In a moment of morning-after madness, politicos within the Democratic Party are taking three giant steps backward from a woman’s right to choose. The results could be disastrous for progressive women’s political base. Much of the drama is emerging around the normally staid contest for the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which will be decided by 447 electors on… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (80)Page 1 of 1 pagesThe Dems are going at it again, moving farther right to try and get more voters. The honest truth is people want an alternative. Democrats need to stop worrying so much about winning: they need to create change, and battle the conservatives until they are heard. Abortion AND gay marrage are both hot issues. Liberal Democrats need to tell people two things. First, being anti-gay is the same as being racist. Second, they need to to people if you don’t like abortions, don’t have one.
No more of this “oh, we should probably change this.” “Oh, we should change this.” HECK NO. “THIS is what we stand for, and THIS is why you’re going to vote for us.” No more beating around the frickin’ bush!
Posted by Brad on Jan 28, 2005 at 11:29 PM This country went too far left in too little time. Cultural attitudes have changed so much in the last 50 years that a backlash was just waiting to happen. Welcome to it. Now might be the time to use a little tact providing the political climate we now find ourselves in. Maybe gay marriage and such progressive ideas aren’t the best thing to be shoving down people’s throats at this particular moment. Stay Democrat, stay liberal, maybe just use your better judgement. This obviuosly is no longer the 1960’s.
Posted by Ryan Conover on Jan 29, 2005 at 12:18 AM ok, i was with her for a moment. then we hit the part where she says, “a familiar scenario. . .a guy loses a fight in a bar, bumbles home, and decides to take it out on his girlfriend instead.” oh really? just how many “guys” does this woman know? does she run with bar-brawlers? give me a break. more likely she gets her psychology from stallone movies. stupid, sexist bullshit. great going, “girl,” you get ‘em.
Posted by horace albaugh on Jan 29, 2005 at 4:04 AM Right on Horace!
This woman has done exactly what the supposed “women’s movement” originally set out to do. Crush stereotypes of the sexes.
No wonder dems are in such a shit hole!
Rey
Posted by Rey on Jan 29, 2005 at 4:35 AM More spinelessness from the democrats, a nearly wholly owned subsidiary of the republican party. It was not the democrats that made gay marriage a campaign issue, it was the republicans, in spite of the fact that there wasn’t a snowballs chance in hell that gay marriage was going to be legal in the US. It’s only purpose was as a wedge issue, and it worked. Just like the WMD scare and the social security “crisis”.
Why can’t the democrats use the hypocracy of the pro-life party as an issue. republican policies hurt families in general, and children in particular.
How many children has James Dobson, or Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson, or Tim Roemer ADOPTED from the children forced to give birth because of the many restrictions states have placed on a woman’s right to choose?
Lastly, I don’t know how old Ryan is, but this country hasn’t been anywhere near the left, let alone too far left, since the first administration of FDR. Was Truman a Liberal? Eisenhower? Kennedy? LBJ? Nixon? Ford? Carter? Reagan? Clinton? If, by too far to the left, you mean civil rights legislation, environmental protection, and trying to stop the CIA from overthrowing elected leaders and replacing them with military juntas, then perhaps you need to re-examine the definitions you’re using. This country has more often flirted with fascism than with socialism, undermined democracy where ever it conflicted with profit, supported the worst kind of despots, Saddam Hussein among them, as well as Pinochet, Somoza, Duvalier, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Mubarak, we can’t wait to do business with China, but can’t stand Chavez, or Lula. Don’t be decieved, we have never been “too far to the left”.
Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Jan 29, 2005 at 5:08 AM Culturally, asshole. I didn’t ever mention the president in saying that ths country has made a drastic change in values and other great shit like that in the past fifty years. Baby boomers and hippies, now rotten and insolent little hip hop children. Yea, I would say culturally that there has been a bigger change in the past 50 years than in the last 500 years. Now I’m going to name off a long list of people to assert my superior grasp of world politics. No, wait… no, I won’t. I’m not sure how old Kenneth is, but don’t you have social security to be worrying about?
Posted by Ryan Conover on Jan 29, 2005 at 5:19 AM Just throwing a thought out there a$$hole, no need to get condescending.
