Politics Domestic Abortion - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:Abortion:
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2022/05/26 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

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,
        \_ 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
        \_ 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
        \_ 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
        \_ I am so pro Abortion.  Abortions for all!
           \_ Miniature american flags for others...
        \_ Bombing for Jesus! Talk about moral relativism!
2008/9/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51090 Activity:high Entry has been invalidated. Access denied. 2008/9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51037 Activity:high 80%like:51008 70%like:51033 Entry has been invalidated. Access denied.
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
        \_ "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
2022/05/26 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

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
                    \_ 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:
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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
           \_ "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!
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.
           (*) 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
           \_ 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
           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
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
                 \_ 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
                    \_ 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
                       \_ 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.
                    \_ 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
        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
           \_ 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
        \_ 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
                          \_ Yes, only questions pre-screened and OK'd by the
                             candidates should be allowed near any Republican.
                             \_ Or Hillary
                           \_ 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
                             \_ 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
                                    \_ 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
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."
        \_ "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:
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"
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:
        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:
        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
           \_ 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?
                          \_ 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.
                                     \_ 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 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
        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
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
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
        \_ I didn't watch it (is it on youtube or something?) but I thought
           this littlegreenfootballs poll of who won was interesting.
           (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:
        \_ 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:
        (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: **
        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:
        \_ 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
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."
        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
        \_ 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
        \_ 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
                    \_ Why the heck do communist countries always have
                       "democratic" or "republic" (or both) in the name,
                    \_ 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
                       \_ 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://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
        \_ 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..
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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.
                    \_ 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
                                  \_ 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
              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
        \_ And yet their immigration policy remains ridiculously
        \_ 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."
                 \_ You're confusing between "religious" and "evangelical
                    \_ 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
        \_ 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
              \_ 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
              \_ 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)
        \_ 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
                    \_ 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
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.
                              \_ 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:
        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
        "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:
        \_ 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
           \_ 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.
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:
              \_ 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:
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
              \_ 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
              \_ 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
              \_ 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
              \_ 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:
        \_ 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
           \_ 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
                 \_ 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):
        \_ How can the Freakonomics authors have any credibility with what's
           left of their "when abortion is legal, crime goes down" theory?
           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
           \_ 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
                 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
                    \_ 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
              \_ [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
           \_ the key is defining "proportionate".
              \_ 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
                 \_ 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.
        \_ 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
        \_ 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.
                       \_ 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?
                             \_ 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
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
        \_ 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.
                    \_ 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.
            \_ 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.
              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
                           \_ 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?
                 \_ 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:
        \_ 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:
           [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.
                    \_ 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-
                  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.
        \_ 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
        \_ *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
              "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
                          \_ 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:
                    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!
        \_ 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
        \_ 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:
        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
              \_ 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
                                            \_ 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
              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
        \_ 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
              \_ 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?
                       \_ 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
        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
                            \_ 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
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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:
        \_ Sounds like quite the opportunity for competition to thrive.
        \_ Man, just wait until you get a Jehova's Witness in charge of a
            \_ 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
        \_ 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
        \_ 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
              \_ ...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
              \_ You're assuming that said law doesn't become a constitutional
        \_ 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
                       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:
        \_ 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
                 \_ 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
                   \_ "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
            \_ 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
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
              \_ 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
                       \_ 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
           \_ 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
                 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
           \_ 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
           \_ If you listen to Herr Lakoff, what makes conservatives
              conservative is their dominant metaphor:
              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
                            \_ 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.
                    \_ 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.)
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
                           \_ 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
                                      \_ Then how can you say that it's
                                         "extremely rare and is used almost
                                         exclusively to protect the life of the
                                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:
        \_ 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?
        \_ 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
           \_ 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
                                \_ 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
                 \_ 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
                 \_ 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-
        \_ 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:
           (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".
2003/12/7 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29694 Activity:high
12/6    More fine Republican Family Values:
        \_ 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
                              \_ 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:
        \_ 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
        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:
        \_ 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]
        \_ 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
                    \_ 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
                           \_ 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?
           \_ 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
        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.
2022/05/26 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:Abortion: