamn tax-and-spend liberals, always spending money on utopian
social...err, oh.
\_ Well, the government provided subsidised loans for me to be in
Berkeley studying science for four years, which clearly furthered
the abstinence-only agenda--and that was during the Clinton
administration.
\_ As a conservative I no more approve of this than the billions of
dollars of liberal waste in the yearly budget.
\_ There already is a program for astinence for young adults: it\
s called marriage after the first 10 years or second kid.
\_ There already is a program for astinence for young adults: its
called marriage after the first 10 years or second kid.
\_ Abstinence before age 29 isn't the kind of utopia I want to live in. |
| 2006/10/30-31 [ERROR, uid:45036, category id '18005#4.3125' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45036 Activity:nil |
10/30 Does anyone have a list of the contested seats in the house? I'd like
to track the polls in those districts.
\_ http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/U.S._House_election,_2006
It shouldn't be too hard to extract a list from here. |
| 2006/10/26-30 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:45002 Activity:moderate |
10/26 "If Hitler hadn't turned against their beloved Stalin, liberals would
have stuck by him, too." --Ann Coulter
OMGWTFBBQ!
\_ Just out of morbid curiousity, what's the theory behind "liberals
liked Hitler"?
\_ Not that you should ever take Coulter seriously... but her
liberal baiting crowd usually claim that liberals
would have sided with Stalin. This Hitler thing
sounds new. Maybe she's still ironing it out in the
draft of an upcoming book.
\_ Nazism is short for National Socialism. Everyone knows that
the liberals would like to deploy national cradle to the grave,
the liberals would like to deploy federal cradle to the grave,
let the welfare state take care of me and insulate me from the
invisible hand style socialist policies. This means Liberals
must like national socialism. Since Hitler was a proponent of
national socialism, Liberals like Hitler.
invisible hand style socialist policies. This means that if
the liberals took control, we would have socialism nationally.
Socialism national, is the same as National Socialism, when
Socialism nationally, is the same as National Socialism, when
you turn the words around. Thus Liberals like National Socialism.
Since Hilter was a proponent of National Socialism, and Liberals
like National Socialism, Liberals like Hitler.
Since Hilter liked National Socialism, and Liberals like National
Socialism, Liberals like Hitler.
\_ Yes, and the People's Democratic Republic of Korea is run
by the Democrats, too. And the Republicans, I guess.
by the Democrats. And the Republicans too, I guess.
\_ That's Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Thanks for
playing.
\_ Why the heck do communist countries always have
"democratic" or "republic" (or both) in the name,
anyway?
\_ I am telling you, it's the Judean People's Front.
\_ I am telling you, we're the Judean People's Front.
\_ Instant legitimacy. Since "republic" and "democratic"
imply election by and support of the populace,
any efforts made against the Party thus become
efforts against "the people." It's the 20th century
equivalent of Divine Right of Kings. The fascinating
thing is watching the PRC straddling the line
between the 20th and pre-20th centuries through
the "republic" wording and PR stories that obviously
reference the Mandate of Heaven (i.e., all goals met,
crops abundant, weather mild, etc.). --erikred
\_ "Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?"
"Fuck you! We are the People's Front of Judea."
\_ I agree is completely STUPID, but that is the rationale
I have heard. I'm also told that some democrats wanted
to stay out of WW2, but I've never seen any facts to
back that up.
\_ Uh? There was a large isolationist movement. If you
looked for facts you'd find them. It was no secret.
\_ The isolationist movement was largely Republican.
\_ Stupidity's unfortunately no legal grounds for retroactive
abortion. -John |
| 2006/7/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Health/Women] UID:43756 Activity:nil |
7/21 http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakeadoption.htm Christian adoption site supports baby on baby action? (Check out the picture on the front page.) \_ while already-born children go unadopted. nice. \_ Well, it kind of makes sense. It's about as anti-abortion as you can get short of live-birthing someone else's aborted fetus. \_ As I understand it, it's very hard to adopt a baby, demand far outstrips supply. It is easy to adopt older children, but most people don't want to do that. I wouldn't be surprised if this organization supported older child adoption as well, they almost certainly aren't against it, but it seems pretty reasonable to respond to demand with supply to me. \_ Sure, but in this case the supply of widgets that we're talking about are children who aren't being adopted. These are essentially "unwanted" children. So, isn't it better to solve the unwanted children problem with abortion? \_ As I just pointed out, adpoting babies is hard. If people know they don't want a baby when it's a baby (or in utero), finding someone to adopt it is pretty easy. (Assuming the baby is healthy). Since retroactive abortion is currently illegal, abortion does not solve the our current problems with unwanted children, who are older. Of course, part of the reason adoption is hard now is because abortion has cut off much of the supply. \_ It's even harder than that. Many court decisions have given the birth parents the right to "take back" parenting rights even years after the adoption goes through. \_ Yeah, does anyone think that's a good idea? |
| 2006/5/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, ERROR, uid:43213, category id '18005#8.5825' has no name! , ] UID:43213 Activity:nil |
5/28 National Review lists top 50 conservative rock songs:
http://tinyurl.com/j8zpg
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/music/features/article620213.ece
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/top-fifty-conservative-rock-songs.html
http://blogs.philly.com/blinq/2006/05/right_rock.html - danh |
| 2006/3/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:42387 Activity:moderate |
3/22 I'm a foreigner and new to the concept of the legislative branch.
If both the executive and the congress are controlled by
pro-Life Republicans, why don't the congress & Bush pass an
anti-abortion law? Why do you guys need the judiciary branch to
interpret what is legal and what is not when the other 2 branches
can create the law?
\_ The Constitution places limits on the power of Congress and the
executive branch; the Supreme Court's job is to enforce those
limits by striking down legislation which is unconstitutional. -tom
\_ this is the most interesting part of US government. There is
one branch of government which is not exactly democratic and
provide a check and balance for those who are in the minority
group. I don't think other government put this much power to
a handful of judges like the way US does.
\_ not being democratic ensures that one branch can
do what is right as opposed to what is popular.
\_ that is why when I said "not exactly democratic," I meant
in a good way.
\_ huh? every branch of the government has its checks and
balances. in the case of the judicial branch, the
president nominates the judges and senate has to confirm
\_ And judges can be impeached, as well.
\_ my point is that once they are confirmed, they are
there for life, and they can do things that are
right but unpopular. If all 3 branches are
elected, they may all be susceptible to the
current popular opinion, which may not always
be what is right. In that sense, the judicial
branch is a good check on susceptibility to
the current popular opinion.
\_ Canada has a judicial branch that has pretty much the same
powers (as I understand it) but they are appointed
unilaterally by the Prime Minister.
\_ I wouldn't exactly call it "undemocratic." Congress can
always amend the constitution, which overrules the judges.
We all agreed (3/4?) on the constitution when we became
states, overrulling a 3/4 majority with a 1/2 majority isn't
very democratic either.
\_ Actually, this is true, it is possible for Congress to pass
legislation that will essentially overturn Roe
v. Wade. Whether that law will withstand a Constitutional
Challenge is questionable. The reasoning behind Roe v. Wade
is actually rather flawed (at least according to many law
pundits) and is based on the rather flimsy (at least in my
opinion) "right to privacy." The Court itself refused to
delve into when "life" begins and the dissenting opinion by
Rheinquist shows that the debate is hardly resolved. Roe
v. Wade has a good chance of being overturned with the
recent SD legislation. I'm quite sure that the reason why
the right wing government has avoided pushing for
anti-abortion legislation is because it will no doubt
polarize the nation even further and may result in the
party losing many seats. Abortion is one of those things
that most politicians really don't want to deal with in
reality because it is so controversial.
\_ Check your assumptions. While there are aspects of Roe v.
Wade that suffer from flimsy reasoning, the right to privacy
is well understood and established. It's true that some
pundits with very specific and narrow agendas make a lot of
noise in an effort to raise doubts about the existence of the
right to privacy, but the vast majority of case law in the last
thirty years upholds and supports the right to privacy. I am
not aware of any practicing lawyer that would actually try to
argue a case on the basis that there is no such thing as a right
to privacy. -dans
\- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_case you may also wish to
read THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, esp say #51. BTW, there are sort of
two isues involved, one if the separation of powers/checks and
balances and the constitution, the second is that of federalism.
for example the congress doesnt get involved in say laws about
shoplifting. that is left to the states. --publius
\_ Underlying all of the above is the concept that our Founders did
not trust government so they went out of their way to create just
enough government to keep things going but put in enough road
blocks and snags to keep it from growing out of control. They
made it to the 1940s. Not too shabby for a bunch of old dead
rich white guys in powdered wigs.
\_ s/1940s/1860s/ |
| 2006/3/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:42382 Activity:moderate |
3/22 Say given the ridiculous hypothetical situation where you're the
advisor of the President of the United States. Say the president
would do one thing, and just one thing you suggest. What
would you suggest? Allocate money for alternative fuel research?
Pull out of Iraq War? Abortion rights? Better interstate mass
transportation?
\_ Resign.
\_ Suicide?
\_ yes! I vote for this. via drinking himself to death
\_ Serve the public good.
\_ Work to eliminate the deficit/debt, no matter how much it hurts.
\_ Convert to Islam.
\_ Yeah, wow. Think of how much his policies would change! Wait..
hmm.
\_ Unite America, with the first task being having transparency
into the Iraq decision, which starts with clearly admitting error
and an investigation into how cherry-picking the intelligence led
him to that decision.
\_ Allocate $1.17 billion to myself for my consulting fee.
\_ I'd legalize everything I believe in. Legalized marijuana,
gay marriage, and abortion rights.
\_ About the marijuana thing. Would you also legalize other drugs?
Heroin or cocaine? How about oxycontin etc.? Would marijuana be
regulated and if so how? How about prescription drugs in general;
should people have the right to get them if they choose, without
a prescription? Why or why not?
\_ All legal, with the only regulation being honest and clear
labels with accurate statement of contents. Selling
LSD cut with rat poison or speed, and with no labels
denoting how it was cut would be illegal.
\_ Marijuana, peyote, mescaline, LSD, Ecstasy, and other
hallucinogenics to be regulated the same as alcohol and
tobacco; heroin, cocaine, and meth to remain illegal; oxy
and other potentially habit-forming prescription drugs to
remain under prescription. --erikred, !pp
\_ why?
\_ Why which?
\_ Send ilyas back to Russia.
\_ Nuke Switzerland.
\_ Give jblack a Medal of Freedom.
\_ Deport williamc to canada for being such a whiner.
\_ Let amckee be the new POTUS.
\_ Send John to live in a monastery to cure him of his expensive tastes.
\_ HAHA this is the BEST entry of all. You win the contest.
\_ I'll go if they have nice sheets and breakfast until 11. -John
\_ i'll hypothetical YOUR situation
\_ Call liberals what they are - the same people who you want out
of your bedroom, but you trust controlling your guns. |
| 2006/3/12 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:42196 Activity:high 80%like:42200 |
3/11 Americans full of contradictions, and as stupid as ever:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060312/ap_on_re_us/abortion_views
\_ Stupid? Why? Because a bunch of them don't share your black/white
views on a very complex and highly charged topic? If only the
world was really as simple as you see it....
\_ The OP is not alone. http://www.slate.com/id/2137775 |
| 2006/2/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Reference/Religion] UID:42001 Activity:high |
2/24 S.D. legislature passes near total abortion ban - no exception for
rape or incest.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/abortion_rights_debate
\_ Which is consistent at least. If you believe abortion is killing a
human life, why should those be exceptions?
\_ The so-called Christians who are behind this are usually
also strongly in favor of the death penalty, so no, they don't
even get to claim consistency.
\_ Your knee is jerking. There is a difference between innocent
life and a person condemned for a capital crime.
\_ I guess Pope John Paul II must have been another misled
knee-jerk athiest who just needed a patronizing talking-to
by one of the motd's asshole rightwingers. Too bad you
missed your chance.
\_ LOL. good one.
\_ Actually, if you follow fundamentalist Christian
doctrine, there isn't. What matters is that you accept
Jesus into your heart. If you sin on earth, God (or the
devil) will punish you. It's not man's place to mete out
punishment. At least, that's what the Christers believe.
-dans
\_ sorry my friend, but that's not the case. christians
have always recognized the necessity for earthly
authorities to mete out justice. we do have a
responsibility to ensure that it is just.
- socialist christian.
\_ I have a hard time understanding how you can be a
socialist and a *fundamentalist* christian. The two
seem likely grossly incompatible philosophies. -dans
\_ what do you mean by fundamentalist christian?
and how would that be incompatible with being
a socialist?
\_ Fundamentalist Christian: an individual who
believes that G-d spoke directly to the
authors of the bible, i.e. old and new
testaments, who then transcribed His without
alteration. Consequently, Fundamentalists
believe in the literal truth of the bible, and
that it is not subject to *any* interpretation.
As jrleek suggested, Jack Chick would fit this
definition. This gives rise to contradictory
and patently absurd ideas. For example,
their are passages in the Bible that state
that hearing the voice of G-d would destroy
the frail form of any human who hears it.
Similarly, Fundamentalist Christians believe
the earth is only 3000 (5000?) years old,
which flies in the face of the geological and
fossil record, i.e. dinosaur bones were put in
the earth by G-d to test our faith. Socialism
simply is not compatible with this literal
interpretation. Clearly, Mormons do not fit
this definition since they believe in the Book
of Mormon. One might posit Fundamentalist
Mormons who believe the literal truth of
all three books, but I have not ever heard
of someone who follows such a belief. -dans
\_ There are so many things about this post
that are stupid, and I wouldn't even know
where to begin pointing it out. Since
you've acutally chosen to sign your name
to your idiocy, I'll just let it stand.
\_ I take it by your lack of a counter
argument and swift resort to ad hominem
attack that you find my post offensive,
but correct. And you are correct, Many
things that Fundamentalist Christians
believe are stupid. -dans
\_ My friend, according to the Bible, the
early Christians do not own any possessions
and shared everything they had. You may
also be aware of the Bible, both the Old and
New Testaments, teaching us to take care
of the widows and the orphans, to help
the poor and the aliens, to forgive the
debts of others, and so on. There are
also mentions of not worrying about
accumulating earthly wealth, being rich
making it difficult to get into heaven,
trusting in the Lord to provide your
daily needs on a day to day basis (eg.
mannah while in the wilderness), etc.
There are also things like bringing the
Israelites out of slavery in Egypt,
Jesus admonishing the corrupted religious
leaders (Pharisees, etc.), Jesus including
all in his salvation, bringing the gospel
to the samaritans, greeks, romans,
ethiopians, eunuchs, slaves, peoples to
the end of the earth, all to be included
in his church as one, as brothers and
sisters.
\_ My friend, the bible also teaches that
you should be honest in your dealings.
If you believe in its teachings, why do
you argue in bad faith by presenting such
a one-sided, saccharine sweet description
of exclusively noble teachings from the
bible? Afterall, lies of omission are
still lies. What about the myriad of
truly atrocious practices that the bible
explicitly permits when read literally?
Nice fluffy things like owning slaves
and stonings in the public market place?
Treating the bible literally means you
don't get to pick and choose which
testament and teachings you do or don't
follow. As a lark, why don't you attend
the next local IWW meeting and suggest
that owning slaves would really advance
the cause of socialism, see how that goes
over and report back to us. -dans
\_ I think the problem is your narrow definition
of fundamentalist christian. You seem to
think it means "Jack Chick" -jrleek
\_ Google "liberation theology."
\_ Actually that's the fun part. The law declares life begins at
fertilization. So if you see a pregnant woman drinking, smoking,
taking drugs or engaging in behavior that may endanger the
pregnancy, can she be arrested for child endangerment? If she
she miscarriages, is that manslaughter? Fun, happy thoughts.
\_ Why stop there? Eating fatty foods, not taking enough niacin.
\_ No. See Section 4, the act explicitly exempts the mother
from liability.
\_ OK, but doesn't Roe v. Wade make abortions legal and doesn't that
have precedence? (I don't know the details of law-making, which
is why I'm asking.)
\_ Roe v. Wade was a crappy decision based on crappy law making
from the bench. If anyone was serious about making abortion
truly legal someone would've made a constitutional amendment
regarding everyone's right to their own body, medical info, etc.
\_ $20 says you weren't even born when Roe v. Wade was decided.
Your vast leaps of logic would be amusing if they didn't give
of such a stink. -dans
\_ Get your $20 out.
\_ Sign your posts. So you attended Cal before 1991? Not
many folks that old on the motd. -dans
\_ Roe is no longer controlling on abortion. It has been largely
superceded by Casey, 505 US 833 (1992). Under Casey one looks
at whether the regulation is pre or post viability to determine
constitutionality.
1. If the regulation is pre-viability, then it is only invalid
if it imposes an "undue burden" (ie it is not possible to
get an abortion.)
2. If the regulation is post-viability, then it is only invalid
if it does not contain a health exception. ("Subsequent to
viablity, the State [may] ... proscribe abortion except where
it is necessary ... for the preservation of the life or health
of the woman." - which is basically the same as in Roe, but
note that this does not explicitly require the state to make
an exception for rape or incest.)
of the woman." - which is basically the same as in Roe)
SD has done something very interesting. Section 4 contains the
health exception, as required under Casey. Section 1 attempts
to get into Casey prong 2 by defining post-viability as starting
at the moment of conception. It is unlikely that this definition
will be accepted b/c Casey strongly suggests that viability can
be advanced to a "point somewhat earlier" than the 24 weeks in
Roe. The earliest that even this ct is probably willing to go is
16 weeks (20 weeks from Webster - generally accepted 4 week error
re date of conception).
The SD Legislature seems to expect this as shown by the sever-
ability provision in Section 10 and the reinstatement provision
in Section 11.
[ Yes I know that Alito dissented in Casey, but it was based on
the sufficiency of the challenger's evid re undue burden not
on the underlying law, therefore I doubt that he would vote
to reverse ]
16 weeks (20 weeks from Webster - 4 week error). [ Yes I know
that Alito dissented in Casey, but it was largely based on the
sufficiency of the challenger's evid re undue burden not on the
underlying law ] |
| 2006/2/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:41819 Activity:nil |
2/13 Abortion could make Australia a Muslim nation
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/02/13/1139679540920.html
\_ And yet their immigration policy remains ridiculously
restrictive.
\_ You forgot "...according to an evangelical crackpot." -tom
\_ And the MP for the southern Sydney seat of Hughes.
\_ Pauline Hansen was elected to Australian parliament. -John
\_ Oh, where does it say "evangelical crackpot"? Or is that just
from your personal crystal ball?
\_ "Danna Vale became a juvenile justice lawyer after raising
her four children and joined the Liberal Party when John
Hewson lost the unloseable election in 1993. She urged two
local men to stand for Hughes, then considered a safe Labor
seat. They refused, and she says she woke up one morning
convinced that God wanted her to stand."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/21/1069027321297.html
\_ You're confusing between "religious" and "evangelical
crackpot".
\_ Hey, if the shoe fits....
\_ You also forgot, "And a wacky imam." |
| 2006/2/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:41643 Activity:nil |
2/1 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060201/ap_on_re_us/wal_mart_contraception Wal-Mart doesn't carry morning after pills in most of the states except Illinois where it is required by law. Go Republicans!!! \_ Wal-mart != R. Just ask Hillary Clinton. |
| 2006/1/31-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:41623 Activity:low |
1/31 Legislators in five states introduce sweeping anti-abortion legislation
http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20060131-090347-1251r.htm
\_ Reference other than moonies? They say "proposing," not
"introduced." -tom
\_ Is the UPI moonie-ville as well?
\_ yes. -tom
\_ could you post a list of "Tom Approved News Sources"?
\_ How about, most things not owned by the Moonies?
The Georgia legislation, for example, is that
you have to look at an ultrasound before you get
an abortion. -tom
\_ Isn't it kind of moot anyway? I thought Georgia
was one of those states that only has like one
functioning abortion clinic.