Posted by Ryan Conover on Jan 29, 2005 at 5:21 AM The “Democratic Party” has devolved into a collection of grifters, grafters and consultants whose only concern is to keep the gravy train that provides their livelihoods on track.
Howard Dean is in the midst of the Last Hurrah. He might, miraculously, win and put the Dems back in the game, but the choice ot the chair of the “Democratic” party is undemocratically in the hands of The 447 Elect, and I think they’ll choose a grifter, a grafter or a consultant to run the party.
These people are interested in the money to be made in the politics business. They don’t give a damn about representing you or me or anyone who doesn’t pay big time for their “services”. They’re not even interested in winning elections if they can keep the gravy train going without having to do so. And they’ve convinced themselves they don’t have to.
Their new vocation is foreclosing even the possibility of an alternative to the left, moving the “public” discourse further to the right. And they’ve found a monied constituency that will pay them for exactly that service.
Posted by John Francis Lee on Jan 29, 2005 at 5:46 AM Didn’t mean to be condescending, sorry, can’t claim a grasp of world politics superior to anyone else’s, providing they were paying attention to events of the last several decades.
“connect the dots” was a popular phrase during the 9/11 hearings (though the commission failed to connect any) but the electorate doesn’t seem to connect the dots between opposition to sex education in the schools, and soaring teenage pregnancy rates, and rates of STD infections. They don’t seem to connect the dots between the problems caused by massive illegal immigration, and corporate efforts to bust unions, eliminate employer provided health plans, oppose raises in the minimum wage, and undermine worker safety regulations. In short, they are frightened by the big gay boogieman, or the abortion boogie man, or the moral values boogie man, into voting for leaders they may think share their cultural values, but who, in fact, couldn’t care less about them, and won’t do anything to change the culture (it’s too valuable as an organizing tool), lessen abortion, or make gay people vanish. The 60,s are over, but that doesn’t mean that authoritarianism, intolerance, injustice, discrimination, and perpetual war are conditions we should just get comfortable with again.
Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Jan 29, 2005 at 7:33 AM Hi Kenneth,
You have just described the republican party to a tea, BRAVO!!!
People seem to forget when it was against the law to have an abortion and women would seek out quacks to rid them of the pregnancy, or they would use coat hangers or take terrible things for their bodies to get rid of the baby. And when men fight to get rid of abortion that makes me maddest of all, after all they are the ones who knock up a female and then run off to let her cope with whatever the future has in store for her. I believe in necessary abortion meaning that it is the right of the woman to decide what’s going to happen to her body. So I would wish that the democratic party would hold strong to that and not run off like a pack of dogs with their tails between their legs. I do not have an opinion about the gay’s of this world. I don’t know if marriage is the the right thing or not for them, but I do feel they should be able to have health insurance benefits for their stay at home other half and things like that. The Green Party has been making some noise lately how they would like to start at the grass roots and help make the democratic party stronger so we could get the republicans out of office. They say the democrats are not using the right methods. I hope the supreme Court does not change Roe vs Wade anytime soon.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 29, 2005 at 8:32 AM PS Ryan, I agree with most of your posts, I just don’t think this country or culture went too far to the left. The backlash is manufactured by a reactionary ruling elite that has figured out how to get the workers to screw themselves by scaring them into thinking that social progress is the cause of their problems, and of the culture’s decline, and the solution is….massive tax breaks for corporations and the richest among us. The republican’s contributions to our culture lately are lamentable, cook the books, ignore the law, break the treaties, punish the whistle blowers, promote the loyal, discredit science, foster fear, rip off the stock holders, the rate payers, the working people, etc, etc. It’s amazing that they keep getting away with it, but then their audience is made up of the same people that kept sending money to Jimmy Swaggert and Jim & Tammy Baker, Falwell & Robertson after their dispicable remarks after 9/11, and dozens of other modern Elmer Gantry types.
Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Jan 29, 2005 at 8:38 AM Well Kenneth, I agree with what you just said. I not in favor of anything the Bush administration has done since he has taken office. I don’t know why people who have a little sense about them voted him in office for the second time. I guess the reason I lean toward the democratic party is because I never have seen the republican party do anything for the hourly wage earner who pays the bulk of the taxes in this country. Maybe some of the plans the Dem’s have come up with to help the ordinary man have some flaws, and maybe someone is making more money then they should from them, but the fact remins, they do help the middle class the the poor of this country. This is the worst administration I have ever seen in all my 62 yr. here on earth. Blantant lying, pushing forward
Candidates like Gonzales for Attorney General who wants to make up his own laws to fit his own purposes and the President. We really don’t need the likes of him holding an office of that nature. I’m really fed up as you can read between the lines of my ramblings here.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 29, 2005 at 10:40 AM We need to start addressing abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment TOGETHER as “life issues.” For conservatives to frame anti-abortionism as being “pro-life” while being against euthanasia and gleefully in favor of capital punishment is APPALLING in its inconsistency and hypocrisy. As a progressive, I want to firmly stand up for the authority of individual citizens to make choices on these three issues for themselves, and the individual’s choice should take legal precedence over anyone else’s opinion. An unborn person is not an American citizen, case closed - whatever my religious views about the matter happen to be. If a person WANTS to die (euthanasia), neither the state nor the church should have the power to stop him. If a person *doesn’t* want to die (e.g., a convicted prisoner), we should preserve that life. We are all going to have to start talking to people more deeply about these issue, rather than simply accepting the conservative framing on these issues to “save time” or whatever. I bet there are many more people like me out there in America, who both wouldn’t choose an abortion for herself, AND are passionately progressive. Can I pass on a tip to you guys? Political conservatism and religious fundamentalism only really thrive when those folks perceive there is an “enemy” to vanquish. This progressive (me) says “there is no enemy,” and does so in good conscience. Working in the grass roots means we need to be talking to people about these issues and clarifying what they mean when they say they are “pro-life.” There is a lot of inconsistency and misunderstanding out there that people need to recognize is to our progressive advantage. Please don’t shut the door on folks like me! I need you, and you need me. Let’s work together to present America a progressive, win-win choice on this and all matters.
Posted by Sarah Chase on Jan 29, 2005 at 3:55 PM And by the way, I have written to Nancy Pelosi to tell her I think it is a MAJOR mistake for her to support Roemer for DNC chair. I also begged her (for whatever it may be worth) to please keep working to keep abortion safe and legal.
Posted by Sarah Chase on Jan 29, 2005 at 4:03 PM I hear lots of people say that although they DISAGREE with most of Bush’s policies, they voted for him because he was at least “clear and decisive.” How about the Democrats being clear and decisive on policies those voters would actually agree with? Instead, party leaders are just making their policies less and less clear and decisive.
Posted by Janet Smarr on Jan 29, 2005 at 5:21 PM The Democatic Partry is dead. It’s in tatters. Even if Dean becomes the chairman. If it were not we would have seen some courage and principle in the recent congrassional hearings. Lines would have been drawn. Liars would have been called liars. The only hope this country has (and it’s small) is a vigorous progressive third party, perhaps built on the Green Party, that can successfully define and frame a progressive agenda, learn to separate the personal from the political, be unwavering in its committment to its principles, have women be the majority of the leadership, and fund itself without corpoate IOUs. Otherwise the neocons will succeed in deconstructing this “democracy”. Oh yes, and we better stop calling each other asshole etc, because we’re all together in a very small boat.
Posted by Rick Ferber on Jan 29, 2005 at 5:37 PM You know Janet I would rather vote for someone without a platform, then someone who lies to my face when the truth has already been proven and sent out over the wires for all of us to read.I would rather vote for someone without a platform then to admit I voted for someone who wanted and rammed a Patriots Act through that basically kills your rights if they choose to carry it out.
I would rather vote for someone without a platform then someone who wants to be nominated Attorney General of this country who hasn’t any value on the lives of others and doesn’t care who he kills. This President and this congress have a lot to answer for.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 29, 2005 at 5:41 PM “(Dean) alarmed pro-choice activists by stating that the Democratic Party needed to be more “inclusive” of pro-lifers.”
While Dean unites people with opposing personal views to find common ground you suggest his comment tarnishes him personally as “anti-choice”.
Were you not aware of Dean’s outstanding record as Governor nor of his outspoken stance during the campaign? No one, including Ms. Mosely -Braun, was more specific and pointed about the rights of a woman to choose or debunking the ‘Partial-Birth” debate.
His statement that “guys with pick-up trucks and confederate flags” was used to suggest that Dean is a red-neck!!! Your use of the same logic is very unfortunate.