\_ You're thinking South Dakota and Mississippi.
Georgia has Atlanta for a liberal influence. |
| 2006/1/31-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41619 Activity:kinda low |
1/31 Can someone please explain to a dumb oblivious foreigner like me
the 411 on why Alito is bad for the nation? -dumb foreigner
\_ Most importantly, because he doesn't seem to believe it's his role
to provide an actual check on executive (i.e. presidential) power.
\_ Because he's a solid conservative vote replacing a swing voter in
a lifetime appointment post. Ideally the court would be 9 swing
voters, but having it be a majority party-line-voters without any
swings is bad for the nation.
\_ So does this mean you were also against the nominations of
Ginsburg or Breyer since they were also not swing-voters?
\_ He doesn't believe in women's reproductive rights; he has expressed
racist and bigoted views in the past; he doesn't believe in the rights'
of individuals (vs. the govt).
racist and bigoted views in the past; he doesn't believe in the
rights' of individuals (vs. the govt).
\_ Note how the above posts say nothing about the constitution.
\_ Note how the above post begs the question: if individual
rights and the balance of powers have nothing to do with
the constitution, then what does?
\_ 1) It's "raises" the question.
2) Interpreting the constitution according to how it is
written (and prior rulings) strikes down laws that the
legislative and executive branches enact if they
violate the constitution. That's not a check?
\_ He has lied to congress in the past under oath in order to get
a federal judgeship, and has admitted he did it because otherwise
he would not have gotten confirmed. Does that sound like someone
fit to be the highest judge in the nation?
\_ Cite?
\_ he said in a job app that he interprets the Constitution to mean
a right to abortion isn't covered. when questioned about this, he
said, that was his personal opinion, but not his legal
interpretation of the Constitution.
no, it was his opinion AND his legal interpretation -- it's clear
as day in his job app. he lies in your face. someone who lies
in your face should not be a supreme court justice.
\_ (not pp) an E'ist article mentioned something about him
putting all his money in a Vanguard fund and stating that
he would declare it if he were ever confronted with a
case involving Vanguard, but forgetting to do so (then
informing after the fact.) According to the article, there
was no effect on the case. -John
\_ Did it say which case? There was at least one case where
his decision was vacated.
\_ http://www.factcheck.org/article367.html
Monga v. Offenberg: Alito was part of a unanimous 3-judge
rule in favor of Vanguard. Alito also requested the case
be reheard by a new panel, who also ruled in favor of
Vanguard unanimously. At that time, Alito owned several
hundred K of Vanguard funds, but he said the funds were
not an issue in the case and no conflict of interest.
Johnston v. Smith Barney: Smith Barney was Alito's stock
brokerage, but he had no financial interest in Smith Barney.
Sister's law firm: no one really knows, and there's no record.
\_ Of Alito, a Democratic staffer said, "It became clear to us
early on that the guy may be way too far right for our tastes,
but we think the guy is a man of honor."
http://tinyurl.com/b5fyr [nyt]
\_ If the above stories are what pp is talking about, this is
about the most disingenuous statment I've read so far this
year. We need some sort of motd award for this kind of
thing.
\_ He said under federal oath "I will not do x." When
the chance to do x happened, he did x. It doesn't matter
if it was a cut and dry case. He presided on the case,
after saying, once again UNDER OATH, that he wouldn't ever
preside on a case concerning Vanguard.
\_ Keep working on those Vanguard issues. Privately,
Democrats are blaming the emphasis on Vanguard and
other canards for their poor showing in Alito's
nomination. http://tinyurl.com/b5fyr [nyt] |
| 2006/1/31-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41610 Activity:moderate |
1/27 Justice Stevens is 86. Oh Fuck.
\_ Don't worry, once #$%^ hits the fan, people will start voting
Democratic again. Right now, people are just complacent.
\_ Ah yes, the D party isn't corrupt and incompetent
like the R party. And only the D party cares about the
environment, welfare, healthcare, minorities, and things
that matter to the people. D=good, R=bad, and spread the
word. I got your message. Thanks.
\_ Shit hits the fan everyday. We're not living in special times.
Yesterday is like today is like tomorrow.
\_ Yeah it sucks. He has to hang in there and we can't have another
whacko Repub Prez next term. If he resigns or dies it's going to
be an unpleasant 25-30 years. For the President it's good news,
just as we are facing the end of the empire, financial collapse
and a severe energy crisis the Supreme court will be all set to
give him all the power he wants.
\- justice stevens is suppose to be in pretty good health.
he's become by favorite justice. i think nobody talks about
hime being a super genius or anything but i think from his
long tenure he brings a lot of wisdom to his practical
decisions.
\_ People who agree with us a lot are always wise. BTW, how
did Stevens vote on Kelo?
\- you know STEVENS wrote the KELO opinion, right?
you know also he after the fact said that he thought
new london was likely doing the wrong thing as a
matter of legislative policy in this case but they
did have the right to do so in this case based on
his reading of established practice [this was in a
speech after the opinion came down]. similarly
STEVENS ruled congress had the power to overrule
state pro-marijuana laws eventhough he personally
though maybe they should stay out of regulating
this at the national level. --#1 STEVENS FAN
\_ I'm quite aware of who STEVENS is and what STEVENS
has done. It was a RHETORICAL question. One should
know that RHETORICAL questions, even about STEVENS
are not intended to be EXPLICITLY answered, even
if STEVENS or KELO are the topic. STEVENS wrote
a legal OPINION that the government has the right
to FUCK people out of their property and GIVE it
to some random fuck PRIVATE developer to build
GOLF courses on. Are you or STEVENS big fans of
GOLF? That was also a RHETORICAL question.
-- fuck STEVENS and his FANS
\_ USSC ruled it constitutional. The local
government made the law. Seriously, bitching
about the decision is stupid. If you want to
change it, talk to your representative. It will
take legislation to change it.
\_ Hmm, what did the USSC say about slavery?
The Constitution as originally written was
ok with it, so it must be ok!! Yay! Saying
that because the USSC ruled in a particular
way makes it right is what is stupid. Blind
allegiance to some politically appointed
body is stupid. Think for yourself.
\_ Suck it. You're complaining about Stevens
doing his JOB. I didn't say the SC ruling
makes it "right". In fact, Stevens made
exactly that point. So just fuck off.
\_ By your 'logic' we should still have
slavery and a bunch of other nastiness
and no right to abortion. "So just
fuck off"? If you can't back your
words with reason and login, then go
back to the play ground. The 6th
graders are waiting for you.
\_ You don't read too good, do ya?
The SC gives their reading of the
law. Stevens said he didn't like
what they were doing, but the law
as it stands makes it constitutional.
That doesn't mean it can't and
shouldn't be changed. You'd have a
hard time stretching Kelo to compare
to slavery. In fact, if you want
to compare Kelo to Dred Scott, it
took legislation to correct the
legally right/morally wrong decision.
And before you whine that it wasn't
"legally right", take it up with the
founders who defined the SC.
\_ Thanks for the basic civics
lesson. Care to explain how the
SC found the "right" to abortion
in the C? You can't. And when
it gets overturned who is going
to bitch loudest about it? The
SC makes up tons of shit based on
nothing. Nothing required them
to go with Kelo as they and in
fact IMNSOH their reading of the
law re: Kelo was flat out idiotic.
They made a wrong call on Kelo.
A later court is likely to do a
100% about face on this dog of
a ruling. It has certainly
happened before. Why would that
be if Constitutional interpretation
were as black and white as you
make it out to be? It isn't black
and white and your falling back on
"Well the SC said so, so it must
be a good ruling" is just silly.
At least if it was a unanimous
ruling you might have a leg to
stand on with a point like that.
The SC ruled for Bush in 2000.
Was that a good ruling? It was
7:2 and 5:4 on two different
issues both in Bush's favor. All
Hail The Absolute Wisdom Of The
Supreme Court! Yay!
\_ Hint: There's a reason I
brought up SCOTT. I never
said KELO was "good".
\_ Christ.. You people and Kelo.. Get the fuck over it.
Federalists should be happy. They granted local government
the permission to make their own choices about use of ED.
If you don't like what your local gov is doing, change it.
Personally, I don't like Kelo because ED should yield a
public commodity. Being able to use it to help a private
interest secure land makes it just an easy way to lock in
an artificially low market rate. But I suspect your
argument boils down to "gubmint wants to take mah land.."
\_ Who said I was a Federalist? I think it sucks that
any two bit bribable mayor or local council can force
people from their land and give it to some private
developer. What is so wrong about being opposed to
that? Your "suspicians" are cheap personal smear at
best and not useful to a discussion on Kelo, the SC
or anything else. If you want to know what my points
boil down to, you can read them and ask for
clarification without being an ass about it.
\_ "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance"
\_ Property rights are important, but why are property
rights and gun ownership rights the only ones worth
defending? Alito will likely take them *all* away if
the executive wants it. |
| 2006/1/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41582 Activity:moderate |
1/28 Ask a Republican!
http://csua.org/u/etk (mac.com)
\_ I don't get it. Who is this guy? (The Bio doesn't really clear
it up)
\_ wow, dense aren't you. He's a comic, and pretty damn funny
\_ Yeah, I guess I am. So why does he have bits that specify
specific years and make it look like he really was some sort
of elected republican?
\_ He's a comedian who impersonates a republican elected
official answering questions in the manner of a
stereotypical republican. It's satire. -!pp
\_ hilarious. thx.
\_ uh, if you say so. Colbert Report is the same basic idea but
actually funny sometimes
\_ when you get too far out there, the unfunny that agrees
with your core beliefes becomes funny. humor is relative.
relatives are humor. :-) |
| 2006/1/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:41497 Activity:moderate |
1/24 Pictures from SF "Walk for Life" (pro-life march)
http://www.zombietime.com/walk_for_life
\_ Check out its Anatomy of a Photograph page about how the media is
biased: http://csua.org/u/er6
\_ Replace your well-composed photograph with my crappy one now!
\_ "The page is not meant to be an argument for one side or the other,
nor does it analyze the merits of either position. It is simply
an essay about what happened that day, and what people did."
Ridiculous. It's a photo-essay presented to support the photo-
grapher's viewpoint. That's fine, but pretending to be unbiased
is not.
\_ Any media which doesn't support my viewpoint is biased!
\_ I think that statement is pretty much correct. The photo
essay does not make any points pro or anti-abortion. It
just comments on the behavior of the two factions. The
commentary on that may be biased, s/he does seem to think
that many of the pro-choice crowd are jerks, but s/he never
makes any arguments about the issue of abortion.
\_ Sorry, I thought the people at the rally were the issues
being discussed. And on that, s/he's biased.
\_ Isn't that what the web site said? "It is simply an
essay about what happened that day, and what people
did".
\_ And the photos and comments he featured portray certain
groups of people as competent and others as liars.
It's fish in a barrel to take unwholesome pictures of
Pro-Choicers disrupting a rally like this.
\_ This is the same guy who claims that the entire city of San
Francisco is pro-terrorist because he saw some grafitti on the
sidewalk that he didn't like. The guy is a moron.
\_ So is every journalist I've ever met. So what?
\_ http://www.zombietime.com/eyes_wide_open
"Turns out I was right -- San Franciscans don't think
Americans are the equivalent of the terrorists. They think
Americans are worse than the terrorists."
Go ahead and read that kind of hateful trash if you want,
but I have better things to do with my time.
\_ I think instead of giving us "a variety of fresh perspectives",
the huge array of "reporting" we now have just lets everyone these
days live in an echo chamber where their beliefs are never
challenged by inconvenient facts. (emphasis on "inconvenient",
not "facts")
\_ You mean like motd?
\_ The motd is not an echo chamber. People agree, people
disagree. People post things that other people violently
disagree with.
\_ People are also apparently violent masturbators. See
below. |
| 2006/1/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41451 Activity:high |
1/20 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060120/ap_on_go_ot/republicans_rove First there was the War on Terror, and now there's a War on Unpatriotic Liberal Dissents. Go Carl Rove!!! \_ You mean Not-unpatriotic-but-pre-9/11 And Profoundly Wrong Liberals \_ "But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant party . in this case, the Democrat Party . when its thinking becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a mean to achieve the common goal...." It's a definite sign of insanity to not be able to see the irony in what you're saying. \_ Or even the circumstances in which you say something. When was the last time the D Party was dominant? '93? Sounds like Rove is living in the pre-pre-9/11 world. \_ What's with the persistent mispronunciation of the "Democratic" party as the "Democrat" party by Republicans in official and press statements? I see this so much it can't be coincidence. \_ No coincidence. The Rs excel at crafting the message, and it doesn't serve their purposes to given the Democrats even the appearance of the high ground. \_ I was going to say it is all an evil republican conspiracy to uhm some-er-other but I see the nut head brigade got here first. Thanks for killing my joke. \_ "I deeply resent the way this administration makes me feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist." Teresa Nielsen Hayden \_ Deep in the bowels of the Rovian Pit of Darkness, "What new message shall we craft that will give us the appearance of taking the high ground? Ah ha! I know! We shall always refer the minority party without their noble "ic" at the end of their name, even in official literature! Yes! Muahahaha!" Truly, this is one of the most dispicable yet subtle attacks on our civil rights we have seen up to now! What next? Will they sometimes use a lower case "D" when next they write "democrat"?! Egads! They're unstoppable! We're doooomed! \_ LOL. No, not unstoppable or even clever. Just. petty. \_ You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! Ok, the truth is no one noticed any difference or cared. Dropping the "ic" does not give or take away anything or give anyone the appearance of high ground or any other BS posted here on the topic. The whole thing is just silly. To claim it is some sort of conspiracy would be laughable if it weren't so bizarre. Can anyone explain what benefit the DemocratIC party gets from the IC or they lose when the Republicans don't use the IC? Is it like Samson's hair? \_ I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. I'm saying it's a conscious decision. And while I agree with you that Joe Q Public isn't even going to notice it, Rove and party are still doing it. That's what makes it so petty. \_ What is this big "it" they are doing? Dropping the "ic". Christ Oh Mighty! Big Fucking Deal! Of all the things going on in the world we've wasted nearly 2 screens on "ic". Totally fucking stupid. Get over it. \_ I have. The pettiness of the GOP no longer surprises or occupies my thoughts any more than your posts. \_ You are bizarre. You have yet to explain how having or not having "ic" helps or hurts anyone or is petty or anything else. Freak. \_ "We need to learn from our successes," he said, "and from the failures of others." Good god. What arrogance. I actually agree with many of the things he says about the democratic party. They're being reflexively contrary and really do seem petty and childish. On the other hand, I disagree with almost everything he says about the republicans. \_ If the D's could get the rules committee to let them hold an actual hearing, if they could get any legislative items on the agenda, if they were allowed in to the conference committees, you might have a point about reflexive contrarians. They are currently watching medicare be destroyed and a war slowly being lost, and the only outlet they have is to say "look what they're doing. get pissed about it. cuz we can't do shit unless you vote more of our team in." \_ Did you watch the Alito hearings? They seem to be a one-topic party, and that topic is abortion. \_ Abortion and his unitary executive theories. There are a number of republican senators who have gone back on promises to their constituents that they would not allow a sc justice through without pledging to protect roe on both roberts and alito. D's are actually concerned about it, as are a large majority of the population. They're not driving the discussion (another of their problems). They're just trying to get a word in. \_ It's the elephant in the room that the Rs don't want to talk about. \_ The murdered baby elephant!!!1!!11! \_ have you seen Tom Yum Goong? |
| 2005/10/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40013 Activity:nil |
10/7 Another conservative thinker hammers the Miers nomination:
http://csua.org/u/dnr
And important point he makes that I haven't seen before:
"This, say her advocates: We are now at war, and therefore the great
issue of our time is the powers of the president, under Article II, to
wage war. For four years Miers has been immersed in war-and-peace
decisions and therefore will have a deep familiarity with the tough
constitutional issues regarding detention, prisoner treatment and war
powers.
"Perhaps. We have no idea what her role in these decisions was. But to
the extent that there was any role, it becomes a liability. For years
-- crucial years in the war on terrorism -- she will have to recuse
herself from judging the constitutionality of these decisions because
she will have been a party to having made them in the first place. The
Supreme Court will be left with an absent chair on precisely the
laws-of-war issues to which she is supposed to bring so much."
\_ While Miers' nomination seems weak, it's stronger than this
argument. -tom
\_ Oh, you actually support the Miers nomination? Can you tell us
all why?
\_ Did I say that? -tom
\_ not tom: The only good thing about the nomination is that
we don't know for sure if she's as bad as Thomas/Scalia.
Would I rather have an incompetent reasonable person or
a competent frothing loony? Tough call!
\_ Thomas didn't have any more experience than Miers
when he was nominated, so he's an incompetent frothing
loony. -tom
\_ Yes I was referring more to Scalia in that sense
\_ And her supporters are trying to soothe us conservatives
by saying, "Really! She's a religious preson!" Which
makes me wonder if Bush is trying to put someone in who
will overturn Roe vs. Wade but doesn't care about
anything else. I'd rather have someone who interprets
the Constitution with an Originalist eye. -emarkp
\_ good, that means get rid of hand guns. :p
\_ Funny, I've been thinking it was the opposite. The
republicans like to talk about "protecting the
unborn" to keep their religious base mobilized, but
the political strategists are smart enough to know
that actually overturning Roe would be political
suicide. Hence the relatively moderate (at least
compared to what liberals like me feared) nominees.
\_ I view Miers as the Ham Sandwich choice, akin to
the grand jury indictment rule. The way the GOP
is these days, Bush could have nominated a ham
sandwich and gotten it in. Sure, it's cronyism.
Yes, it's the victory of the mediocre. But, really,
maybe one or two Republicans might vote against
her or perhaps abstain from voting since all the
rest will vote for her. Given 55 Republican
Senators, it's a done deal. |
| 2005/10/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:39980, category id '18005#3.2025' has no name! , ] UID:39980 Activity:nil |
10/4 Good TPMCafe post pointing out the logical fallacies in that "study"
which attempted to link high levels of religiosity with high levels
of social dysfunction:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/4/17430/4632
\_ You mean that the moron ignored his own statement that
correlation does not imply causation? |
| 2005/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39935 Activity:nil |
9/30 Ex-Education Secretary Bennett: Black Abortions Would Lower Crime:
http://csua.org/u/dkj [sfgate.com]
I guess the new edition of the Book of Virtues includes obsessive
gambling and racial profiling.
\_ "A Modest Proposal"
\_ But... it's true. I mean at a naive statistical level, and even if
you looked at the longer term implications it's true. Of course it's
reprehensible.. and he noted that.. the whole point was a commentary
on why there are some things we don't and shouldn't do to lower
crime.
\_ Yes, but it's a mental disconnect. Is abortion really related
to the crime rate, specifically black abortions? The fact that
the phrase "black abortions" appeared to have come up without
prompting demonstrates a certain mindset.
\_ Steven Levitt (U of Chicago economist, "Freakonomics" guy) wrote a
somewhat related paper (link:tinyurl.com/ae7sf called "The Impact
of Legalized Abortion on Crime" (one sentence summary: "legalized
abortion had an impact on crime"). Actually all of his stuff is
quite readable and really interesting.
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/LevittCV.html
--shithead@soda |
| 2005/9/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39681 Activity:nil |
9/14 Q: Pres. Bush, what is your opinion of Roe v. Wade?
A: I don't care how people got out of New Orleans.
\_ Damn, I was just about to post that. |
| 2005/9/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:39472 Activity:moderate |
9/3 "New Orleans now is abortion free. New Orleans now is Mardi Gras
free. New Orleans now is free of Southern Decadence and the
sodomites, the witchcraft workers, false religion -- it's free of
all of those things now," Shanks says. "God simply, I believe, in
His mercy purged all of that stuff out of there -- and now we're
going to start over again." - Rev Bill Shanks (American Fam. Assoc.)