You will awake when I snap my fingers..SNAP!
Posted by Richard Harris on Jan 29, 2005 at 8:49 PM The Democratic party today is a reactionary organization. John Kerry is working with Republicans and had no desire whatsoever to win the 2004 election. (At last people are starting to draw some obvious deductions about Kerry. See
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&addr ress=203x300220
When are you people going to get the message? You have been HOAXED
Posted by Carl Wernerhoff on Jan 30, 2005 at 1:44 AM Also, aliens controll all the world’s leaders and bigfoot impregnated his cousin… no, seriously folks…
Posted by Ryan Conover on Jan 30, 2005 at 2:03 AM The problem with this article, as well as with so many other hardline stances taken by Democratic Pro-Choicers, is that it automatically asserts that an unborn child is not a life. Until these hardliners can PHILOSOPHICALLY prove that this is the truth, they will continue to meet an eroding voter base that buys into this “women’s health/right to privacy” bullcrap. If I kill my two year old in the comfort of my own home, isn’t that a private issue? He was putting my mental health at risk, and he spreads germs in the house. You don’t like that I killed my two year old? Well then, don’t kill yours. That’s exactly what much of America hears when you talk about your health and privacy issues. The bottom line is this: an unborn child varies from a two in 4 quantifiable ways- Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Dependency. Last I checked, a large person was no more human than a small one, a mentally incapacitated man was no more human than a genius, a man living in a cardboard box was no more human than one in a penthouse, and a diabetic dependent on insulin or someone attached to a dialysis machine was no less human than one with perfect health. STOP arguing the case with circumstantial examples and bold assertions, and start using decent philosophy, and maybe you can still save face.
Posted by Brock on Jan 30, 2005 at 3:23 AM Brock requires response….
“Mr. Dukakis, if your teenage daughter was raped then murdered, would you want the death penalty for the perpetrator…?”
My Answer:
Sir, the question is a crime in itself, perpetrated out the cruelty of making global committments that cannot possibly be true in every individual case.Brock:
To make hard laws based on your reactionary principles and subjective concepts like “decent philosophy” is opposed to decency itself guiding the law.
We all pray for decency and humanity in our systems of government…that which is flexible and reasonable to the individual and to society…that is, so far, the highest achievment of man-made law. That may include the death penalty when necessary, by the way. Get it?
Posted by Richar Ray Harris on Jan 30, 2005 at 4:34 AM Brock,
Have you ever been pregnant and carried a baby to term and had it naturally?
Women are then left to the task of bringing up the child with little or no help from a man. A man does not sit up with a sick child, clean up after it when it throws up or has a childhood disease.
Most of the time today if a woman has a child it’s because some guy knocked her up and then ran off, or married her for 5 years and then runs off and doesn’t even want to pay child support.
You are a man, and it’s not up to you to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her body, so shut your cake hole.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 30, 2005 at 4:39 AM Well Mr. Harris, laws are made as people come to reasonable conclsions.
Philosophy:
1.Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2.Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3.A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
4.The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
5.The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
6.A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
7.A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.I would love to know of a decision you’ve made or a law that has been passed without the use of philosophy. Decency and what decency is comprised of is not a philosophy?? Get it? I have never listened to so many assholes as I have reading posts on this site. Try acting with some decency.
Posted by Ryan Conover on Jan 30, 2005 at 4:47 AM Ryan,
I’m really sorry you feel like we are second class citizens. Since you feel so superior to me I’ll refrain from offering an opinion on this subject from here on out.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 30, 2005 at 6:07 AM You’re not a second class citizen. I don’t get to kill kids, why should you? I don’t know when peole have decided that a fetus is a human being but it’s a growing human being. I can’t say that I value human life like I do and then say “go ahead, stab ‘em, suck ‘em out and throw ‘em out.”
“Most of the time today if a woman has a child it’s because some guy knocked her up and then ran off, or married her for 5 years and then runs off and doesn’t even want to pay child support.” Wow, I would hate to live wherever it is you’re living. Nevertheless, no amount of excuses make it any different. Sorry, there’s always adoption if you can’t handle being a mother. You play a game, you get hurt, you expect a little pain and deal with it. You play the game, get knocked up, deal with it.
Posted by Ryan Conover on Jan 30, 2005 at 6:30 AM That’s what I like about you men. You do not want commitment or responsiblity. Women generally have an abortion during the first month of pregnancy. I do not believe in killing a baby after that length of time. Look at all the little kids up for adoption as it is. Look at the stipulations and cost they expect from people who wish to adopt them. Wouldn’t it be better to just let people adopt these children if they’re checked out and deemed fit for society instead of selling children like a pet dog or cat. People can’t sell their children but the state, county and government has made it possible for institutions to do so. You have a funny way of thinking about reality Ryan. I feel like if parents would get an abortion for their daughters when they get pregnant from ages 12 to 18 we would see alot less children needing homes. But of course you think it’s all the females fault if she gets caught and has nothing to do with the male. God wasn’t just referring to females when he was talking about loosing your virginity before marriage, he meant the male to be included in that scripture also. So technically anyone who screwed around was a whore. Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 30, 2005 at 7:04 AM See? I never said any one gender was more at fault for producing a baby than the other. I certainly never called either a “whore”. Nor did I cite scripture or anything of the like.
“Wouldn’t it be better to just let people adopt these children if they’re checked out and deemed fit for society instead of selling children like a pet dog or cat. “
If they’re checked out and deemed fit? And I am supposed to be the one in favor of selling children like a dog or a cat? For one, it’s not a question of selling… adoption is not “selling” a child. Secondly, oh boy, adoption agencies expect the adoptive parents to spend some money on their new children? Well gosh, what a concept!! We can’t seriously expect parents to spend money on their children, can we?
“I feel like if parents would get an abortion for their daughters when they get pregnant from ages 12 to 18 we would see alot less children needing homes.” Right, we would see them dead in a trash bag? Talk about strange ideas on morality.
Posted by Ryan Conover on Jan 30, 2005 at 8:11 AM ” reactionary principles and subjective concepts like “decent philosophy” “
you missed my point entirely. we live in a subjective world, and the duty of the law is to take as objective a view as possible in order to nuture an atmosphere for its citizens that is as fruitful and fair as possible. simple platonic philosophy is what guides the western world in all its rational decision making, and is exactly what i used when judgement my own stance on the abortion issue, as i did with any other issue. i’m not saying that it is a perfect result for EVERY single citizen involved, but it is in my rationale, the most just.
“Brock: Have you ever been pregnant and carried a baby to term and had it naturally?”
statements like these are EXACTLY what i’m talking about when i speak of “circumstantial arguments” as an attempt to prove a point. that statement made absolutely ZERO attempt to disprove the logic i used to solidify my case, it simply exemplified an irrelevent, rhetorical question that has no place in an OBJECTIVE argument. my capability of becoming pregnant or not has no bearing on whether an unborn baby is a human lifeform or not, and until you can come to grips with that, you’ll continue to find yourself without a leg to stand on.
Posted by Brock on Jan 30, 2005 at 10:29 AM If teaching an informed approach to sex and reproduction were the norm, with intelligent use of birth control technology and monitoring of her internal chemistry part of a sexually active woman’s routine, then abortion of an unwanted baby could take place very early (it’s not un"progressive” or whatever to acknowledge that, let be, it will be born as a baby). While it is true that even early in a pregnancy the major organs have differentiated themselves, they are in a proto-form. The longer the pregnancy lasts, the greater the interconnections in the proto-brain, and that’s the stuff of consciousness, not just the existence of living meat but the aspect of mentality that makes humans different from the other creatures we use for our own ends. It does seem to be qualitatively different (speaking from a distance, since I’m male) to do a D and C to remove a blastocyst compared to surgically terminating a 5 month baby. All of that would require yet another major shift, promoting both the right of a woman to determine whether she’ll take a pregnancy to term or end it, and as well her uniquely feminine role to take responsibility for keeping track of what takes place within herself (like a breast exam, like a guy having to check himself for testicular tumors). Although it sounds cliche to cite “education”, if that kind of attitude and information were spread around, taught to kids, promoted as evidence of a responsible approach to adult sexuality, it would be way less likely that you’d get a dithering lass waiting until she’s showing like a beachball before she decides to abort. Ending a pregnancy is no trivial thing, and also, there are few things sadder than an unwanted child. Better to take care of it early and learn from the circumstances of the event, but that would mean that the science of gestation and the philosophical basis of rights as the result of being a thinking human being, with responsibility as an acknowledged ingredient of freedom, would have to be valued and taught. As for prohibition, it never works. Drug war failure and blackmarket abortion (each with their attendant horrors) make that clear enough.