\_ Damn those pagans! Now they pay for it!
\_ Operation Blame The Fags kicks into high gear:
http://driftglass.blogspot.com
\_ Gays are being denied FEMA aid. Santa Monica has sent
aid earmarked for Gays. Go to http://gay.org to donate. -tyms
\_ This is one of the best trolls I've ever seen. You should see
the captions and the pictures, it's hilarious. This is something
liberals write for sarcasm, and conservatives actually agree on.
\_ There are only 2 types of people, right?
\_ There's two kinds of people in this world, my friend:
\_ There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend:
those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
\_ There are infinite type, but only 2 extreme types actively
shape our lives.
\_ Yes, idiots like yourself and everyone else.
\_ There are two types of people. Those who separate people
into two different types and those who don't. --jon
\_ There are 10 types of people. Those who understand
binary and those who don't.
\_ There are 10 types of people. Those who can count
in binary and those who can't.
\_ "God attacked America and the prayers of the oppressed were
answered, The wrath of the All-powerful fell upon the nation of
oppressors. Their dead are in the thousands and their losses
are in the billions," said the statement from the group led by
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has a $25 million U.S. bounty on this head
"Only recently America killed and starved whoever it wanted, but
today it is appealing for oil and food," it added. |
| 2005/8/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38974 Activity:nil 80%like:38971 |
8/3 Roberts will go after Griswold vs. Connecticut:
http://csua.org/u/cwr (Washington Post)
\_ What about Griswold vs. Wally World? |
| 2005/8/3 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38971 Activity:nil 80%like:38974 |
8/3 Roberts will go after Griswold vs. Connecticut:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201913_pf.html |
| 2005/7/20 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38739 Activity:nil |
6/19 http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956 \_ Why do people not know that July=7 Supreme Court choice John C. Roberts Jr. reported by multiple sources is sharp, but will probably vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I say there should be no filibuster attempt. -liberal/moderate \_ Roe v. Wade *should* be overturned. And then (or even prior) congress should pass laws about privacy, etc. \_ If you're a strict constructionist, then you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. On the other hand, if you're Sandra Day, you would uphold it. Which is more valid? You got me. \_ The magic number is 50. Assuming everything equal, he'll be around for the next 30-odd years. \_ When a Democrat is President, he or she can also nominate a sharp 50-year-old with little in judicial opinions written down but believed to be as liberal as you can get, but also one who has stated that they support being impartial over being predictable. \_ Only if someone on SCOTUS dies or retires during his presidency. Cf. Clinton. \_ "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." \_ I also read an article today that said he was speaking for a client, and not from his personal view, when advocating for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. \_ Does it mean anything that he's a Harvard man? \- no. HLS is one of the largest law schools in the country. who he clerked for might mean more ... what ever that means. half the sup ct went to harvard. \_ He clerked for Sith Lord Rheinquist. \_ Of course it means something. You are naive. It even means more that he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. It is not a coincidence that half the supreme court and 10% of Congress went to HLS. Seven US Presidents are Harvard grads. This is how the upper class perpetuates itself. \_ Souter graduated Harvard undergrad magna cum laude, and also graduated Harvard Law. Appointed by Bush I in 1990. Scalia is also a Harvard Law grad, as well as Breyer and Kennedy. \_ And now they want to make Souter's house into a hotel. -- ilyas |
| 2005/7/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38712 Activity:moderate |
6/19 http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956 Supreme Court choice John C. Roberts Jr. reported by multiple sources is sharp, but will probably vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I say there should be no filibuster attempt. -liberal/moderate \_ Roe v. Wade *should* be overturned. And then (or even prior) congress should pass laws about privacy, etc. \_ If you're a strict constructionist, then you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. On the other hand, if you're Sandra Day, you would uphold it. Which is more valid? You got me. \_ The magic number is 50. Assuming everything equal, he'll be around for the next 30-odd years. \_ When a Democrat is President, he or she can also nominate a sharp 50-year-old with little in judicial opinions written down but believed to be as liberal as you can get, but also one who has stated that they support being impartial over being predictable. \_ Only if someone on SCOTUS dies or retires during his presidency. Cf. Clinton. \_ "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." \_ I also read an article today that said he was speaking for a client, and not from his personal view, when advocating for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. \_ Does it mean anything that he's a Harvard man? \- no. HLS is one of the largest law schools in the country. who he clerked for might mean more ... what ever that means. half the sup ct went to harvard. \_ He clerked for Sith Lord Rheinquist. \_ Of course it means something. You are naive. It even means more that he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. It is not a coincidence that half the supreme court and 10% of Congress went to HLS. Seven US Presidents are Harvard grads. This is how the upper class perpetuates itself. \_ Souter graduated Harvard undergrad magna cum laude, and also graduated Harvard Law. Appointed by Bush I in 1990. Scalia is also a Harvard Law grad, as well as Breyer and Kennedy. \_ And now they want to make Souter's house into a hotel. -- ilyas \_ And now they want to make Souter's house into a hotel. -- ilyas |
| 2005/7/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:38687 Activity:low |
7/18 Juan Cole on abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph:
http://csua.org/u/cqy
\_ He's obviously biased, but I'm impressed by how his satirical
parallels ring true.
\_ What is the obsession with you people over BIAS?
\_ Without bias, there is no current. Without current, there
is no data, without data there is no thesis, without thesis
there is no graduation, and without graduation I am cursed to
troll the motd until eternity.
\_ This can happen after graduation.
\_ Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
\_ I mentioned it because I wanted people to actually look past
the dry sarcasm and read the later (satirical) bit. (I didn't
post the original URL) --dbushong |
| 2005/7/18 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:38684 Activity:nil |
7/18 Which angry conservative/libertarian deleted the Plame threads?
Did the http://abcnews.com poll upset you?
\_ Why do you assume it wasn't a liberal. Restored. -emarkp
\_ The assumtion was made because the threads were deleted after
someone posted the http://abcnews.com poll. Wasn't that pretty clear?
\_ You're both wrong, a moderate deleted it. -me, moderate |
| 2005/7/11-13 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:38543 Activity:nil |
7/11 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4673421.stm Abortion is illegal in Portugal. I bet Bush is very proud of Portugal \_ Does this mean that if you plan to take an Eurotrip to get laid, you should skip Portugal altogether? What country is the best for an Eurotrip? \_ Berlin, definitely Berlin http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050711/od_nm/germany_prostitute_dc \_ Amsterdam is good for hookers, but go to Prague for lots of hotties to score the old-fashioned way. \_ I did an OIF thing in Budapest, and half the attendees were hooking up with locals. According to one of my buddies, you can't lose with a fistful of dollars in one hand and a US passport in the other. \_ What's an OIF? \_ Optical Internetworking Forum. http://www.oiforum.com |
| 2005/6/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38186 Activity:very high |
6/18 AI is looking for solviet gulag survivors to back up their
Gitmo=gulag equation. Criticism there of.
http://csua.org/u/cez (Washington Post)
\_ Why does the left (Democratic party) always embrace people who
want to kill them. The Democratic ethos is self-destructive
and irresponsible behavior.
\_ Why do morons like you always embrace perfectly valid points and
ruin any chance of educated discourse on the matter (such as
letting people decide for themselves, "Wow... what dipshits"
by making uneducated, irrelevant and pretty fucking pathetic
generalizations like the one above? -John (not a Democrat)
\_ obviously I have a hit a sore spot. Try not to be so
transparent.
\_ Troll!
\_ No, I just don't like morons. I think morons are a
great argument for retroactive abortion. In fact, I
actively support eugenics as an anti-moron measure, if
only to remove the irritant of morons trying to spoil my
motd-browsing pleasure through moronitude. -John
\_ Part of the Democratic "ethos" is to turn people to the Good
Side, not destroying them. Republican behavior is to destroy
the Evil ... with some collateral damage.
\_ so you have 6 kids out of wedlock, no problem the Democrats
will subsidize the bastardization of children. What better
way to expand their voter base? You have
unprotected sex with 100's of strangers, it wasn't your
fault you caught AIDS you were a victim, entitled to
free medical care for life at the taxpayer expense.
Murdering a cop makes you an instant cause celebre of the
left as a victim of the oppression of capitalism.
As a nation state you are the largest state sponsor of
terror over the past 3 decades and you stone to death
teenage girls who have been raped, what are you to Democrats-
a misunderstood democracy victimized by US imperialism.
You sold out the country to China for campaign contributions
from Loral Space - this action alone makes you the
Savior of the Democratic party.
Savior of the Democratic party. -jblack
\_ Too many hits off the crack pipe?
\_ Ah, yes, it's better to limit sexual education and
availability of sexual protections so that things like
this don't happen.
\_ Wow... what dipshits. -- ilyas |
| 2005/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, ERROR, uid:38016, category id '18005#14.6967' has no name! , ] UID:38016 Activity:high |
6/7 Monkey Business (NYT article on monkeys and economics):
http://csua.org/u/ca5
\_ How can the Freakonomics authors have any credibility with what's
left of their "when abortion is legal, crime goes down" theory?
http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php
http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm
With a dubious claim on an inflammatory topic from people degreed
to such a high level, the burden is clearly on the authors to
demonstrate their theory with very high confidence, and I don't see
that.
\_ The http://isteve.com link is playing very loose with its comparisons.
I haven't seen the freakonomics research, but their synopsis
indicates a wider data base than the age 14-17 homocide rate
data on the http://isteve.com page. Just at first glance, this page
is doing serious apples to oranges crap.
\_ Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with you, but abortion is
is an incredibly inflammatory topic and the involvement of
American Conservative magazine here isn't exactly reassuring.
\_ Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with you either, but the
Freakonomics authors aren't doing much to dispel the notion of
the Liberal Elite.
\_ I think the people actually running the country and making
most of the policy decisions have done enough to dispel
the notion that any of the Elite are particularly Liberal.
\_ I sincerely hope so. To the independents at least.
\_ I am not a liberal, but I find the 'abortion has a
positive effect on crime rate' hypothesis interesting, and
worthy of further investigation. Your comment is kind of
dumb. -- ilyas
\_ ilyas, are you trying to out-compete tom on calling
people dumb while signing your name?
\_ I called the comment dumb, not the person. Even
smart people say stupid things sometimes. Tom is
the reigning king of ad hominem, I wouldn't dream of
trying to dethrone him. -- ilyas
\_ ilyas, your comments have been kind of dumb.
Even smart people say stupid things sometimes.
\_ Are you talking about something in this thread
or going off on a tangent? -- ilyas
\_ What is tangential about your opinion that
my comment is kind of dumb, and my opinion
that your comments are kind of dumb?
\_ he is not a liberal. He just make conclusion based upon
satistics, not political correctness. If you think he
is a libera, look at this: he is the same guy who
said that having a swimming pool in the house is much
more dangerous than having a gun in the house.
you think a Liberal will allow that to published?
\_ A claim from http://isteve.com debunks Freakonomics? What a load of
he said she said. That having been said, the anectdotal image
monkeys trading is amusing and thought-provoking.
\_ The bar is very low in this case, because the theory is so
spectacular as well as political. All you need to do is cast
doubt.
It's just as if you presented the case that black people are
physiologically dumber than white people. You need to back up
such a theory with very high confidence. On the opposite
side, all you need to do is cast doubt.
\_ I don't see why a 'controversial' theory should require
any proof over and above normal. It may be good to provide
more proof _for practical reasons_, but I don't think this
is required for the underlying science to be good.
Requiring greater burden on 'controversial' theories is a
very dangerous practice, because you can always drum up
controversy to silence the science you don't like. By the
way, doubt is good in science. Doubt is only bad in
religion. -- ilyas
\_ In an ideal world, what you write would be highly
persuasive.
\_ No duh. |
| 2005/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:37396 Activity:nil |
4/28 Want to date hot big boob nice face great body Southern Republican
Belles and maybe even convert them to liberals? Now it's easier than
ever! http://www.google.com/search?q=dating+republican
Click on top 2 sponsored links (Conservative Match), or links to the
right (Conservative Singles, Republican Meet People). Check them
out, some of them are REALLY HOT (unlike our studios, mal-nutrient,
non-blond Berkeley women). No wonder they are out-reproducing
us evil moralless vegan gay/les-loving liberals.
\_ Is Conservative Singles (http://www.OtherSingles.com really for
conservatives? Looking at the way those women post, they don't look
like conservatives.
\_ Conservative Match requires membership.
\_ I wouldn't mind. But how much do they donate to the GOP?
\_ Salon/Nerve girls are much cuter. |
| 2005/4/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:37270 Activity:moderate |
4/19 Pope Benedict XVI (aka Cardinal Ratzinger) believes in excommunication
for all pro-choice Catholics
http://csua.org/u/brk (priestsforlife.org)
\_ Sounds good to me. As a liberal athiest, I think anything that
\_ Sounds good to me. I think anything that
makes members of religious cults question their beliefs is good
for society. This guy is going to further accelerate the already
massive hemoraging of American Catholics from their church.
\_ Sounds good to me. I think anything that makes members of
religious cults question their beliefs is good for society. This
guy is going to further accelerate the already massive hemoraging
of American Catholics from their church.
\_ so you want a church which wants people to have abortion,
and supports abortion, which is defined as a very grave evil?
\_ I like the way they nodded that voting for Kerry is ok:
"When a Catholic does not share a candidates stand in favour
of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for
other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which
can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons"
\_ Why should a Catholic vote for Bush instead, since he is
pro-death penalty, pro-pre-emptive illegal war, and pro-wealth
gap/pro-unfettered capitalism, things the Catholic church is
also against?
\_ The above, translated: "It's bad to vote for pro-choice
candidates, but there may be good reasons that outweigh the
bad."
\_ [I posted the quote about Kerry] Hell if I know, I'm not
a Catholic. I agree with you that Bush seems pretty anti-
Catholic values. However, the link above says pro-choice
Catholic politicians cannot receive communion, so I think
it's interesting that they explicitly mentioned a way out
for people who still want to vote for Kerry.
\_ I guess it can be argued that the "sins" of abortion
and euthanasia >> war/death penalty/wealth gap, not
that a church is likely to have an issue with cognitive
dissonance.
\_ the key is defining "proportionate".
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=6159
\_ Is their name supposed to be an oxymoron?
\_ what name? why do you think it is an oxymoron? |
| 2005/4/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Reference/Religion] UID:37083 Activity:high |
4/5 Terri's funeral was last night. Her family wasn't allowed to have any
of the ashes, or even a lock of her hair. Michael of course cremated
her immediately and didn't allow a Catholic funeral or burial.
[I'll keep reposting as you keep deleting]
\_ No, no bias here! Nossir! None at all! TOTALLY OBJECTIVE!
\_ The only thing not objective is the "of course".
\_ Yep, he truly "loved" her.
\_ What does love have to do with those decisions?
\_ Why is this any of your business?
\_ Why is anything any of your business? -!pp
\_ Lots of things affect me directly or indirectly. These
things are my business. This is a personal and private
issue between family members and the people who are
intruding are rude and morbid, imnsho.
\_ "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a
piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be
washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if
a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's
or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never
send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."
\- ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for terri.
\_ The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth.
\_ If they're not Catholic, why should they have a catholic funeral?
\_ Terri was Catholic.
\_ So was I. People change, swear off organized religion
entirely.
\_ What is the evidence that she did this?
\_ Uhm, she married an undevout Lutheran, maybe?
\_ If I die, I rather be cremated. I dont want put myself in box and
have the bugs eaten my body.
\_ Your English needs work. but, why do you care if bugs eat your
corpse? You're dead! I guess it means future anthropologists
can't dig up your old bones or fossils. Personally, assuming
I live to old age I'll look into the cryogenic shit. Why not.
I KEEP MOVING THIS INTO THE PROPER PLACE IT BELONGS UP HERE
\_ Smart choice. Now he won't have to go through all the bullshit
in the future when her family and Congress decide the doctor
performing the autopsy was liberal, or gay, or pro-choice or had
the wrong color hair or who knows and they need to exhume the body
to prove she actually had an IQ of 210 right before they pulled
the feeding tube. If I was in his shoes I would do anything to
bring closure to 15 years of this garbage.
\_ Your English needs work. but, why do you care if bugs eat your
corpse? You're dead! I guess it means future anthropologists
can't dig up your old bones or fossils. Personally, assuming
I live to old age I'll look into the cryogenic shit. Why not.
\_ Is she brain dead now? No, not yet, run more tests, file suits.
\_ If you thought Terri's parents have been total assholes, especially
in the last couple months, maybe you'd do the same thing. |
| 2005/3/31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:37005 Activity:nil |
3/31 I have no problem trusting my life to my other-half. But I DO
have a problem if he/she is fucking someone else, not to
mention have 2 kids with them. In that situation, I trust my
parents more. Think about that for a sec, would you trust your
'loved' one if they were fucking someone else for so many
years and then all of a sudden decided that you should
probably die? The probability of your parents want you dead is
a lot lower than the probability of your partner want you dead
for whatever reason there might be. I do agree with Dubya, in
a situation like this, we should error on the side of life.
Even if she has no chance of recovery, what's wrong with just
keeping her alive? How different is this from stopping
medication to cancer patients because after all, they WILL
die? Is it because the cancer patients says "oh I want to
live" and she can't?? If both the parents and the husband
\_ Your brain has been classified as small.
believe the tube should be removed to end suffering, then I
have no problem with that, but if there's a disagreement, then
there's a disagreement, and I really have a problem with the
fact the husband have more 'power' than the parents. If he
wasn't fucking someone else then my position would be neutral.
But he IS. If he's practically married to the other person,
then he loses all credibility to decide her life. And why
doesn't the husband come out and say anything himself?
Everything is said through the Lawyer, yeah, sure, that really
helps to show his sincerity. At least the parents have the
guts to say things to the media themselves and for that I gave
them credit and was one of the things that swing me from
neutral to their side. May her rest in peace.
-someone who hates GWB
\_ If I have no brain response, and have no hope of recovery, and
deteriorate over time, I hope to GOD my spouse would move on with
her life. If I told her I didn't want to live that way, I would
hope she would be my guardian until I was dead. After the shit
that was this case, I would be CERTAIN to make a living will. But
I sure as hell would not want my parents challenging my own
decision. BTW, just how long would you want your spouse to wait
before moving on with their life? If doctors told them you would
not recover?
\_ Dude, the bitch is dead. You and your little pro-life freaks
lost. Get over it.
\_ I trust the three out of four neurologists who have conducted a
neurological exam and deemed her to have been in a persistent
vegetative state for 11+ years.
\_ Quit flogging a dead ... Oh never mind, too easy. |
| 2005/3/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36886 Activity:nil |
3/25 Michael Schiavo lawyer on board of directors of Terri's hospice
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover032605.htm
\_ Yep. And she shouldn't have been put there in the first place since
residents in a hospice are supposed to be terminally ill. |
| 2005/3/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36882 Activity:kinda low |
3/25 Why is it that the pro-life crowd is so worked up over the
Schivao case, but can't be bothered with what happened in
Texas because of a law signed by Mr Pro Life himself, Bush
Jr? Despite the pleas of his mother, a hospital pulled the
plug on a six month old boy because they were unable to pay
for treatment, a move made possible by the law Bush signed
while governor of Texas.
\_ Because they're hypocrites. Yes, it's that simple.
\_ Those so-called pro-life people should concentrate their energy on
children in this world who are really dying from hunger, rather
on one individual who has less than 1% chance of recovery.
\- add "malaria, cholera, TB". Amen. --psb
\_ Malaria would be largely solved if we simply used DDT
in developing nations.
\- Fair enough. Significant progress can be made on
each of the above for modest policy reforms and
financial outlays. In contrast to AIDS, which
appears to be a hard problem. --psb
\_ Sheesh. You all know, just like the ACLU, they're
really interested in precedent.
\_ I guess technically "less than 1%" is correct. The correct
number is 0. Large parts of her cortex are gone.