Posted by Kuya on Jan 30, 2005 at 3:45 PM God I hope Ryan isn’t in charge of anything, and doesn’t have authority over anyone. What a narrow, mean-spirited view of things. I’ll tell you what, as soon as the problems of Malthusian over-population, dysequal distribution of resources, child abuse, homeless children, poverty, capital punishment, environmental collapse, ignoring of the mentally ill or incompetent, corruption, war, and violent crime are dealt with, let’s tackle abortion.
Posted by Rick Ferber on Jan 30, 2005 at 6:08 PM Most of my political views are pretty liberal. However, as a person there are sometimes issues one comes upon in life that one doesn’t feel it’s right to compromise on. Some of the most brilliant minds in history were born to mothers who had every reason not to have them. To say “I’m doing this child a favor in aborting it, it doesn’t have a chance in hell with these living conditions” is just too pessimistic for me. I don’t think that’s mean spirited. As is, I’m not imposing this view on anyone, but I can’t deny that I feel this way on the issue. That’s all…
Posted by Ryan Conover on Jan 30, 2005 at 6:34 PM Thank You Kuya,
You said what I was trying to get across, but you have a much better grasp of words then I do. You are exactly right, we do need more information out there, but the moral majority won’t let the information go far enough to actually cover the area it should.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 30, 2005 at 11:27 PM Gracias, PG, but I can’t say I feel too secure on this one, I wrestle with it a lot. The assuredness of the two sides and the way they talk in such morally certain terms passes me by. Had a friend who got pregnant off of a rape, so the forbiddance angle doesn’t fly with me, but abortion still makes me unhappy, to understate it. She did abort, by the way, and if I had been her I would have as well. Still, I realize that my suggestions above don’t deal adequately with the question of whether, when push comes to shove, a woman should have the legal right to abort the 5 month baby I mentioned. Neither answer seems like the right one. I tend to wish that, if she’d carry it that long, she’d go ahead and let him or her be born, but my wish isn’t law… You can see it’s a conundrum for me…
Posted by Kuya on Jan 31, 2005 at 1:16 AM Your right Kuya, I don’t believe in abortions after the first trimester, or whatever they call it. I guess it’s a very personal feeling, but I just can’t get past the horrible things females did to abort babies before Wade vs Roe. I really think it should be the right of the woman to do what she thinks is right for her.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 31, 2005 at 4:01 AM Abortion is a red herring. Roe is NOT going to be overturned. Even the President is moderating his position, as he also is on SS…why…because they are vote LOSERS in middle America. Does it play a part with swing voters…yes…in NATIONAL elections. But why do you think the rhetoric is calming down in the Congress and will continue to do so. Because it is a LOSER…as is Social Security reform…when you have to run in Senatorial races in MOST states.
Roe is also not going to be overturned, because none of the justices will do it. And no future justice either. Justice Scalia is TOO conservative to overturn precedent. And if you really think Justice Thomas is going to be Chief Justice…well…
Back to my first paragraph. At the end of the day, social issues like SS that strike right to the heart of the MIDDLE CLASS are losers for the Republicans when they talk reform. People are not so far removed, as to not remember who BUILT this program. Also, people may vote NATIONALISM in a national election, but they still vote their pocketbook in local and senatorial elections.
The Democratic Party should hold FIRM to its roots. Economic fairness, labor, rights. They don’t lose because they have taken the country too far left. They lose because they are painted as weenies. They lose because of all the negativity they receive on nationalism.
THAT is what they need to overcome to win. And you overcome it by pounding and pounding and pounding on which party’s policies HURT people and which party’s policies have HELPED people. The Democratic Party has ALWAYS had the high ground on MORAL issues…from equal rights to medical care and retirement.
They need to REMEMBER who they ARE. Not who they want to be.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Jan 31, 2005 at 1:00 PM “The Democratic Party has ALWAYS had the high ground on MORAL issues…from equal rights to medical care and retirement.”
Um, weren’t the Dems the ones who did not want to give civil rights to the blacks in the south? In fact, did they not “create” Connie Rice by such policies (my recollection is that her father became a “life long Republican” when this all happened in ‘Bama years ago. . .)
Posted by justCurious on Jan 31, 2005 at 9:46 PM Hello Liberal and Proud,
I agree with what you say except you left out the fact that the democrats would not have put us in the middle of a civil war that is non of our buisness except the fact that Bush wanted that oil for his buddies. Vietnam was dumped on Kennedy, unfortunately he died before he could get us completely out of their. We can’t count LBJ because he was a damned republican playing at being a democrat. Maybe you’re to young to remember this just curious, but the democrats are the ones who ended segregation in the south. They were headed by the Kennedy’s, JFK and Bobby. I never went to school where whites and blacks were separated. I went to school in Calif. were it is a melting pot and went to school with peoples of all nationalities. And I think that’s the way it should be.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 31, 2005 at 11:05 PM The best defense of abortion rights was done by
the late Dr. Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995)
in his epic work, The Ethics of Liberty, 1982.
What human being has the right to be inside the
body of another human being against that person’s
will ? That is the crux and nub of the whole issue, there is no right to be born. So either
a woman is a free person or a slave of the state
(the term “society” being a legal fiction).
If us men could become pregnant, abortion would
have been declared a sacrament centuries ago.
That anyone could be so thuggish as to FORCE another person into compulsory pregnancy is
unbelievable. All the nonsense about different
embryonic or zygotic or fetal stages is besides
the point. No one has a right to sacrifice the
living present for someone else’s future.
Frankly, I think most of the Left is uncomfortable
defending individual rights. Talk to some of these
Pacifica Radio free speech loudmouths and ask them
if they have had any holocaust revisionists on the
air recently or if they protest laws in Canada
and Europe outlawing dissenting views on the nazi
holocaust ? It’s not a question of approval but
of basic rights in both these examples.
I don’t trust the Left anymore than I do the Right.
Noam Chomsky’s cult is no different than Ayn Rand’s.
Posted by Michael Hardesty on Jan 31, 2005 at 11:11 PM Now that both of you have misread.
The Democrats that opposed civil rights were SOUTHERN Democrats. In the past known as “boll weevil” Democrats…then Reagan Democrats…now known as REPUBLICANS.
And the Democrats did not put us in the middle of this civil war. A Republican Congress did.
As for VietNam, Kennedy didn’t start it…and Nixon didn’t end it.
Nixon was a POLITICIAN. There was TREMENDOUS unrest at home. Students KILLED. Protestors BEATEN. PLUS, he turned public opinion even further against him with the release of the Pentagon Papers and the uncovering of the illegal bombing in Cambodia.
And I am OLD enuf to remember.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 1, 2005 at 12:44 PM I expect mind control and nationalism from Republicans.
It is the ONLY way they get elected. They can’t win elections on their policies. And that INCLUDES Reagan. Who made flag waving an art form. His legacy is NOT written yet…because his impact has to be viewed in the context of what followed him, in terms of political tone of the country and direction.
If I have a problem with Democrats…of which I am one, it is THIS. Where is the ACTIVISM? Are we so self centered and so lacking in vision of the big picture that all we care about is OURSELVES. Are we so afraid of arrest? Yes, I know that THIS PRESIDENT has severely restrained civil rights. I KNOW that activists will be arrested and now charged with TREASON and called terrorists…all without PROBABLE CAUSE.
Both those are exactly the reasons why we SHOULD protest.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 1, 2005 at 12:49 PM Thank you, Pat ! Appreciate your many good posts
and the fact that you hang in there to debate.
Posted by Michael Hardesty on Feb 1, 2005 at 5:00 PM Two quotes:
I think abortions should be legal, safe, and rare - Bill Clinton
and
If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. - Consolidated.
it’s simple really, if you’ve never been 16 and pregnant and forced to make that decision, then shut the fck up…it’s none of your business. period.
Posted by The Great Went on Feb 1, 2005 at 10:53 PM Hello Liberal and Proud,
I didn’t say Kennedy got us into the Vietnam war, a republican did. The Kennedy’s also worked very hard to end racial segregation, no one would touch it before that. I was in Loisianna in 1964 and it was ugly then. All the shopkeepers in the back bayou country kept shot guns right by their cash registers. They all said it was the fault of blacks and whites coming down from the north. From what I observed, the whites had a real good relationship with the local blacks. However, that does not mean I believe in segregation, be- cause I don’t.