\_ Eh, even so, it's not quite 0. People have gotten along
with very low percentages of their brains. There are a
few recorded "miracle" cases.
\_ And yet, with Bush's plan for Medicaid, more people
will be denied life support based on a corporate profit
assessment, instead of a medical one. Life is important,
but the dollar is fucking *sacred*!
\_ I work with medical images all the time, and I have seen no
serious proof of this. Certainly not lately. Furthremore,
the more I work with doctors, the more I distrust them. They
can be sloppy and capricious when lives other than their own
are one the line. -emarkp
\_ http://csua.org/u/bi0
Some commentary on the medical issues, and a link to
another site that has actual cat scans. There are large
portions of her head filled with fluid where her brain
used to be. It isn't a question of interpretation.
\_ Not very useful. It's just a reassertion. A CT (CAT)
scan is almost unusable for distinguishing structure in
the brain. An MRI is far far better. Furthermore, the
one tiny CT image I've seen is from years ago, and we
don't actually know the state of her brain today.
-emarkp
\_ Clearly you did not read anything from that link,
since it addresses precisely the red herrings that
you are spouting.
\_ No, it doesn't. It simply reasserts that the
cerebral cortex is gone. I disagree with that
assertion (that is, I haven't seen enough evidence
to conclude the same thing). How much time have
you spent looking at medical images of the brain?
-emarkp
\_ OK Dr. Ping, what is the alternative
explanation for what appears to be a large
fluid-filled area where her cerebral cortex
used to be?
\_ Without seeing the entire data set, I can't
answer that. The single small grainy image
I've seen isn't enough determine the
condition of the entire cerebral cortex.
I've worked with enough doctors that I don't
trust one analysis when others have
disagreed. Oh, and sign your name. -emarkp
\_ Hey guys, I think emarkp's point is that
not all of the cerebral cortex may be
gone, and what's left may be sufficient
to qualify as "life", especially if the
leftover brain takes on a heavy load.
\_ If that's his point, he should say so.
So far all he's provided is red
herrings that avoid the central point.
\_ You failed to answer the question or
provide any useful insight. Oh, and fuck
you. |
| 2005/3/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36821 Activity:moderate |
3/23 Mother arrested for attempting to intervene
in her 14-year old's decision to have abortion
http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=23788
\_ Yeah, let's protect family values by letting 14-year-old rape
victims have children! -tom
\_ Yeah, let's protect family values by allowing non-relations
to take 14 year olds out of school, and disallow them from
speaking with their parents! -jrleek
\_ Sorry, "family values" isn't the Democratic party line.
\_ Perhaps it should be. They've lost the last three elections.
\_ well, no they haven't. -tom
While how this was done may not have been totally appropriate,
the result is certainly better than the alternative. -tom
\_ Perhaps it should be. They've lost the last three elections.
\_ well, no they haven't. -tom
\_ well, no they haven'T. -tom
\_ And you're deluded if you think "family values" is
is the reason for that.
\_ Wow, you must be reading a different article where
they describe in deatil what the alternitives were.
-jrleek
\_ you're right; one alternative would be to send her
moronic parents to somewhere godforsaken like Utah;
that probably would have been a better alternative.
-tom
\_ I don't think you understand the case.
\_ Are you responding to tom? It's hard to tell.
\_ Hard-core liberal (tom) vs. hard-core conservative (jrleek) fight
round 1!
\_ tom and jrleek, I'd like to hear from 2 very different perspectives
as I don't have any opinion on this. What is your opinion on the
idea of Federalism, where you move a lot of the government powers
to individual States, or even counties. For example, a system where
people in the Bay Area can have abortion, gay marriage, etc, and
where people in Utah can go to jail for abortion, gay marriage, etc.
In another word, do you believe in one government for all, or do
you think Federalism has merits? -a curious moderate w/no opinion
\_ I would be more interested in California (or just the Bay Area)
seceding. The idea of the US as an entity dilutes if the laws
are totally different in every state. -tom
\_ According to the Christian World View Weekend web site
(http://www.worldviewweekend.com/test/register.php it is more
sinfull to have no opinion on abortion (-2 points) than it is to
to think abortion is ok (-1 points). Try it! !tom !jrleek
\_ The problem being the people wanting to travel to the 'less
restrictive' states to get away from laws in the 'more
restrictive ones.' What's to stop them? Fencing in the
citizens of the more restrictive states?
\_ I already escape to Las Vegas so that I can legally gamble my
life savings away and live in a life of debauchery for a few
days before I become broke, and I'm sure I'm not the only one
doing it.
\_ The concept of states rights doesn't mean that the states have
the abs. right to create any laws that they want. What laws
they do create must be consistent w/ the constitution. In the
instances that you cite, there may be greater federal interests
in consistency btwn the states than in allowing the states to
make their own rules. BTW, in terms of criminal law the system
does largely operate the way that you describe, almost every
state has a different set of rules for most serious crimes. |
| 2005/3/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:36817 Activity:kinda low |
3/22 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151206,00.html Hey you fucking dumb ass pro-lifer conservatives, do you actually agree with this lame Fox News commentary? \_ No, I'm too stupid to type, so I can't respond to this you fucktard. \_ Ya know, I'm vehemently pro-choice as far as abortion goes, and am ambivalent on the Schiavo case, but I can't for the life of me what about this piece is so upsetting (well, except for the last paragraph, but I still don't really see how that merits your frothing at the mouth). Enlighten me? -alexf \_ I bet op is angry because the writer makes it sound like he's so reasonable but he's a filthy liar, and by being on TV at regular times gets both widespread distribution and credibility. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55441-2005Mar21.html In any case, I do agree with the Fox News guy in the sense that you shouldn't kill her by starvation. My opinion (and he doesn't say this) is, once you have established beyond a reasonable doubt her desire to die if she knew she were in an irreversible, persistent vegetative state, then she should be killed using something quicker. \_ Agreed. But assisted suicide with pills, injections, etc is illegal, and mostly because of conservatives. So now they're arguing how inhumane it is to let her starve when they also block euthanasia. Hypocrites. \_ Funny how Michael remembered she wanted to die only after receiving over a million dollars in a malpractice suit, money that was specifically awarded for her rehabilitation. You want to guess how much of that money was spent on Terri and how much on Michael's pro-euthanasia lawyer Felos? Felos' hospice is also under investigation for Medicare fraud for bringing in 150+ patients who should not have been there. This is the same hospice Terri was moved to. \_ You're right about him remembering her wishes after coicidentally receiving $1M, but lately he's been offered much more money to give up the fight and keep her tube in, and he's turned that money down. \_ taking the money is really not a possibility, it would make him look terrible. Plus, there will be plenty of money from book deals and film once Terri passes. \_ He *claims* he was offered $10M. I haven't seen anything to prove it. -emarkp \_ Would your opinion on the case be different if you believed he was arguing his position in good faith? \_ He can't stop the proceedings now, anyway. \_ The GOP loves vegetables and hates fruits. \_ Hilarious! This is the funniest thing i've seen on the motd in some time. |
| 2005/3/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36761 Activity:very high |
3/19 Congress is being run on motd-logic - they subpoenaed a brain dead
person today!
\_ I remember when the GOP was the states-rights party. What the
hell happened?
\_ Like most Christians, they are raging hypocrites and do
the expedient thing at the time. When they're not in power,
they're all for devolving power to the states. Now that
they have control of the federal gov't, it's all about using
its power to shove their agenda down everyone's throat.
\_ they subpoenaed George W. Bush?
\_ you are all disgusting individuals. Does the phrase "deprived of
life, liberty, or proerty..." mean anything to you. You want to
starve to death a woman who is not brain dead.
\_ And of course the wishes of the woman (while she was still
capable of making decisions for herself) are no longer relevant
in the face of your righteous religious agenda. And so the
religious hegemony settles in.
\_ her wishes have never been established. There is no living
will, only hearsay from her husband and his family, whose
motives may be compromised. Her wishes were "revealed"
after 3 years into her ordeal. Don't you think someone
on her side of the family, her brother, father, mother,
anyone, would also have had known about this "wish"?
This is not a right to die case, it is a euthenasia.
\_ Apparently the Florida courts have felt that her husband
and witnesses testifying on his behalf (yes witnesses --
as in more than one person heard those sentiments
expressed) have the truth of the matter. And no, the
fact that she didn't explicitly express those wishes to
her family means almost nothing; there are a lot of things
a woman is more likely to discuss with her husband than
with her family.
\_ She's not brain dead? If so, then her brain is not getting
much exercise, what by just sitting there all day, not letting
her speak, eat, move in a coordinated fashion, or do other
activities that involve higher intelligence. For 10+
years, mind you.
\_ I bet it means alot to BUD DAY!
\_ you are pitiful excuse for a human being. Consider this:
Michael Schiavo: Loving Husband or Monster?
http://opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/brogoff_20050222.html
\_ Are you Chinese? Do you understand the effect Monsters
had on China?
\_ Don't you mean Japan?
\_ Obviously you've never served in China. |
| 2005/3/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36624 Activity:high |
3/10 Why is it that the perception is that Christians are Republican.
There are many Christian views that fits with Democrat/Liberal
values. Eg. Care for widows and orphans, giving to the poor,
strong dislike for self-righteousness, peace on earth, care for the
environment, spreading the gospel through peaceful means, equality
for all, etc. Why is all the focus on gay and lesbian marriages
and abortion?
\_ abortion has very little shades of grey.
with regards to helping the poor. Do you want to help the
poor by giving money to government who will then enact social
programs? Or do you have tax cuts which give more money
to the poor, or maybe give money to charities who will help
the poor. Either way could be acceptable to a Christian.
\_ This might hold water if recent tax cuts had anything to do with
cutting what poor people have to pay vs richer people. I would
also need to be convinced that they increased money given to
charities (charitable contribution has been down in general the
last few years). I understand the reasoning but the reality
doesn't agree very well...particularly since the nature of more
recent actions by the right are effectively increases on money
the poor must pay. -- ulysses
\_ Tax cuts to the poor? Last I saw most of the tax cuts went to
the wealthy. Or do you really think dropping the capital
gains tax (and dividends taxed at cap gains rate) is something
that really helps the impoverished? Or eliminating estate/gift
tax so their wealthy ancestors can bring them to fortune?
\_ Actually, I think the same applies to abortion - i.e.
how much should the government be involved. I am a
Christian and I don't believe in abortion. If you can't
take care of a kid, don't fool around. I don't buy
the "woman has right over her body ... " crap, at least
not in its most irresponsible sense. However, I also
think that there are certain sins that perhaps are
not for the government / legal system to deal with
eg. infidelity. Perhaps abortion is another one of
these. Perhaps it's a matter for the mom (and her
family) and God. The government should not subsidize
family) and God. i.e. God has given the mother
(or the parents) ultimate responsibility over
over the unborn child. The government should not subsidize
over the fetus. The government should not subsidize
it. Society should discourage it. But we should
not make it illegal. Is my view considered very
conservative / on the right ?
not make it illegal.
\_ As a Christian, can you live in a society where murder
(includes abortion) is legal and accepted and a "right"?
\_ Can you live in a society where infidelity is legal?
\_ Or war?
\_ interesting article here regarding all this:
http://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm
\_ Much of the Christian == Republican comes from the conservatives
efforts to show its primary issues are the same as Christianity's
primary issues. You choose the other side, you're not a REAL
Christian. Mix this with American mythos of Horatio Alger, the
individualist, and on-going xenophobia, and then other "Christian
value" social issues become Someone Else's Problem best treated
by a charity/local government, not a godless Federal Bureaucracy.
Or even worse, those problems are simply impossible to solve. As an
aside, a large part of the conservative success is that they have
been successful. It gives supporters hope that they can influence
or control the government, an entity most people feel helpless
fighting against. Success breeds success.
\_ I'm not sure I agree that the Republicans chose the Christians
and then successfully courted them. I think a specific group
of activist protestants chose the Republican party as their
vehicle to political power, and the Republicans have just
capitalized on that. The Democrats didn't get to where they
are as a major party without getting vast numbers of Christians
to loyally vote for them.
\_ I agree with your premise, but not with the Democrats gain
as majority party. Their rise came from repercussions of
the Civil War and the Depression.
\_ an pithy quote by John Paul II will give you all a good answer:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1309831/posts?page=16#16
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1309831/posts?page=16#16
[URL with IP address replaced. Fuck you.]
There are many many more quotes on this page that fully rebut
your argument on many levels.
\_ Funny how you and your fellow republicans have no qualms about
redistribution of wealth at gunpoint as long as the recipient of
the welfare is a corporation. I wonder what your savior would
have to say about welfare for defense contractors.
\_ Funny how you have no idea what you're talking about.
\_ Yeah, funny that. http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rehw422.htm
Corporations get a lot more in welfare than individuals.
-meyers
\_ screw you meyers, Christians good, you are bad, and um,
terrorists terrorists 9/11 9/11 9/11 -true conservative
\_ You misunderstand. I didn't say corps don't get
welfare, I say that conservatives aren't in favor of
it. Bush, BTW, is not a conservative.
\_ The post you're arguing with says "Republican",
not conservative. Are you seriously going to
argue that the Republicans in congress do not
support corporate welfare? Is your arguement just
that no one in congress except maybe a couple people
in the House are true conservatives?
\_ Hmm... "Conservatives" aren't in favor of it.
"Liberals" aren't either. Then why do YOU think
it happens SO DAMN OFTEN. You're buying a lie.
\_ Because "Lobbists" are in favor. duh.
\_ "Lobbyists"
\_ Summary and refutation:
(1) Poor people are poor because they are lazy and don't
like to work, so they deserve it.
Ans: According to the Bible, being lazy will lead
to poverty, but poverty does not imply lazy (check
out Proverbs for instance).
(2) Government is bad, we should not help the poor
through government. Christians make lots of private
donations, so we should not help through the govern-
ment.
Ans: Our government is democratically elected. We
allow it to lead us into war spending hundreds of
billions of dollars. We can also allow it to help
the poor. There are laws and practices mentioned
in the Old Testament for helping the poor.
What's wrong in having a safety net?
\_ not everyone will agree with me, but safety net is good.
but the lifestyle shouldn't be encouraged. |
| 2005/2/10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:36125 Activity:insanely high |
2/9 Ok you pinkos. Tell me why we should support him? Free speech?
Ripping on the dead is free speech?! I esp like how he says he
doesn't work for the taxpayers of CO. Who else pays his salary?
The "students" ? Future commie pinkos.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/09/colorado.prof.ap/index.html
\_ Is David Horowitz a pinko?
"David Horowitz, a champion of conservative causes who has long
accused American universities of overstocking their faculties with
leftists, has said firing Churchill would violate his First
Amendment rights and set a bad precedent." Supporting someones
*right* to make an ass of themselves is not the same as supporting
them. David Horowitz can understand that, why can't you?
\_ Anyone to the left of John Birch is an America hating
communist.
\_ *righteous indignation*! *spittle*! ...happy now?
\_ He's an asshole, but you have to be an asshole to get your point
across when everyone else is whistling the Star Spangled Banner
and waving flags and shushing anyone who speaks ill of American
foreign policy. If he'd published an essay in which he took the
US to task for its corporate-profit-driven foreign policy and its
hypocritical refusal to forgive the massive debts owed it by the
very countries it bankrupted, you would never have heard his name.
\_ You probably agree with this commie liberal lawyer-scum
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/10/terror.trial.ap/index.html
"To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of
capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism
and racism, I don't think that can come nonviolently."
\_ Well, since the Holocaust didn't happen, comparing them to Eichmann
isn't so bad. -tom
\_ So is this someone trying to make tom look bad (like that's
necessary) or tom making a point I don't follow?
\_ I'm pointing out that there are wingnuts on both sides. -tom
\_ Both sides? Holocaust deniers are conservative? And
do Holocaust deniers have tenure? -- ilyas
\_ Are you trying to say Holocaust denial is a conservative
opinion? Apparently, you're an idiot on a scale I never
before imagined.
\_ Wow, this guy got way more protection in his speech than
conservative speakers at Berkeley every do.
conservative speakers at Berkeley ever do.
\_ churchill never spoke at berkley, what you talk about
\_ Never said he did. In the linked article it talks
about his talk at some other college.
\_ do you mean security wise? maybe berkeley students
aren't stupid enough to attack conservative speakers?
\_ When David Duke spoke on campus, there was blood
on the sidewalk from both sides. My communist roommate
said the other side started it, but he showed up with
a roll of quarters, and both sides were expecting a
fight. That was about 10 years ago, I think.
\_ Never said he did. In the linked article it talks about his
talk at some other college.
\_ do you mean security wise? maybe berkeley students aren't stupid
enough to attack conservative speakers?
\_ When David Duke spoke on campus, there was blood on the
sidewalk from both sides. My communist roommate said the
other side started it, but he showed up with a roll of
quarters, and both sides were expecting a fight. That was
about 10 years ago, I think.
\_ "He started it after I hit him!"
\_ david duke spoke at berkeley? i don't remember
that. anyway he should get his head smashed in.
\_ david duke spoke at berkeley? i don't remember that. anyway
he should get his head smashed in.
\_ heh, right.
\_ Gee, I haven't seen Berkeley try to fire a tenured professor for
being conservative. -tom
\_ That's because they simply don't give them tenure.
\_ BS. My Chem 1 prof spent three lectures telling us
how great nuclear power was. There are lots of
conservative profs at Berkeley, but most of them
are in the sciences. -MCB grad
\_ Uh, liking nuclear power = conservative? Maybe you
should let peterm know. -- ilyas
\_ Yes, in America being pro-nuclear power is considered
a conservative position. Just as being anti-abortion,
anti-gay marriage, pro-gun rights, etc. I don't
decide these things, by the way, but I do know
enough about American politics to be able to
report them accurately. Very few people are 100%
in line with the stereotypical view of their
politics.
\_ So you concluded from the one position he did take
he was a conservative? Good job you. -- ilyas
he was a conservative? Good job you. Almost
every single liberal friend of mine here on soda
would prefer nuclear power over oil dependence.
-- ilyas
\_ He did not get fired for being a conservative,
even though he used his position of authority
to lecture to 4000 students off topic on a
conservative topic. And yes, he was
conservative in other ways as well.
\_ This guy:
http://www.polisci.berkeley.edu/Faculty/bio/emeriti/Muir,W
is an irritating conservative. |
| 2005/2/3 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:36054 Activity:nil |
2/3 http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/01/24_freshmen.shtml Liberalism outnumber Bushism by more than 4 to 1, freshmen liberalism on campus the highest since 1972. "Berkeley's white students are the most liberal ethnic group, at 59.9%. That is, white female students. White women were the most liberal group of all freshmen at Berkeley, at 65.9%" Too bad this doesn't mean they will date Asian men -Asian \_ do we really have to encourage the Cal Patriot? |
| 2005/1/31 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:35994 Activity:moderate |
1/31 Yeah! That's what we think of you and your PROTESTERS!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050127.shtml
\_ This guy's like William Safire huffing gas fumes.
\_ You have been classified as: curmudgeon
\_ He is spot on, point out one thing wrong w/ what he said.
\_ Sowell is great, Visions of the Anointed is an outstanding
book.
\_ If we have more opinions for him than against him, the article
will somehow stop being crap. |
| 2005/1/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:35881 Activity:very high |
1/24 Pro-life gaining momentum, with only 34% in the US in favor
of abortion. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145221,00.html
Also 30 states ready to ban abortion:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134530,00.html
I'm thankful for God and George Bush for making America
a better place to live. God Bless.
\_ Coathangers: They're not just for clothing any more.
\_ "According to a New York Times/CBS News poll taken in November, 34
percent of those surveyed wanted to keep abortion generally
available, as it is now. Forty-four percent wanted stricter limits
and 21 percent wanted an outright ban."
!= "34% in the US in favor of abortion"
\_ Why don't "pro-life" types complain about invetro fertilization?
\_ Why don't "pro-life" types complain about invitro fertilization?
By their, and the so called "Army of God"'s, definitions, you
shove a half dozen "live babies" (fertilized eggs) into some
40 year old career woman's barren womb, and expect most of them
to die. "Live babies" which are not injected, and are later
not needed, are thrown away to die cold and alone in a bio-
hazard bag. But none of these clinics get mail bombs, anthrax
threats, or even picketers! What gives??
\_ God works one step at a time. Ideally, childless couples
could adopt kids who were not aborted.
\_ Your God sucks. My God, Enthuramanien, executes 4 steps
per clock on average.
\_ Some of us *do* complain about it.
\_ you are right and many pro-lifers do not like
invitro fertilization.
\_ You're looking for consistency from a group who thinks
Spongebob will taint their children, but not Joe Camel?
\_ I don't know about that, but there are lots of militant
radical feminists who believe that in-vitro fertilization
is a curse, further enslaving women to the
male-created "responsibility" of producing babies.
These people are really quite insane.
\_ Sigh. You forgot the relationship that states honest != OP.
\_ I never understood the issue of the need for late term abortion.
Pro-Life / Pro-Choice aside, if a women decides to abort the baby
6, 7, 8 months into pregnancy, isn't that just plain irresponsible
on the woman's part? I mean, what was the women doing for 6 months?
Couln't she have decided by then? I'm speaking of normal scenarios.
Rape, safety of mother's life and etc... are of course another
story. Someone care to enlighten me?
\_ You haven't understood because it's a non-issue. The number of
procedures as most people understand the definition is
infinitesimal. This whole non-issue is sold so legislation
with vague wording can be pushed through by upsetting people
with a fiction. Such legislation is the lip of the slippery
slope.
\_ Perhaps someone should define Pro-Life and Pro-Choice for me.
\_ Would you say that the number of late-term abortions in the
US is greater than or less than the number of multiple
murders of wife and unborn child? Or the number of death
penalty executions?
\_ You're heading for a false dichotomy. Late-term
abortion is ill-defined (purposefully).
abortion is ill-defined (purposefully). And I don't
have numbers, but I'd be willing to bet less.
\_ "The number of procedures as most people understand
the definition is infinitesimal." So, "as most people
understand the definition", how "infinitesimal" is it?
Fewer than death penalty executions? Fewer than wife/
unborn infant multiple murders? Fewer than Columbine
style massacres?
\_ Do you think a woman who finds out her baby has
0% chance of survival at birth and decides to
have an abortion should be thrown in jail. This
is what "late-term abortion ban" is about.
\_ So the definition of "late-term abortion" requires
a non-viable fetus? Reference please.
\_ No. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of
last year makes the process this woman would
use ILLEGAL.
\_ Now, you do understand that this is not
the same as when you claimed that '"late-
term abortion ban" is about [banning
abortions of non-viable fetus]'. How about
banning "late-term abortion" except in
cases where the fetus has a "0% chance
of survival at birth"?
\_ Of course, but bad law/policy is no
excuse. This is only one aspect of the
discussion. An abortion is one the
hardest decisions a woman would ever
have to make. But if she makes it, she
should have access to the safest
procedure possible, and should not be
thrown in jail for it.
\_ Even if the fetus were viable outside
the womb, the woman should still have
an unlimited right to choose? How
about if the woman were in the midst
of labor when she makes a last minute
choice to abort? An extreme case, of
course, but should it be illegal or
should that still be a woman's choice?
\_ An idiotic "case". If these are
the hairs you're splitting, you need
to reexamine your view of people.
These things don't need to be
legislated.
\_ This made me laugh out loud.
Infanticide (which is what this
'case' describes) does not
need to be legislated, you say?
How about plain old murder?
I wonder what you think needs
legislation. Probably whether
someone can own a gun or
something vitally important
like that. -- ilyas
\_ Why does this not require
legislation? Are you claiming
this will *never* happen?
this will *never* happen? You
are so good at having opinions.
Now please support them with
sound reasoning.
\_ Killing my wife is one of the hardest
decisions I could ever have to make.
But if I make it, I should have access
to the safest procedure possible,
and I should not be thrown in jail
for it.
\_ Getting a tattoo is one of the
hardest decisions I could ever have
to make. But if I make it, I
should have access to the safest
procedure possible, and I should
not be thrown in jail for it.
\_ How many Columbine style massacres were there last
year? Fewer than that too? How about genocides?
Or gas chamber death camps? Are you really sure that
things that happen rarely or almost never at all are
not worthy of legal prohibition?
\_ Specifically worded, perhaps not; laws that are
ambiguous, such as the so-called "Partial Birth
Abortion" ban, are just devious legislation.
\_ So you would support legislation banning "late-
term abortion" so long as the act was
specifically defined?
\_ I actually wouldn't oppose it (though I doubt
I'd support it). The point is moot. Above
poster is correct. The existing attempts at
"partial birth" and "late term" abortion bans
are all examples of gaming the process. The
people who might write such a law won't because
it isn't in their interest. -- ulysses
\_ Thank you. This is a much more defendable
position than the simple doctrinaire "it's
a woman's choice" most of the pro-choice
crowd spews. You do realize that you're
slipping into the zone of the 44% who
support some limit on abortion?
\_ You do realize you're in the demographic
that has no inkling of the history of the
effects of abortion being illegal?
\_ Life is complicated and subtle. A
limit on abortion is not the same thing
as a blanket prohibition on it. We
are a different people than we were
40 years ago.
\_ Life is complicated and subtle. Its
beginnings are much more so. We can
agree that late-term-abortion-as-
birth-control is abhorrent, but we
have plenty of room to debate
abortion as mercy-killing (Tay-
Sachs or even Downs Syndrome).
\_ And I would have no problem
with "late-term" abortion
under special circumstances.
I suspect I would even have no
problem with the reciprocal,
where "late-term" abortion is
only illegal for special circum-
stances. But I am not comfort-
able with absolutist yea or
nay position. As we both agree,
life is complicated and subtle,
and the absolutist position is
such a blunt instrument.
\_ The problem is that as soon
as you start defining
specifics both sides will
drag it into the courts
to either restrict or
loosen the limits. This
will go on forever.
\_ Third trimester abortions are illegal in most states, except
when the health of the mother is a factor.
\_ "Pro-life." Right. How many of those who are "Pro-life" are anti-
death penalty? Call it what it is: Anti-abortion. The term "Pro-
life" is inherently a ridiculous strawman.
\_ Pro-life is pretty accurate. The fact is that, had the mother
not aborted, there would very likely be a little baby at birth
time.
Pro-life people weigh the life of the baby yet to be born
equally with the life of the mother.
\_ So why not call themselves "Anti-Mother"? Aside from the
Kevorkians and the nihilists, everyone is pro-life. To be
anti-life is just plain silly. The tag is meaningless because
it does nothing to describe the actual goals of the people
so labelled, namely, to illegalize abortion. So say Anti-
Abortion and get on with it.
\_ Shrug. In their view, if you think abortion should be
legal, you are pro-murder, which is worse than anti-life. |
| 2005/1/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/HateGroups] UID:35869 Activity:very high |
1/23 Amusing TNR aticle on far-far-lefties
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=frank012105
qwertyuil/dsfghjk
\_ Frothing lefties is more like it. Gyah. Why can't we liberals as
a whole just jettison these tinfoil hatters once and for all? Is
it because they have all of the phone bank lists? Gyah!
\_ What makes you think that we embrace them? I guess they do
do all the hard work like organizing the big anti-war
protests....
\_ I read a fascinating article that pointed out that the
far-left, frothing radicals are the only ones who have the
tenacity to hunt down the permits, wrangle over the port-a-
potties, and galvanize people to show up, which is a pity
since they're the same people who scare Ma&Pa Voter into
voting for the conservatives.
\_ ...uh, right. Yet somehow ma and pa voter don't draw the
connection between the klan rallies and anti-abortion
terrorism on the right and mainstream conservatism.
\_ Uh, right. What party has the only sitting Senator that
was a Klan member?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd
\_ Byrd joined up in a region where joining the Klan
was like joining the Lions Club, and he has since
apologized for it and denounced the organization.
If you're going to blame Byrd for something he
recanted, let's arrest Bush for cocaine possession.
\_ Yeah, right. Were any Repubs former Klansmen the
left wouldn't shut up about it. The explanation
above would be considered an unacceptable excuse.
\_ Read up on Strom Thurmond and the Southern
Manifesto, please. -John
Manifesto, please. That said, it is an
unacceptable excuse, but hey, land of second
chances and all that, eh? -John
\_ And Strom Thurmond is what? That's right.
He's dead.
Now why would that be? Liberals shouldn't blame themselves
for rightwing media.
\_ Very true! Nor should they confuse passionate opposition
with reasonable opposition.
\_ Plenty of people connected the dots between the
Republican Party and clinic bombings. It is one of
the reasons the Republicans did poorly in the early
90s and all those federal laws protecting abortion
were passed. The Religious Right realized the folly
of a minority trying to use force to convince a
majority in America, and went back to saner tactics. |
| 2005/1/20 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:35822 Activity:nil 54%like:35805 |
1/20 Did you hear what I heard? An aggressive anti-abortion policy; force
where diplomacy fails to promote freedom; the abolition of the Patriot
Act.... Okay, maybe I'm being overly optimistic on that last one.
\_ Perhaps I spoke too soon. Read and judge for yourself:
http://csua.org/u/arr (ABC, full text of Inaugural Speech) |
| 2005/1/20 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:35805 Activity:moderate 54%like:35822 |
1/20 Did you hear what I heard? An aggressive anti-abortion policy; force
where diplomacy fails to promote freedom; the abolition of the Patriot
Act.... Okay, maybe I'm being overly optimistic on that last one.
\_ Perhaps I spoke too soon. Read and judge for yourself:
http://csua.org/u/arr (ABC, full text of Inaugural Speech) |
| 2005/1/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35777 Activity:high |
1/18 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/18/opinion/main667553.shtml An alternative inaugural speech. \_ Wow, I remember when PJ O'Rourke wasn't a raving ass. \_ when was that? I'm not fucking with you, I'm just curious, since I haven't really read much of his stuff. \_ That was a lot funnier than I expected. \_ I agree with the ass guy. |
| 2004/11/30-12/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:35131 Activity:high |
11/30 Yahoo! News - Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies
http://csua.org/u/a5n
Helping people wanting to die to kill themselves is one thing, but this
is completely different and I think it's horrible. -Friendly Troll
\_ I bet you're pro-life, too, right?
\_ As President Bush looked up to see who he was greeting [Canadian
pro-life activist] Reid said, "Thank you for being pro-life."
The President responded, "You bet." The President then turned to
leave. He stopped however and turned back. Looking directly into
Reid's eyes, the President said, with obvious sincerity, "I
appreciate that."
\_ Pro-life until you are born, then the death penalty is ok.
\_ There is a difference between an innocent unborn and
a death row inmate who was judged to have commited some
heinous crime.
\_ Hey man, don't let facts get in a way of a liberal
motd zinger. Honestly, are you new here?
\_ And the death penalty is always administered
fairly, without bias, and the courts are never
wrong.
\_ And the "pro life" people here have repeatedly
stated that it's ok to kill innocent people on
death row as long as they get to kill the
"really bad guy."
\_ Reference please, especially since you
claim "repeatedly".
\_ Are you really this incompetent? One
quick search on KAIS for "death penalty"
turned up several threads.
\_ Since you made the claim, please
substantiate by posting the URLs to
the specific threads. Note threads,
since you claimed "repeatedly".
http://csua.com/?entry=13449 _/
Use your favorite motd archiver which has more data than KAIS
and grep for '"death penalty" innocent' for more.
\_ Yes, *one* entry. So much for your claim of
"several threads". Now can you substantiate
your claim of "repeatedly"? Or were you just
exagerating for effect? Again, you made the
claim, now prove it.
\_ what a stupid red herring. The issue is that
the death penalty is known to execute
innocents; why do you support it, knowing
that is the case? -tom
\_ Don't they execute the mentally retarded in Texas now?
\_ Obviously not, Bush became governor of that state.
\_ Actually, Clinton did that in Arkansas.
\_ If you're going to level a serious charge, post URL.
\_ From http://amnesty.org.uk, http://csua.org/u/a62
under the title "Mental Retardation And The
Death Penalty",
"The second case is that of Rickey Ray Rector,
a black man executed in Arkansas during the 1992
presidential campaign of then Governor Bill
Clinton. Rector had shot himself at the time of
his arrest and had sustained organic brain damage
that reduced his intellectual capacity
dramatically." Not only was Rector executed
during Clinton's term as governer, Clinton
personally "flew home to oversee the 1992
execution". http://Time.com, http://csua.org/u/a63 .
\_ Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture, but
sounds like the guy commited the criminal acts
while still capable of making an informed
decsision. I don't understand clearly how
this would affect the case. Any motd armchair
criminal lawyer people care comment?
\_ No where in the article is there anything about parental consent.
If doctors start euthenizing horribly ill babies without parental
consent, I'd be more worried.
\_ the state is your parent
\_ The 7th paragraph: "The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable
when ......, and when parents think it's best."
\_ http://tinyurl.com/47ub2
\_ How is this "High Stress Levels Linked to Cellular Aging" article
relevant to this thread? |
| 2004/11/18-22 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:34971 Activity:low |
11/18 Can the owner/president of a private company hire/fire
whomever he wants, for whatever reason? If so, does that
include race-based reasons?
\_ Yes, if there is no standing contract other than an at-will
employment. There are statutes that protect for wrongful
termination based on discrimination.
However, if the employer (the correct term) is smart about it
they will simply fire you because of lack of work and state
that employment was at-will. You can
bring a lawsuit against your former employer, and the usual
song and dance is if an attorney finds enough merit in your
case there will be an out of court settlement.
If there is an employee handbook explaining the terms of
employment and what is a fire-able offense then it's a bit
harder.
\_ no, you can't hire/fire based on race. See the Civil Rights
act. That's why if you do go see a lawyer the first thing
they will ask was "was it race based". If you say "no" then
they probably will lose interest in talking to you.
\_ Yes, but if the reason is race/gender/religion you can't say
that's the reason why, unless you want to get suuuued.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/pubarticles/Employment/at_will.html
\_ Get a cat
\- I dont know a tremendous about employment law, but I believe
there are two factors to consider: 1. who is covered and
2. what is the standard. 1. re: "who is covered" obviously a
public sector employer or subcontractor is prohibited. But
today probably almost all employers will be covered ... this
is the famous (ab)user of the interstate commer clause to
give the federal govt jurisdiction in these matters. A famous
quote talks about how the "ICC lets the fed govt regulate an
elevator operator's job in kansas city" [elevator -> cant
move like say trucking or bread production]. so by default
you are probably covered. some exception are things like
religious organization ... ostenisbly a hindu temple can
prefer to hire hindu for a number of positions. even a sole
proprietorship like a bar is probably covered [alcohol
license] ... but i am not sure if all very small commercial
enterprises are covered [you run a home business and hire
somebody to stuff envelopes]. 2. using racial or relig [or
the other categories mentioned on the expertlaw] WEEB page
call the "strict scrutiny" standard, which means it needs the
highest level of justification [and some more obligations].
it's easier to "discriminate" based on "must be able to life
80lbs" or "but be at least 5'6" than "no women" "no chinese"
etc. this applies to more than employment relationships ...
it's been argued about for laws [e.g. a case where the
drinking age was lower for women], education, club
memberships etc. this expasion of federalism through the ICC
is one of the philosophical debates at the heart of the
rightwing turn of the court. unless the new breed of
republicans go totally nuts, this is more likely to be the
ground the gives way than Roe v Wade. ok tnx. --psb
\- BTW, for a similar dilemma see BATSON v. KENTUCKY [and
its successors like Wilkerson v TX and Swain v. Alabama for
context] which says you cant kick someone off of a
jury because or race [i.e. a peremptory isnt really a
peremptory any more] ... so now lawyers make up a
reason other than race [kickng offf based on gender also
not allowed but i forgot the SupCt case] to kick people
off. Of course the only people who explicitly say they
are doing things based on race are people looking for
a fight [like the "white only" scholarship case]. --psb |
| 2004/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34844 Activity:nil |
11/11 http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html Pro-life wing nuts all pissy at Bush because of Gonzales, who is pro-choice. That's for electing Bush you dumb fuck right wing Christians!!! \_ thank you for the rant, left winger \_ Bush is actually pretty centrist. He may be trying to reign in the far right parts of his administration. \_ OMG you made a funny! \_ Supreme Court nominee will be liked by the more conservative in the party. |
| 2004/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Health/Women] UID:34834 Activity:high |
11/11 Pharmacists in Red States refuse to give out contraceptive
pills because of religion and/or personal belief:
http://tinyurl.com/4tamp
\_ Sounds like quite the opportunity for competition to thrive.
\_ Man, just wait until you get a Jehova's Witness in charge of a
hospital!
\_ how about a Christian Science Emergency Room? HAHAHA
\_ don't insult Christian Science, they really work. Here is
a proof-- they can make infertile women have babies
again: http://tinyurl.com/5wfnf
\_ That's unbelievable. Your personal views have absolutely no
place in your professional practice. I can't believe that
people like that still exist in this country.
\_ apparently 53% of the Americans don't agree with you.
\_ Are you pro-choice or pro-life?
\_ I am pro-choice, but that's irrelevant. A customer
should be free to have ANY prescription filled,
no matter what it is. It's not the pharmacist's job
to decide if it's appropriate, it's the doctor's.
\_ Is it irrelevant? Assisted suicide is legal in Oregon.
Would you be as unsympathetic to a health worker or
pharmacist in Oregon who refuses to participate in an
assisted suicide case?
\_ Congratulations, you just compared birth control pills
to suicide! Stay tuned for the moral equation of
gay marriage with slavery and the halocaust!
\_ Yep. I assume the pharmacist in the original
story believes that birth control == murder. Just
as some Oregon health care provider might belive
assisted suicide == murder. Legality has very
little to do with morality, which is why I asked
if the poster was pro-choice or pro-life. We
are all relatively comfortable with birth control
being morally neutral, and that allows the prof.
practice poster to take such a strong stand. I
would guess that we can mostly accept that it
would be more legitimate to find assisted suicide
not morally neutral, which is why I asked the
poster if he would still be as comfortable with
his uncompromising stance. If he is just as
uncompromising, great, though one might mention that
following orders is not a sufficient excuse in many
situations. If he is more flexible
with refusing to help with legal assisted suicide,
then that raises the pro-life/pro-choice question,
since the original pharmacist presumably believe
that birth control == murder. In any case, it's
easy to condemn someone, but it's probably not
terribly production. It's much more useful to
try to understand someone's behavior.
\_ Birth control pills are not, contrary to common belief,
aborticants (i think that's the word). They act by
preventing ovulation. No egg ever gets fertalized.
\_ Contrary to common belief? Jesus fucking christ, are
people really that ignorant?
\_ What do you think...? -John
\_ ja sind sie
\_ Every time something is done to prevent our Christian
hordes from filling every nook and cranny of the planet
a crime is committed. And every sperm is sacred.
\_ I really don't think that that's common belief.
\_ "abortifacients".
\_ I don't quite get this, I thought anti-birth control was a
Catholic thing, not a prodestant thing.
\_ the supposedly better educated Northern Blue State
Elitists' ability to spell amazes and embarrases me -liberal
\_ We're better at it, at least. I hope. |
| 2004/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34816 Activity:high |
11/10 Too bad Bork was Borked
Constitutional Persons: An Exchange on Abortion
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0301/articles/schlueter_bork.html
\_ why's that? Bork is almost universally agreed to be
way more conservative than any member of the supreme court.
i'm glad someone that extreme isn't on the court! no matter
how much he prides himself on his faithful interpretation
of the constitution. just because he's brilliant
doesn't mean he belongs up there.
\_ he's a strict constructionist! Dubya would LOOOVE him!
\_ Bork's too old. Dubya wants to destroy USSC credibility for
generations to come!
\_ Dubya's too late. Earl Warren did that already.
\_ 'agreed' - by who? Did you even bother to read his
article in the link?
\_ agreed on by the entire planet.
\_ Yes, but *which* planet?
\_ are you seriously going to debate with me whether most
of the world does not agree Bork is the meanist orniest
strict constructionist ever put forth before the
nomination process?
\_ We've just had an election where most of the voters
thought Dubya would make a better president. Do you
really want to argue whether what "most of the world"
thinks has any connection to reality?
\_ "Strict constructionist" == interprets the way I like
"Activist judge" == interprets the way I don't like
\_ strict, as in thomas, scalia, and bork = if no
constitutional mandate defer to the people and their
legislative representatives.
activist = I know whats best for the unwashed masses. |
| 2004/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:34807 Activity:very high |
11/11 The Trouble with Roe
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200411100848.asp
Excellent.
\_ I don't like democracy. -- ilyas
\_ Huh?
\_ "The people are revolting!" -geordan
\_ "The Constitution says not a word about abortion". Nor about
women voting. Without going into strict vs. loose constructionism
you cannot have a static document that constrains every single
aspect of how your government evolves. New shit happens, and
a democracy must adapt to deal with it. This is why we have a
supreme court, to interpret the damn constitution, instead of a
500 page EU monstrosity that addresses every conceivable
eventuality of government. -John
\_ Adding to what you said: Dubya is a strict constructionist.
\_ No, that's why we have a legistature and an amendment
process.
\_ ...which is currently busy banning commie fags from
getting married. Next?
\_ When in doubt you can always gay-bait, huh?
\_ Referring to pp. Sarcasm, pal.
\_ the power belongs to the people. Why not let them decide
through their legislatures rather than judicial fiat?
\_ You see we have a government of 3 branches and it is a
good idea to have 1 branch not be accountable to the
people. This is a republic, not a democracy.
\_ You misunderstand the nature of the 'republican'
contract, as embodied in the Constitution.
What insights on the morality of abortion does
a Supreme Court Justice possess as compared to
say, a MOTD contributor?
\_ A bunch more, by virtue of a superior education,
judicial experience reviewing and interpreting
legislation passed by representatives elected by said
MOTD contributor, and authority stemming from
confirmation by those elected officials. Point? -John
\_ Though I don't know you, you appear to me
as a statist who likes
authority figures to tell you how to think.
You prefer the warm sanctuary of security rather
than the risks and responsibilities of liberty.
\_ A majority of the public supports choice.
\_ Caveat: so do I. However, a majority of the public may also
support killing you and scattering your ashes; the joy of the
Constitution and the Amendment process is that a simple majority
cannot vote your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness out of existence. Should Congress attempt to pass the
"Very Specific Extermination Law," the USSC would be able to stop
the law from being executed against your person. Yay, the
system!
\_ You're assuming that said law doesn't become a constitutional
ammendment.
\_ I'm sure the public was against interracial marriage at the time of
the case that allowed it. Majority does not always rule.
\_ A) You're "Sure?" Any evidence? B) I actually don't care
about A, because this is a completely unrelated red-herring.
\_ I am not sure you can dismiss pp's point quite so easily.
Even if the public was not in fact against interracial
marriage, it _reasonably could have been_. And so you are
left with having to give an account of that situation anyways.
Consider the medieval 'public.' Democracy sort of works where
there is a cultural bedrock of common decency on which it can
rest. -- ilyas
\_ Democray only works if there is an understanding that
while majority has power, the rights of the minority(ies)
need to be respected and considered. This is something
that has been in short supply lately.
\_ Ok, furthermore, the consitution actually DOES talk
about race relations. Given Amendment 15 (in
conjunction with 14) it's hard to argue that the
Consitiution doesn't implictly conver interraccial
marriage. The Constitution DOES trump the majority,
this is covered in the article. (Unless the majority
is so large it can change the constitution.) But
abortion just isn't covered in the constitution.
\_ Erm, if you stretch XIV and XV ("voting stuff") to
cover interracial marriage, I can just as well stretch
IX and X ("rights stuff") to cover abortion. I
hereby sentence you to look at tubgirl. -John
\_ Fine, pick something 'obviously bad' not covered by the
Constitution. (Say no woman voting, per John's post
above).
Now imagine a 'fairly plausible' society
which would have a majority support for the
'obviously bad' thing. Now it's not so easy to dismiss
them philosopher kings, is it? -- ilyas
\_ A) Woman voting is also covered in the
constitution, and before Amendment 19. B) I'm
sorry we live in a democracy. Maybe you could
move someplace else, one run by philosopher kings.
\_ You = st00pid tr00l
\_ "abortion just isn't covered in the constitution".
Yeah. Basically, when does life begin? At conception?
If so, the zygote has as much of a right as a newborn.
Killing the zygote is killing a newborn.
Does life begin at birth? If so, you can terminate
the zygote.
Does life begin at the third trimester? If so,
you can terminate up to the second trimester.
Yes, the Constitution does not cover when life begins.
Pro-lifers say Science says life begins at zygote.
Pro-choice ppl say Science says life doesn't REALLY
begin until the second/third trimester.
Dur, someone shewt me. Life has obviously ended here.
\_ You're slightly mischaracterizing the pro-choice
position. Sperm are alive, eggs are alive, and
\_ Every sperm is sacred! --monty python
zygotes are alive. The things that have rights and
deserve protection are human beings, not human being
cells. An embryo is not a person because it is
not capable of thought or emotion until it has
become sufficiently developed. Exactly what level
of development allows for thought and emotion is a
scientific question, and therefore a sound basis for
law. When a soul is created is purely a question for
religion, and thus is not a sound basis for law. In
RvW they took amicus briefs from a bunch of religions
asking when an embryo becomes a person and got
answers varying from "before conception" to
"not until it has taken its first breath".
\_ So is anyone still wondering why I called
this subthread a "red-herring" and tried to
kill it early?
\_ Yes, this is what I meant when I said "Science
says life doesn't REALLY begin until", but I
thought that was obvious.
\_ !excellent
If he takes that long to get to the point, he probably doesn't have
much to say.
\_ Jane Roe is now pro-life
\_ OJ is still looking for the real killer
\_ non-sequitor counter argument
\_ Are you Chinese? Do you understand the effect the opium
trade had on China?
\_ ironic |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:34649 Activity:high |
11/3 So, which Supreme court decisions do you think will be overturned after
Roe? I'm betting on Griswold, and perhaps maybe the big enchilada,
Marbury vs. Madison:
http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist121/Part3/Marbury.htm
\_ not really funny
\_ seriously, how many of you neocons on soda actually want Roe v Wade
overturned? -nivra
\_ none but the fact of the matter is that Bush is in the office
and you bet your ass something's gonna give
\_ RVW was the worst USSC decision ever. Further opened
the door to judicial activism. It should be reversed merely on
Constitutional merit, and abortion rights returned to states,
where they preexisted.
\_ BvBoE was the worst USSC decision ever. Further opened the
door to judicial activism. It should be reversed merely on
Constitutional merit, and racial segregation rights returned
to states, where they preexisted. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34639 Activity:very high |
11/3 I'm seeing an argument around the net today that seems strangely
compelling. I think the most viable argument for blue states may
be to start arguing strongly for federalism and states rights.
The red states can have their theocracies, so long as they don't
interfere with what the blue states want for themselves. Less
centralized federal government, less transfer of resources between
states, and more equitable distribution of federal resources such
as they would be constituted. It would be a very uphill battle, but
it strikes me as the only rational response. What's really scary
is that this is precisely the argument that led to the Civil War.
\_ Do you even understand what you're saying? It is only a strong
Federal system that allowed the Civil Rights Movement to break the
evil (D)emocratic South/KKK. It is only a strong Federal system
that allows a poorly written legal opinion like Roe v. Wade to make
abortion a nation wide right instead of each State being allowed to
decide the issue for itself. Same thing for a number of other
issues I'm sure are close to your heart such as environmental laws,
work place protection, health standards, OSHA, etc. Calm down, stop
reading the net for a week and *think* about what you're saying.
Stop *feeling*.
\_ good luck. Bush said he's gonna screw stem cell research,
reduce abortion, and use YOUR tax money on programs like
abstenence in public schools. And I pledge allegiance
to the United States, under God...
\_ The sheer horror of a reduced numbers of abortions, abstinence
instead of random sex, and only 25 million in FED. FUNDED
embryonic stem cells. What is this country coming to?
\_ Yay, decentralization, ho! Maybe those crazy libertarians aren't
as evil as they seem. -- ilyas
\_ Most people don't think libertarians are evil or stupid. They
think they just oversimplify things. Often, to simplify is
to falsify.
\_ I never thought they were evil, just a little naive. Am I
making a libertarian argument here? I'm not arguing that the
individual states should be libertarian - I'm sure the reds
would want plenty of authoritarian power over people's personal
lives, and I can imagine some blues wanting more socialized
medicine etc. etc. More power to them. But it is clear that
this nation is coming unglued, and we need to reach an
equitable compromise. The California stem cell law (which was
flawed and which I opposed for various reasons) is one example
of what could be possible.
\_ Your argument is driven by practical considerations, but at
its core, and driven to its logical conclusion, it is
a libertarian argument. If you have your way and the
federal gvt loses its former prominence, what's to stop
the recursion from proceeding further? What if some
besieged county decides it wants more local power from
the state gvt, etc. Libertarians are very happy to
see power localize in the communities. -- ilyas
\_ I think your historical appreciation of US politics is
lacking.
\_ Prepare to be deported to Jesusland.
\_ Elaborate.
\_ I think it's pretty obvious the Dems can't handle being
out of power. Dems have controlled congress for, what,
50-100 years? Now that power has shifted you're all
running around screaming about how the world is going to
end if we don't put you back in power. Newsflash:
Democrat != Ruling Elite. When Dem's were in power,
centalized goverment was good, now it's bad. Go fig.
\_ Wow. You're so partisan it's a little sickening.
NEITHER party wants to be out of power and both will
kick and scream like a stuck pig when deprived.
Attributing that to D as though it's unique to them and
sets them apart from R is just silly. You've really
not been paying attention outside of the Rightwing echo
chambers/spin machine if you think it can be so easily
reduced to that. I think mainly it's not about being
out of power as it's about a damaged, morally bankrupt
presidency that really has almost NOTHING in 4 years
that it can point to as a success. This is what got
reelected. Once the emotion dies down, and all the
recriminations and stupid gloating ease back, what's
going to be found is that D couldn't field a candidate
that had appeal to anyone other than other D's....which
led to a less ideal presidency being reelected since
the opposing view was unable to field anything better.
It's emarrassing for the D's, but really has little to
do with your infantile and absurdly facile 'analysis'.
Rise above your party's spin, kid -- that's what your
education is supposed help you with; critical reasoning
skills.
\_ "Kid" funny insult from a guy who can't even
remember back to 1995.
\_ Your contentless reply only goes to confirm my
opinion of you. Here, have a lollipop.
\_ Did I say I was a Democrat? I'm concerned about the
divide in the country and ways to solve it.
\_ I never said you were.
\_ Actually, your post rather strongly implied that.
\_ Your post strongly implied you were. So
we're even.
\_ Uhm, seeing as you're replying to my first
post to this subthread, I'm forced to conclude
that you're an imbecile.
\_ Because you sign your post so everyone
knows when YOU'RE posting huh?
\_ Okay, fine. We're BOTH imbeciles.
\_ yeah.
\_ Well, good! |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34580 Activity:low |
11/2 Someone please tell me the consequences of Bush 4 more years?
So he'll appoint judges and make abortion illegal, fine.
Privatizing social security, fine. National deficit stays
the same or worse, fine. What else?
\_ My prediction is that the worst, from your point of view, that
will happen is more tax cuts. -- ilyas
\_ Abortion will never be outlawed, get over yourself.
\_ It will be outlawed on a state level.
\_ He will continue to lead the country such that we alienate _every_
other country on Earth. Terrorist factions receive increasing
support (indrectly) from those nations who were once our staunch
allies. The World is a More Dangerous Place, and we're back in an
arms race, but this time it's only a defensive one to protect our
borders, because we can't attack everyone and we'll find no allies
on any future targets, no matter how deserving.
\_ Dubya bombs Iran. Iran builds nukes with hidden centrifuges our
CIA couldn't find. Iran loses nukes. Oops! U.S. city nuked
with fission nuclear bomb. In the mean time, world continues to
hate us.
\_ Exactly like the 1980s, right?
\_ You talking about Osiraq?
\- abortion will be avail for upper middle class people. they are
also unlikely to be significantly affected by say a poorly
designed school voucher program ... the schools in a place
like saratoga will be fine, and in a place like SF, the white
people already send their kids to private school [sf pub sch dist
is <20% white?] ... poor people will be given things like $100
tax cut and told they can create some kind of health savings
account, but will probably shaft them in the long run. hopefully
dumb programs like going to mars or a moonbase wont happen from
science hacks the admin listens to. the plutocratization partly
under the guise of the "ownership society" will be one of the
worst effects, and the other is brown people getting the big
shaft via the patriot act and other auxilliary "enabling"
legislation for war on islam. there are a few other bad things,
but those would probably ocurr under the dems too. it would be
nice to image we would intervene in darfur, but i dont think
nice to imagine we would intervene in darfur, but i dont think
these guys care about something like that. at least cliton and
albright appear to feel some shame over usa non-action in
rwanda. i agree, iran gets nukes. but at this point that
probably happens under kerry too. will be interesting to see
if EU picks a fight with USA. i mean who is going to take the
first step or reconciliation? --psb
\_ Are you drunk? |
| 2004/10/18 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Health/Women] UID:34188 Activity:very high |
10/18 THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC ABOUT TO STONE A 13 YEAR-OLD GIRL
http://csua.org/u/9j0
\_ No, he's just totally 133t!
\_ That's "ABOUT TO STONING". Read the damn article. -John
\_ They're been stoning little girls and women for a long time in
Muslim countries. So what? You want to invade? We're not the
world's police. This is an internal cultural issue.
\_ America, Fuck Yeah!
\_ We have death penalty for minors here... what's the big deal?
the death penalty or the offense?
\_ Death by stoning, think about it...
\_ For one thing, it's a 13 year old pregnant by her 15 year
old brother. I highly doubt she propositioned him. The
brother is NOT getting the death penalty. (He's getting 150
lashes, which, depending on the kind of lash, could be a
death penalty. Anyone know what the approved lash is in
Islam?) I think they're just angry about the gross double
standard. |
| 2004/10/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:34010 Activity:high |
10/9 Remember Bush's Dred Scott reference during the second prez debate?
I thought it was just another malapropism. Turns out it was Bush's
secret handshake to pro-lifers, who believe they are the new
abolitionists: as the Dred Scott case was to slavery, so Roe vs.
Wade is to abortion (so they believe). Holy fuck: the president
said on national TV that if re-elected, he will make abortion
illegal by appointing Supreme Court justices who will overturn
Roe vs. Wade. Now, since most CSUA members are men, most of
whom don't fully appreciate that the simplest and crudest way to
control women is to control their bodies, let me repeat: HOLY FUCK!
\_ WTF? Dred Scott is a secret handshake protocol from the elders
of zion and elvis transmitted to their bigfoot warriors on earth
who are waiting to take over the chocolate factories around the
world when GWB sends the signal? You're a fucking nutcake.
\_ Face facts: apart from secretly transporting Jews out of Nazi
Europe in WWII, there is no holier historical cause greater
in the eyes of the public than the Abolitionists. No one likes
to see themselves as the villains, so anti-abortionists see
themselves as being the new Abolitionists, saving fetuses from
the clutches of corrupt and liberal mothers on an Underground
Railroad of bombed abortion clinics and John Brown-like
assassinations of pro-choice doctors. Bush tapped into that
belief by referring to Dred Scott.
\_ Indeed, Bush is definitely a right-wing pro-lifer. Being
a Malthusian I whole-heartedly am pro-abortion. However, how
does one "make abortion illegal" through loading the court
with conservative judges? It would violate stare decisis.
An easier method of making abortion illegal would be to pass
a constitutional amendment.
\_ Wow, there are Malthusians in the 21st century? You really
aren't kidding? Heehee! That's so awesome and quaint!
Are you a Green too, by any chance? Malthusians and Greens
are two great tastes that taste great together. -- ilyas
\_ What's the political philosophy that advocates mandatory
ex post facto abortions for the stupid? -John
\_ Malthus was correct -- See Easter Island. He just didn't
know about fossil fuels artificially (and temporarily)
extending the max population of humans. At the current
rate, we will have 250 billion people in 100 years, that's
impossible to sustain, so nature will control our numbers.
\_ Heh -- you obviously don't know very much about how the law
works.
\_ On the contrary, I know very well how the law works. Care
to explain how it is easier to overturn a previous decision
than to make a constitutional amendment? Dred Scott wasn't
techically overturned. Without a proper writ of cersiarori
it would be difficult to "overturn" a previous decision.
And you couldn't flippantly bring a case to court challenging
the legality of abortion. Since it is legal you can't
bring a suit to federal court for someone having one. Anyone
with a semester of CivPro would tell you that would be
a failure to state an action. It's obvious that YOU don't
know much about the law, nitwit.
\_ Your reading comprehension also seems to be severely
lacking. Train harder, grasshopper.
\_ Your lack of substance is rather shocking, try harder
trollboy.
\_ You're shocked by lack of substance on motd? Now
I have reason to doubt your intelligence. Poor boy.
\_ The point is not the overturn of Roe v. Wade but decisions
made on other cases that would render Roe v. Wade
meaningless. If the current Partial Birth Abortion issue
were decided by conservative justices, they could very
effectively lay the groundwork for determining that
all abortion procedures are barbaric, cruel, and
murderous; this would make it easier to pass legislation
banning all of the current surgical abortion procedures.
Would abortion be illegal? Of course not; you just can't
have one based on the current technology.
\_ Yes, understood, all very fine and all. In other words
the op was either very misiinformed or lazy or both
in his assertion. The point is that overturning
Roe v. Wade would require both legislation of some
sort and willing jurists, and one shouldn't merely
go about gesticulating about the end of the world
without some comprehension of the facts.
\_ The Pres. supports the current PBA legislation.
The USSC hasn't decided on the issue yet. If
four of the justices retire, and that set does not
include Thomas and Scalia, and Bush is allowed to
install four conservative judges before the issue
is decided, then the groundwork mentioned above
will be laid. The op is saying that Bush is
using language designed to inform anti-abortionists
that he is planning to do exactly this. The only
thing the op made a mistake on is assuming that
the Pres. wouldn't dare make a position like this
public. The rest of us knew that already.
\_ Roe was among the worst USSC decisions ever. It has zero
\- which other decisions would you
put in that elite group? --psb
Consitutional basis and most court observers, from both political
sides, found it completely absurd. In fact, Roe is a good
example of what the Court was originally designed to guard
against.
\_ Yawn.
\_ Noise: 99%. Signal: 1% (you spelled Constitutional correctly).
Would you like to try again with more substance or a URL?
\_ Do you have *any* idea what they based the decision on? I
know because I read it but you wouldn't believe me if I told
you. Go read the decision. It is truly ridiculous and
very bad law. I *very firmly* believe in abortion rights,
but basing them on something so weak is down right stupid
and begging to have them taken away later when the USSC
gets a clue or enough of the country figures it out and
puts a constitutional ban on it.
\_ The constitutional basis of RvW *is* kind of a stretch. I
could see them saying you can't force a patient or doctor
to answer any question about a suspected abortion, but to
say making the procedure illegal violates privacy is
really grasping. Nevertheless, I (and most Americans)
want to preserve the status quo. -!pp
\_ Abortion, as exists today, is a euphemism for eugenics. The
vaulted feminist Sanger, like many (most?) leftist
heroes, was an inveterate racist.
\_ Soooooo, the only fetuses being aborted are non-aryans? |
| 2004/9/16 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:33557 Activity:high |
9/15 So, what's the deal with stem cell research? I'm not too big on
killing embryos for their stem cells, that's a little creepy.
How old are the embryos when the are harvested? I don't know
anything about this topic, I'm just curious.
\_ just another form of modern cannibalism
\_ Troll alert.
\_ Sheesh, it's not a troll. I was out of the country when all
that stuff went down. Since when is asking for information
considered a troll? -op
\_ 1) Its an incredibly inflammatory topic, and very
emotionally charged. So its already a questionable
topic of debate here or in any other internet
forum.
2) Its not currently in the news or under active
debate. The US banned federal funding for it
and effectively ended active research. Other
countries are going ahead and will likely
beat us on any effective treatments. This
is not likely to change.
\_ I read a little about the Bush/Kerry stances on a
link off of slashdot. I KNOW it's not in the news
NOW. That's why I don't know anything about it!
3) Your opinion that its a little "creepy" is
pure trollbait. Throwing around loaded
adjectives like that without any opinion
of substance is just asking to be flamed.
\_ I don't have an opinion of substance because the
only response I'm getting to question on the
subject is "Troll alert!" I thought MAYBE someone
in the CSUA might know something, but I guess not.
\_ Have you tried...Google? Use the force, Luke!
4) Dangit, I think I've just been trolled.
\_ OK, on the off chance you aren't trolling: The embryos are usually
harvested at the blastocyst stage, which is when they are a ball of
several hundred cells. I consider this to be such a far cry from
being a baby that it's more like reproductive tissue. Now, when
women have abortions, some chose to donate the embryo for research
purposes. These embryos would be aborted anyway, so it's not like
we're killing babies for medical research. Prohibiting research on
donated embryos to me seems like prohibiting organ donation from
car crash victims on the grounds that you're benefiting from
people's deaths.
\_ Is using aborted embryos currently illegal? That's seems
silly to me as well. On the other hand, I also read a bunch
of stuff about the ethics of using Nazi spine research.
Some people didn't like the idea of using research done by
Nazis. (There's more to that story, but it's OT )
\_ Not illegal, but there's no funding, so the effect is the
same: aborted embryos go to the trash.
\_ Starting a troll topic on the motd: $5
Replying to your own troll topic: $100
Godwin'ing your own troll thread: Priceless.
\_ Best thing on the motd all week.
\_ That's how these things always start, then a few years after
it's legal you see ads "$1,000 for your fetus", then women
getting pregnant just to donate their unborn children. I would
ask anyone to argue this is a good direction for society.
\_ There are already laws against selling body parts. Why not
ban organ donation because someone might commit murder to sell
their victim's parts?
\_ Ron Reagan was talking about EMBRYONIC stem cells. These are
harvested from embryos that would be discarded anyway from a woman
on fertility treatment.
FETAL stem cells are from aborted fetal tissue, and is not what
Ron Reagan was talking about. Soda l05Er sez: "when women have
abortions, some chose to donate the embyro ..." -- that's "fetal
tissue".
\_ What's the difference if it's getting aborted anyway?
\_ Pro-life people don't want to have anything to do with
abortion. Embryonic stem cells are much farther removed from
abortion than fetal stem cells. "Duh."
\_ Well if you're a serious pro-life person, a discarded
embryo from a fertility treatment is just as much a
"dead baby" as an aborted fetus.
\_ You will figure out the difference on your own.
\_ Oh, I see the difference in intent, but I don't see
much difference in outcome if you really believe
the 'soul' begins at conception. |
| 2004/8/29 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:33203 Activity:nil |
8/28 For those of you who are wondering why conservitives tend to
assume liberals hate america, go down and check out the
magazines at Berkeley Bowl. The articles all have titles like,
"The Evils of Capitalism" and "Why the American Empire can't
last" etc. They sound exactly like islamic terrorists. You
could do a word replace script on a statement of Bin Laden's,
replacing [America will be destroyed because they] "Don't follow
the teachings of Allah" with "Don't follow the teachings of
Nature/Mother Earth/Pychology/Sociology/etc" and get an article
for one of these mags.
\_ Speaking of hateful rants...
\_ Not everyone on the left is a liberal.
\_ Smart liberals know that dumb liberals are what makes conservatives
conservative.
\_ If you listen to Herr Lakoff, what makes conservatives
conservative is their dominant metaphor:
http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html
If you listen to me, what makes a conservative is what makes
anybody else -- a choice of a moral system. -- ilyas |
| 2004/8/23 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Recreation/Sports] UID:33082 Activity:insanely high |
8/23 Dear shac, do you like basketball and rap and hip-hop music? Do you
like KFC? And your family? And do you have anything against abortion?
How about affirmative action, what is your stance on that?
kinda yes yes no yes none-ya none-ya -shac
\_ kinda yes yes no yes none-ya none-ya -shac
\_ ha ha you suck -brain
\_ Troll points: 1.2 out of 10. Thanks for playing, have a copy
of our home game, come again. -John
\_ HEIL Cherman John!
\_ Dear arbiters of MOTD lameness, is it acceptable or poor
form to make threats of severe bodily injury and generally
getting medieval on some scrawny shitwit's ass once found
out? I eagerly await your judgment. -John
\_ You should get SWISS on his buttocks.
\_ Just don't delete this thread out of order, or you'll
provoke ilyas into a frenzy. -meyers
\_ You know, meyers, rather than trying to give me
a hard time, why not try to reason with people who
delete things prematurely? I tried and it didn't
seem to work. Maybe you ll do better. -- ilyas
\_ This assumes that reason has worked with you in the
past.
\_ Uh, zing? One day you ll grow up and realize
reasonable people can disagree with you.
-- ilyas
\_ ha ha you suck too -brain
\_ I take it the irony is unintentional.
\_ Hey, I know plenty of reasonable folks
with different politics from mine. Some
even have soda accounts. Amazing, isn't
it? I think the guy who said most folks
use the motd to vent pretty much nailed
it. -- ilyas |
| 2004/6/21 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:30937 Activity:high |
6/21 Can anyone here offer a reasonable defense for partial birth
abortion? -jrleek
\_ WOW! This was a *great* troll! I'm shocked that you got so many
lines out of such an obvious hot-button issue. *VERY* well done!
You earn the "Troll of the Month" award!
\_ if the foot is still in the pussy, it's fair game
\_ Why do you hate trolls?
\_ Um, which procedure are you talking about, since the PBA folks
can't seem to specify (even in the bill)? Do you mean Intact
Dilation and Extraction?
\_ Either Intrauterine cranial decompression ior Intact
Dilation and Extraction. Perferably both, I don't see a
whole lot of difference between the two. -jrleek
\_ Here is some information on intact dilation and extraction:
http://csua.org/u/7up (nationmaster link)
This procedure is only performed under extreme circumstances,
most of which involve the woman's life being put in severe
danger or the fetus actually dying in utero. I would argue
its necessary for doctors to be able to choose this procedure
under these circumstances. The bill that passed through
Congress and that Bush signed did not, and that is why it will
ultimately be struck down.
\_ My understanding is the the bill that was passed
allowed for the procedure under these conditions.
Link?
\_ I believe the situation is described under the link I
provided. The bill _does_ make an exception to save the
woman's life, but does not make an exception for
"health." This is an extremely murky area, becuase
then you are required to get into judgements about what
damage to quality of life constitutes "grevious damage"
to health, and distinguishing that from a case where
the woman's life really is in danger. I believe there
is also some very murky language in the bill itself
as to what procedure they were talking about, but I don't
have any URLs on hand for that one at the moment.
The groups challenging the law claim that it defines
"partial-birth abortion" so broadly that it bans
many types of safe abortion techniques that are used
in pre-viability procedures in the second trimester.
If they had passed a law that specifically banned third
trimester IDX abortions where the woman's health was
not in danger, as many states have already done, the
ACLU and NAF would probably not have much of a case.
But they wanted to make a big splash with the pro-life
groups, so they chose the more broadly worded bill.
\_ Ok, I just googled this up, but you're correct
about it not mentioning a that the procedure is
ok if the woman risks disability. However, i
wasn't really talking about the BUsh bill, I'm
curious in a more general sense. Assuming the
bill was written with this clause, why would you
support partial birth abortion? (Assuming you
don't support straight up infanticide.)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba7.htm
_/
I think you're slightly mischaracterizing the debate-- it's not as if PBAs
are being pushed as a great birth control alternative. Late term abortions
of any kind are dangerous and painful, and they're *always* a last resort.
\_ If it's so reluctant, why can't the baby be born and then be adopted? How
does having the baby essentially being birthed spare the mother anything?
It's a messy issue, but it's one of those things where if a qualified MD is
willing to do the procedure, it's probably because there's no other choice.
I'm opposed to the bill because it seems like simple political grandstanding,
and will mislead people into thinking that all abortions are as bad as PBAs.
As for why I would "support" PBAs, I support them in the same sense that I
support cops being able to shoot people-- in a perfect world they wouldn't
be necessary, but here we are.
\_ I don't support or not support it. Its not a medical
term. There is no such procedure. I support a
woman's right to choose an abortion up to the
point of viability. Beyond that, legislation is
and has always been appropriate under Roe v. Wade.
IDX itself makes me queasy, but under most of
the circumstances listed above besides the dubious
"mental health" reason, I would support it. The
"pba ban" bill is ridiculous because it defines
and bans a set of medical procedures that don't
exist.
\_ because some people think abortion is
a right no matter what.
\_ Claiming you don't know what PBA is because
it's not a medical term is like saying you
don't know what a cat is becasuse it should
be called "feline domesticus."
\_ Its a false analogy. The imagery that is used
to describe "partial birth abortion" is from
the aforementioned IDX procedure, which as I
said is extremely rare and is used almost
exclusively to protect the life of the mother.
\_ Where are the statistics that back this
claim up?
\_ Ashcroft tried to get them but was
denied by a judge. No numbers either
way.
\_ Then how can you say that it's
"extremely rare and is used almost
exclusively to protect the life of the
mother"?
The bill that was passed does not ban this
procedure specifically - instead it broadly
defines 'PBA' in a way that encompasses
many safe and legal techniques used for
pre-viability abortions in the second trimester,
some as early as the 12th week. This is bad
science and bad medicine. Just for some
perspective, 58 percent of legal abortions
occur with the first eight weeks of gestation,
and 88 percent are performed within the first
12 weeks. Just about 10 percent are performed
between 13 and 20 weeks. Less than one half
of one percent occur after 24 weeks, where IDX
would be used.
\_ Here you go, Washington Post editorial on partial birth abortions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17029-2004Jun4.html
\_ Shrug. If people come up with a bill that says partial birth
abortions are legal only when it's the best choice for the mother,
I think that would be totally constitutional, abortionists would
be satified, and everyone could go home happy. |
| 2004/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30013 Activity:very high |
5/5 Donna Brzile says Kerry campaign and Democratic party lack diversity;
only white people in highest policy making positions, while Bush
campaign says its campaign extensively staffed by minorities at top
policy and stategy-setting levels. .... I find this very troubling.
When did our party become so RichWhiteMale elitist while they were
putting all these tokens out there for PR?
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040504-110932-5540r.htm
\_ duh? democratic party is white slave owner, mass minority
slavery. THe whities know what is best for the minorities
\_ Duh. Most minorities, recent immigrants, are conservative.
There's alot of "Fuck you, I already got mine!" mentality;
we could go on about the "struggling to find identity in a
new place and thus latching onto conservatism" psychology but
if you think about it; most immigrants are religious, don't
want lots of taxes, supportive of the corps that sponsored 'em,
and not educated in liberal universities.
\_ Kane has this theory that my formative moment, the moment when
I became a libertarian, happened when I first entered an
American supermarket, and saw the wall o' cheese. Oh and:
"I got my cheese -- fuck you!" -- ilyas
\_ Is this satire, or what?
\_ There was this other JFK....
\_ I find it quite odd that the Dems are STILL managing to fool
people into thinking the Dems are in any way "pro-minority."
They've always treated them like token people to be pushed
around.
\_ Actually, they've taken them for granted, and that's almost
worse. They need to wake up before some third-party candidate
sweeps them away. OTOH, anyone who thinks the GOP is on the
side of minorities is really not paying attention. If you're
a member of a minority, your best bet is to have a Dem in the
White House, but keep pressing for reform; if you're rich and
you want to stay rich, stick to the GOP.
\_ The GOP is actually quite good for high-income minority
groups (e.g. Chinese and Indians).
\_ If you want more money, yes. If you want civil rights
and more Chinese and Indians in politics or positions
of real power, no.
\_ Affirmative action. If you (non-privileged minority)
care about getting treated fairly by the government
and schools, then GOP.
\_ If the playing field were already level, I'd agree
with you. Since it is peppered with Old-Boy-
Networks, I do not.
\_ How is the playing field skewed in favor of
the Chinese or the Indian?
\_ It's not. It's skewed in favor of rich white
men.
\_ Wow, he actually stepped right into it.
You lose, on grounds of having no
connection to reality.
\_ Naw, I lose because I couldn't pass up
an obvious troll. We all lose because
the playing field is skewed.
\_ Then why is affirmative action punishing
Chinese and Indians? That's the original
question. Why the Chinese and Indian (and
other successful minority groups) should
vote GOP.
\_ We all have defining issues. As a Chinese parent,
mine is affirmative action. GOP.
\_ I would think the GOP is good for anyone that pulls
their own weight, and does not continuously see all
slights as "racism." and thinks a gun owning
society is an excellent deterrent to crime, and
that babies should not be murdered at the altar of
career.
\_ You forgot the "I worked hard for my money and deserve
to keep it" and "Everyone should be able to accomplish
as I have" (both are sort of extensions to the "pull
their own weight" slant and both are utter bullshit for
a society of more than a small town).
\_ But what about people who think the government should stay
out of their personal lives? What about people who think
a fetus isn't a baby until it has a brain at least as
developed as a slug?
\_ You pro-life fascist! It's not a baby until it has a
brain at least as developed as a mouse! Bastard.
\_ You take a poll asking which of them would have liked
to have been killed in the womb before birth, and
when abortion is exposed as a hypocritical
and selfish sham, they are defeated. Society dies
quickly when abortion is common. Since 1973 we
have had 40 million babies die in the womb, who
will step to bat and say we are better off without
them? Who among us has wished for more friends, or
is unmarried and has not wished for a spouse?
\_ Asking who would like to have been aborted is a
straw-man argument. You might as well ask who would
like to have never been concieved and then use that
result to force every women to be pregnant all the
time. I for one think we are better off having
40-million fewer babies. That's 40-million fewer
kids born to parents who weren't ready for them.
- dgies
\_ And who among us is married and wished he were
not?
\_ In other words, for idealist believers in meritocracy,
people who don't understand that the current society
still institutionalizes racism, zealots who don't think
our current system of justice protects them, and
misogynists who want women barefoot, pregnant, and in
the kitchen.
\_ But now they have careers, and the national birth
rate is at an all-time low, so we might not
have enough workers in a generation to pay for
all the government spending we have deemed critical.
\_ 1) It is not the responsibility of women to have
more babies to create more potential workers,
friends, or mates; if you want a society based
on this, then start growing babies in creches.
2) Forcing people who are not ready to be parents
to have babies will not produce well-adjusted
future citizens; you're just going to over-
populate lower-income areas and flood the
welfare system. As for adoption, there are
thousands of children waiting to be adopted;
making more babies for an already over-
whelmed system is not going to help.
\_ This is why I don't understand why GOPers try to
make fun of liberals. Why bother? They make fun
of themselves by saying inane things like this with
a straight face.
\_ Hehehe, you so funny, man-who-doesn't-understand-
irony.
\_ The best results are with fundamental theocracy. Lets start one! |
| 2004/3/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:12864 Activity:moderate |
3/25 Fetus now protected (yahoo news) -- http://tinyurl.com/34qgd When will it be a federal crime to harm our sperms? \_ Hmm, "from my cold dead fingers" seems just as appropriate. \_ it already is, if you kick someone in the nuts and make him infertile,you'll pay bigtime \_ Here is a point with same amplitude but opposite sign: http://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdweb/The%20Pre%20Persons.htm (A short story where Congress decided human beings acquire a soul and thus human rights at age 12, when they can begin to do simple algebra). Incidentally, I really resent those anti-abortion idiots who bring really large, really graphic posters to campus. You know, a place where lots of little kids come on a regular basis. Really pisses me off. -- ilyas \_ Obligatory but must be done: There are Jews in the world/There are Buddhists/There are Hindus and Mormons, and then/There are those that follow Mohammed, but/ I've never been one of them/I'm a Roman Catholic/And have been since before I was born/And the one thing they say about Catholics is/They'll take you as soon as you're warm/You don't have to be a six-footer/You don't have to have a great brain/You don't have to have any clothes on. You're/A Catholic the moment Dad came,Because/ Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. (repeat x2) \_ Maybe when it becomes popular to punch yourself in the balls really hard? It's kinda liek Darwinic suicide I guess... simple algebra). -- ilyas \_ It has been a crime to kill an unborn child for a long time. You may have noticed (or not) that Scott Peterson is being charged with killing his unborn son. That's not the first time. Sperm isn't life and you know it. Don't get all tinfoil hat and red herring on the motd. \_ Isn't that the whole point of the motd? \_ I don't know about you, but *my* sperms got little tails that they wiggle as they swim upstream and overcome adversities. If they are not alive, I don't know what's alive. \_ enough trolling from you \_ The crime with the unborn child is against the mother, who wanted the child. Not against the fetus. |
| 2004/1/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12031 Activity:nil |
1/30 What do you think would happen if the Democrats started publicly
running on the claim "Bush will take away the right to abortion
if he is reelected" ... and they just keep saying that over and
over and over. --psb
\_ You adorable little neocon, you. Still, it's funny that I haven't
\- where did *that* come from? --psb
heard anything about abortion, yet. Given W's clear intentions and
how far they are from a sizable portion of the electorate, you'd
think they'd be making more meat out of it. Maybe they don't want
to touch it until after the national.
\_ Very little. Those lines have already been drawn. Those who are
pro-abortion and pro-Bush know it's possible and will fight the
issue when it comes up, but it isn't enough to shift votes. The
reverse is true too.
\- look there is a general sense that "ooh bush owes some favors
to the crazy right wingers" i am talking about taking the
sort of sleazy "if the democrats get into offices the will
spend a billion dollars to trawl the prisons for black serial
rapist and subsized their relocation to saratoga, ca ... be
afraid!" type tactics and using them against the Reps. It
will be sort of hard to say "john kerry will sell texas to
the communistas" since they just need to trot out john kerry
walking into a freefire zone while bush is at happy hour eating
pork rinds. you cant make something like capital punishment
reform an issue. nor even gun control. abortion may be the
one issue that will energize you lazy hedonistic liberals.
my interest here is academic. you may wish to read "the 480".
--psb |
| 2003/12/7 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29694 Activity:high |
12/6 More fine Republican Family Values:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy08252003.html
\_ Free MUMIA!
\_ yeah.. i want to free a cop-killer.
\_ Dang republicans. Thank goodness for the fine upstanding
Democrats, like Ted Kennedy. |
| 2003/12/4 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:11310 Activity:high |
12/2 I shouldn't do this. But I just can't help myself...
I was accused in a now defunct thread of being a pro-life libertarian.
In fact, I am a pro-abortion libertarian. The difference between me
and the poster is that i'm capable of a shred of objectivity
and of conceding an opponents point. Roe v. wade is a archetypical
example of "legislating from the bench". Unless you really think the
constitution makes mention of which trimester it is ok to kill a fetus
in. -phuqm
\_ it's funny how flame/troll/debate topics seem to flucutate
on the motd. I've seen people try to start abortion flame
wars dozens of times without anyone even bothering to
reply over the last few years, but now all of a sudden it's
a hot button topic here. doesn't anyone want to have a
nice isreal/palestine flamewar?
\_ The constitution does make it a capital crime to kill another
human being. This opens Pandora's Box as concerns the question
of what constitutes a human being; whether the health of the
mother is more vital than the health of the fetus; whether a
woman can be coerced to bear to term a child she conceived
through rape, incest, date-rape, or other violation; and whether a
woman is obliged to bear to term a child that has been demonstrated
to have genetic or terratogenic defects, life-threatening or
no. Roe v. Wade seeks to clarify the Constitution by interpreting
it according to current ethical standards while taking into
account recent social phenomena like Women's Lib and the Sexual
Revolution. This is the job of the Supreme Court: to wade in,
when the Constitution is unclear, and take a stab at clarifying
it. If the Legislative Branch disagrees, it's free to draft
Constitutional Amendments that clarify the Constitution as they
perceive it. --erikred
\_ Sorry, you have it backwards. Roe was social engineering,
completely unfounded with no stare decisis. Its laughable
how you divine the existence of a natural right to abortion
from the bill of rights, or that such a question necessitates
Federal authority. Its a state issue, insofar as the
question can broached by government. The role of the
Supreme Court is exactly NOT to wade into vaguely defined
question of social justice. Leave it to the voters
and a legislature. 'Clarify it with current ethical
standards' - so when pedophilia and beastiality are in vogue
well have the Supreme Court to clarify it for us. Whoopee!
\_ That's right, abortion is just like pedophelia and
bestiality. Anyone who wants legal abortions must first
defend legalizing animal abuse and sex with children.
\_ Thanks for the laughable assertions, but unless you're
willing to put forth a logical explanation for your
point of view, expect to be laughed at and then ignored.
\_ Law changes with society. If you cannot accept that, then
you can't even expect to get to step one in understanding.
\_ Here my logical explanation: I can read the
Constitution and all of the ancillary documents.
That is the beauty of it, its so simply written all you
do is READ the damn thing. Yes socials mores change,
that is why there are provisions for these things called
AMENDMENTS. That is how you change the Constitution,
not by redendering your percevied view of justice
from a bench. You elitist fucks think you are so
smart, that you need to save the populace from itself.
\_ protecting the rights of minorities is one of the
tenets of our democracy. what gives you the right
to make laws about what people do with their own
body?
\_ you are missing the point. I suggest that you
are too stupid to engage in this conversation.
\_ I suggest you missed my point. I responded
to the "save the populace from itself"
remark. I also suggest you are a shithead.
\_ Please learn to format your posts to 80 char
columns. But you are right, if this had been
decided by legislature instead of the courts
it would be much less contentious.
\_ Nice.
\_ That doesn't fit the black and white neocon world, babykiller!
\_ where does the constitution ever talk about what crimes are
capital crimes?
\_ this is well reasoned but not correct. The Constitution does
NOT make it a capital crime to kill another person. The
Constitution does not make ANYTHING a "capital crime". IIRC,
The only "crimes" the constitution mentions by name are
counterfeiting and treason. The Constitution is not a body of
laws for governing people. It is a body of laws for governing
GOVERNMENT. It lays out who has what authority to do what
and it does so in a pretty damn clear manner. (it is also
pretty short, i recommend reading it.) The basis
for convicting murderers is in STATE laws (the penal code for
murder in CA is 187 iirc). The Supreme court has the
authority to overturn unconstitutional laws; it does not have
the (constitutional) authority to MAKE NEW ONES. That is the
role of the Legislative branches of the US and of the States.
Roe V. Wade, suggested that it laws against abortion were
unconstitutional as they violated the non-explicit "penumbra"
of rights implied by the explicit stating of the bill-of-rights
Now, this is already a bit of a stretch, but being a Libertine
i'm all for it. However, when it goes a step further and says
"but a law which prohibits 3rd trimester abortions would be ok"
it is no longer "clarifying the constitution by interpretation."
It is legislating pure and simple. It is saying women in the
US can have an abortion up till 6 months and not after. That
is not its role. -phuqm
\_ It is the role of the Supreme Court to determine if a law
is constitutional or not. The Supreme Court decided in this
case that the current law was not consitutional. The SC then
went on to describe a scenario in which a similar law would
be constitutional, thus providing a counterpoint to its
decision. It did not make 3rd trimester abortions illegal,
and it did not enjoin the House and Senate to pass
legislation in this vein on pain of penalty. How is this
legislating? --erikred
\_ objectivity is a farce
\_ Thanks for the sophmoric philosophy lesson. This is exactly
the sophistry they are using in law schools today to teach a
whole generation of law students that it is ok to rule without
regard for what the law says, because, hell, who can know for
SURE. That a goal is not perfectaly attainable does not mean
you should not attempt to get closer. -phuqm
\_ is phuqm an alias? can't seem to find this user.
\_ fuck'em
\_ yes. -phuqm@hotmail.com
\_ then why bother signing your shit? it's not like any of
us are going to bother writing you at some anonymous
hotmail account.
\_ why does anyone bother? who cares? it's just a
usenet dickhead ego thing. |
| 2003/8/16 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29367 Activity:high |
8/15 A short essay on labels in America:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-08-03-1.html
\_ It's really funny that someone would erase a link to an essay
advocating moderation. You guys crack me up! Restored (twice).
advocating moderation. You guys crack me up! Restored (thrice). |
| 2003/8/6 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:29253 Activity:very high |
8/6 Supreme Court - Ginsburg: Int'l Law Shaped Court Rulings
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/959020/posts
Why limit ourselves to the EU, I think we should really
push for diversity and incorporate decisions from North Korea,
Zimbabwe, and Sudan.
All you purported civil libertarians, this is the true
danger to our republic. If you want to invent law, do it
through the legislature not activist judges.
\_ There are worse things to worry about on the Supreme Court than
\_ I love reading freeper links. The comments remind me just how
insane you freaknuts are. Calling for lynchings and revolution
over a justice saying she looks are what other countries are
doing as guidance is hillarious.
\_ there are worse things to worry about on the Supreme Court than
Ginsburg. Sadly.
\_ Good point! When there's more than 1 problem we should only
look at them 1 at a time and ignore the rest! I love that sort
of purist linear thinking. Are you running for CA Governor?
\_ Not all international legal ideas are bad things. Both
Napoleonic law and English common law set useful precedents (in
our case, what do you think our corpus of laws is loosely based
on?) And as for your "North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Sudan" argument,
why do you believe that we, at least in theory, have an independent
judiciary? Do you think there are laws governing every single
possible facet of society and conduct, or is the judiciary actually
supposed to have some leeway interpreting what's applicable in
various cases? And concerning Scalia's statement that "the court
should not 'impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans.'",
look to yourself. Don't you think that is highly ironic, given that
Hilary Rosen has been appointed to help draft copyright law for
Iraq? I would be highly interested in your responses. -John
\_ Please refer to my aforementioned statement, but I will
reiterate. You are welcome to whatever English
law not already included in the Constitution (although
how can you improve upon Constitution?) - but do
it through the legislative process. Bypassing the
legislatures perverts the entire process. In other
words, the process is just as if not more important
than the law, in part because of stare decisis.
One example, FDR implemented the New Deal by forcing
Justices to resign and stacking the court.
\_ You're still mad about that whole New Deal thing
aren't you
\_ The Constitution says nothing about the death
penalty, abortion, traffic tickets, and a whole slew
of other issues. These are open to interpretation by
judges and courts. You'll note the article's use of
the phrase "guidance"--there is nothing preventing our
judiciary, created under the Constitution (how can you
improve upon the Constitution?) from looking to other
legal, philosophical, ethical, societal, and political
models for ideas on how to interpret the law of the
land. In addition, have a closer look at the article's
reference to treaties--the Constitution provides for the
ratification of treaties by the legislature--if the US
Congress and Senate accept our adherence to an intl.
treaty, the judiciary may very well use it as a source
of guidance for legal judgments, if that treaty does not
contravene the Constitution itself, according to the
Supreme Court, whose job it is to interpret that
document. -John
\_ Correct, however the SC isn't necessarily talking
about treaty based rulings but just whatever the
EU happens to be doing this week or next.
\_ Look if congress wanted to say something about it, they
could have said it. the only reason why the supreme court
is involved in the first places is that congress was mute
about the subject.
\_ The Constitution does not leave for the SC the right to
invent new law where the Congress has failed to create
one, but only to interpret existing laws as written.
The SC is *not* a "fill-in-the-blank" law making body.
Or at least was never intended to be until recently. |
| 2003/4/10 [Finance/CC, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:28071 Activity:moderate |
4/11 Barefoot and pregnant: the results of clean living in UT:
http://csua.org/u/cd6
\_ Sigh. Not the result of clean living. Interestingly, the LDS church
actually teaches the importance of living within your means,
avoiding debt unless absolutely necessary, and to consider bankruptcy
only as a last option. -emarkp |
| 2002/12/28 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:26928 Activity:nil 57%like:25501 66%like:26366 66%like:28788 |
12/27 [troll deleted]
\_ BLACKS HAVE LESS RIGHTS THAN ANIMALS?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/812778/posts
\_ drat. missed the troll. it's so quiet in the office. i wish you'd
leave the trolls alone so i'd have something to play with. |
| 2002/11/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:26566 Activity:very high |
11/15 how do Freepers like the Left Behind books?
\_ What a "Left Behind" book? --!freeper
\_ Bunch of religious-oriented action/adventure type novels
apparently written around the apocalypse. Lots of hype in
the press around it recently. I read some excerpts, and the
writing quality is pretty abominable (as opposed to most other
action/adventure type novels). I think it's mainly a case of
targeting content at a certain demographic group, i.e. giving
the plebes what they want to read. -John
\_ I'm a Christian. I'm one of the ones who gives money to
the Church (from an earlier topic). I do not like the
"Left Behind" books: that kind of apocalypse story
doesn't interest me and I agree the writing quality
stinks. The movie version's got Kirk Cameron, so it's
gotta be good, right?
\_ conservative != christian necessarily.
It's a political ruse used by the left.
\_ bullshit. The reason the two have been lumped together is
that the vocal, annoying christian minority, the kind that
loves the left behind books, is overwhemlingly republican.
Add to that the fact that the current repblican leadership is
practically wallowing in it's fundieism and it becomes hard NOT
to link the two. -aspo
\_ A implies B does not mean B implies A. Did you graduate?
From Cal? I already knew they'd let any idiot in but do they
let any idiot graduate?
\_ Well said.
\_ Not really. Not even if you're grinding the same axe.
\_ Neither Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Howard Stern, Dr. Laura,
nor Larry Elder, are Bible believing Christians. Is banning
partial birth abortion so evil?
\_ Look, I'm not saying if you are conservative you have to
be a christian, raving or otherwise. I'm saying the reason
many people equate the two are because of the actions of
a very vocal and strong compenent of the republican party,
the party most people associate with conservative values.
Don't blame "the left" for this misconception, blame those
that have wrapped fundementalist christian agendas into
the republican party line. -aspo
\_ "most associated" by who exactly? the leftist agenda
driven pseudo mainstream press? yeah thought so. Just
how much acid, pot, and whatever does it take to get to
where you are now? just curious.
\_ the term partial birth abortion is pretty inventive,
go read http://csua.org/u/599 . yes i realize
i have no hope of influencing the poster of the
above. - danh
\_ if partial birth abortions are so rare and so necessary
than would you object to a ban on PBAs except in cases
where it is medically necessary?
\_ so you're just the secularly righteous type?
\_ True atheist (not the nutty religion hating type) and true
conservative here. We exist. Thanks for noticing. -!op |
| 2002/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:26454 Activity:very high |
11/7 end of political correctness predicated, film at 11.
\_ Don't hold your breath. The fringe left obsession with language
came to be during the Reagan 80s largely, I feel, as an unconscious
reaction to the shock of suddenly being politically superfluous.
It may, god forbid, begin all over again. --Berkeley liberal
\_ It should be noted that "political correctness" includes
conservative phrasings, concepts, and spins which obsecrate
their views into much more "palatable" words and ideas.
\_ Wow, that's an incredible re-write of reality. PC is a very
strictly left wing linguistic butchery and nothing else.
\_ Oh no. If you've been around long enough, this sort of
thing showed up on both sides of the aisle. The more
recent and publicly obvious 80s-era virulent strain was
a lefty thing, but I've run into it in connection with
right-ey vocabulary as well as far back as the early 60s.
\_ such as?
\_ The very phrase "Political Correctness" is a PC right wing
invention.
\_ Bullshit. I was at Cal in the 80's and plenty of the
freshmen got 'corrected' numerous times by some lefty
with, "You can't say that! It's not PC!". I even have
an English 1A paper from my sophomore year which says
my paper wasn't "PC". You can try to revise history
all you like but that doesn't make how history really
was any different.
\_ The term was used by neocon types when I was at
Caltech in 1982. It is foolish to generalize from
your personal experience to all history.
\_ it is perhaps a perjorative term applied to lefty/
liberal euphemisms. But the euphemisms to which the
term is applied are themselves lefty inventions.
not that euphemisms are solely a lefty/liberal thing.
look at "regime change" "pro-life"
\_ The right turned it into a perjorative term but it
didn't start that way. The term is solely a creation
of the left.
\_ You have some sort of evidence backing this up?
\_ Let's start easy with regime change, freedom fighter,
ethnic cleansing, and pro-life.
\_ You don't seem to know what political correct means.
PC is all the non-reality crap about not calling a
cripple a cripple, but 'differently abled' and other
nonsense like that.
\_ Crap. PC is like I can't say white people have
higher IQ, or women should stay in kitchen,
or Jews control the media, etc.
\_ *laugh* I think we're done if you're going to try
to bait the motd like that.
\_ my friend called a mutual friend of ours a "mulatto",
I told him that only 17th century slavetraders in
New Orleans use that term, that it was archaic and
not used much anymore, he claimed "everyone in NYC
says 'mulatto'", he said I was being "PC", I called
him a moron. - danh
\_ So if cripples don't want to be referred to as
cripples, you'll do so anyways? That's cruel.
Cruelty is what the right is all about.
Also selfishness and materialism.
\_ They're not "differently" abled. They're
"disabled". If they want to be called "basketball
stars" more power to 'em but it's a lie. I'm
going to ignore your obvious troll on the cruelty
parts. No cookies to be found here.
\_ "Cripple" is very different from "disabled." |
| 2002/9/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:25783 Activity:high |
9/5 while some of you rally about memorializing 9/11, how about
some thought for those killed in Munich at the 1972 Olympic
Games 30 years ago? 2 killed on the morning of Sep 5 1972,
9 more the next day Sep 6 1972. 11 athletes killed.
\_ It's all fucked up. Get a grip.
\_ They were Jews. Not even American Jews.
\_ Sign your name, (coward|troll).
\_ will somebody please think of the children!!!!!
\_ Are they Jewish American children? Do they vote and donate?
\_ 2500+ dead and 85 billion in economic damage in NYC...
not even close! and anyway didn't the Mossad kill just
\_ that's 2500+ third-world oppressing, environment despoiling,
culturally hegemonistic, infidel american pigs. they deserve
to die.
about everyone involved in the Munich attacks eventually?
\_ Most didn't make it in the long term, yes.
\_ over a long enough period of time everyone's chances
of survival drop to zero.
\_ Ok, tell you what, you go kill yourself now because hey,
over the long term your survival odds are zero anyway,
right? I'll fly the plane with the gun toting pilot and
we'll both be happy. So, you're a dormy, right? This is
the kind of silly thing dormies would say in late night
drunken "debate" when discussing god, abortion, the death
penalty, and every other issue drunken dormies have
'solved' over the years.
\_ calm down. it's a quote from Fight Club.
\_ why quote stupid lines from movies very few people
saw?
\_ because i find it amusing to watch people
like you get agitated. please continue.
\_ We don't care about them non-Americans, you damned terrorist!
\_ ignoring ideology, how about looking at 1972 as
an example of how complacency and media-attention combine
to create a situation begging for exploitation by terrorists?
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2002/0902/munich
\_ My God! You've discovered the mastermind behind the Munich
massacre! It's Siebler! |
| 2002/4/24 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:24570 Activity:high |
4/24 Algeria War 1954-1962 - Le Pen fought in this war
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/672136/posts
BTW, judging by his platform this guy is worse than
1000 Hitlers and Stalin combined. From his website:
-Outlaw abortion and end official recognition of same-sex unions
-Develop programs to increase the birth rate and pay benefits
to women who stay at home with their children.
-End legal immigration.
-Deport illegal immigrants and eliminate dual nationality.
-Give French citizens priority for all jobs and public housing;
create a separate medical benefits system for foreigners working
in France, so that French tax money would not be used for
foreigners' care.
-Allow only French citizens to teach in French schools.
-Reinstitute morality classes; require student participation
in patriotic events and holidays.
-Outlaw the wearing of yarmulkes and Muslim headscarves in schools.
-Create 200,000 new prison beds.
\_ Isn't this a cut and dry case of a fascist platform?
\_ No. Not all of these are bad suggestions. There is nothing
fascist about curtailing abortion to the point where it is
no longer viable as a birth control mechanism. Likewise
providing benefits to at home moms is a good idea. There
is also nothing fascist with getting rid of *ILLEGAL*
immigrants and dual citizenship.
\_ What's wrong with deporting illegal immirgrants??? Not everyone is
crazy enough to provide education and medical care for someone
breaking the law and cutting in front of legal immigrants.
\_ abortion as birth control is a fallacy.
\_ So what is the point of freely accessible
abortion? I understand in why you would
want an abortion in rape, incest or if
the child was going to be severely
handicapped or the birth was goign to
kill the mother, etc. But other than
these legitimate medical reasons, why
do we need abortion?
\_ What's wrong with deporting illegal immirgrants??? Not
everyone is crazy enough to provide education and medical
care for someone breaking the law and cutting in front of
legal immigrants.
\_ Did you just glaze over the line above that?
"-End legal immigration."
\_ Where is it written that a country should allow
in foreigners? (There is a difference between
this statement and "Deport all immigrants")
Just because he wants to end legal immigration
doesn't make him a fascist.
\_ Wait, isn't that guy in the Whitehouse?
\_ Duh. Yet another agenda-driven blind idiot mouthing off
cluelessly about things he knows nothing about. W's agenda is
*VERY* *PRO* immigration. Where the hell have you been? Get
out of your closed minded little ivory tower and read a news-
paper once a year.
\_ Exactly how is he pro immigration. get your head out of
the republican think tank.
\_ http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1945000/1945044.stm
look at the bottom, nearly 10% of the stinking French are commies!
\_ How is any of this ridiculous shit on the same level as MURDERING
with the power of the State *MILLIONS* of innocent people? You're
incredibly lame. I'm so sick and tired of third rate wannabe
intellectuals calling everyone who has a different agenda a Hitler
or a Stalin. You only weaken your statement with noise like that,
not strengthen them. It's like the ultra feminists who think every
man is a rapist. No one can take a statement like yours seriously.
\_ was sarcasm! BTW headscarves and Marms are already
outlawed by statute, just not enforced. |
| 2001/5/21 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:21309 Activity:nil |
5/21 Isn't it strange that the liberals support abortion but oppose death
penalty? "We can kill the unborn but we can't kill the murderers."
\_ Isn't it strange that conservatives will do anything to help
the unborn, but bitch and moan about any kind of government aid
for actual born children?
\_ Isn't it strange how the same old troll posts get recycled?
\_ This doesn't even qualify as a troll. This is freshman year
late night dorm room "debate" material. The rest of us have
long since outgrown it. Except I guess for the lefty above who
got caught.
\_ Okay, I haven't seen it on the motd before myself. What was
the opinion when this "troll" last appeared?
\_ That it was a troll then and a troll now and will always
be a troll. Nice try at recovery. I applaud the effort.
It's still a troll. Please delete this thread when you've
got the message. |
| 11/23 |