You talk about the Vietnam war and how much desention it caused. If they don’t get us out of Iraq and push on into another Arab country, we will have the same thing again. This after all is a civil war and we have no buisness over there. Yes we helped to start this civil war when we killed Sadam, But all the other Sadam’s still there are not going to live a democratic existence. Bush has sold us out to China borrowing all this money from them to keep this war afloat. It will take generations to pay it back, if we’re allowed to last that long.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Feb 1, 2005 at 11:20 PM Errrrrr Pat, Sadam is alive. And don’t try and say you meant “killed his power” or “tried to kill him”. lol
Posted by Ryan Conover on Feb 2, 2005 at 8:09 AM I’m sorry, he is still alive, but probably not for long. I didn’t say we killed all of his followers. Too bad.lol
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Feb 2, 2005 at 10:28 AM JFK got wiser and wiser the longer he stayed in power. That’s why they killed him.
Posted by Carl Wernerhoff on Feb 2, 2005 at 11:07 AM Yes Carl, that’s exactly right. Some believe he was buddies with the mob, but I do not believe that. Look how Bobby Kennedy went after the mob. I feel JFK was one of our best presidents, and if he had survived alot of things would have made a change for the better. I don’t know if Bobby would have or not and I don’t think Edward would have been. Just because one member of a family is exceptional doesn’t mean the whole clan is. The democrats I think started loosing ground when LBJ took over. He was a democrat in sheep’s clothing as far as I’m concerned. Just one big blow hard. It was said he was making big bucks off the Vietnam war. He had trucks selling contraband goods to anyone who would buy them. The account was set up in his wifes name.
He was scum of the very worse kind.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Feb 2, 2005 at 11:41 AM LBJ was the last liberal president, or at least the last effective liberal president. He may have been a blow hard, but he got things done: voting rights legislation, war on poverty. His empathy with the poor was not of the ‘I feel your pain’ variety, but of the ‘I’ll act to alleviate it ’ variety. Of course, there’s Vietnam and so nothing the guy accomplished, or stood for matters. “Hey, hey LBJ how many…”
Posted by clark nitrate on Feb 2, 2005 at 3:53 PM As far as I’m concerned, that war on poverty crap was just a decoy while he did the bad things. He was an asshole. Sorry
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Feb 2, 2005 at 4:45 PM You needn’t apologize for having your own opinion. God knows I won’t.
Posted by clark nitrate on Feb 2, 2005 at 5:57 PM I can’t believe…...the whole world is in a total mess and all we can do is talk about a woman’s right(or not)to an abortion? I saw a church in Athens, AL with 4,000 white crosses in the yard and a sign stating that many babies have been aborted. What about the 1500(and rising)soldiers killed for nothing in the Iraq and Afghanistan? Where were their crosses? Since churches are going to tell people how to vote, hand out political literature etc., they should be paying taxes.
I believe, as a nation, we have bigger fish to fry. And women had better pay attention. We are headed more and more toward second-class citizenship.
By the way, I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. This issue should not be government-mandated either way. This is all a smoke-screen by the Republican Party. When people are all wrapped in emotional issues such as abortion, they are free to carry on their agendas concerning other things, such as trying to take control of the world’s oil supply and America’s middle class. Bush talks about terrorists and he is the biggest terrorist of all!
Posted by Debbie on Feb 3, 2005 at 4:13 AM Churches should be paying taxes? You’re a scumbag Debbie.
Posted by Ryan Conover on Feb 3, 2005 at 7:27 AM Geez,
I’m afraid to get into the middle of this debate. Reddog is using too many ugly adjectives to describe anyone who has a different opinion then his.
You know Ryan, Debbie is right about one thing. If the government can get people riled up over something they don’t care two wits about “meaning the government”, they can get by else some evil law that is only going to hurt the masses. I do disagree about taxing churches.
Somehow that doesn’t set well with me.A couple of people made mention of the fact that they think George Bush ranks right up ther with Hitler. Well, I’m in agreement with them. He acts like the Constitution and Diplomatic Treaties we’ve made with other countries, are his to change or throw out as he wishes. I’m still saying when he forced that Patriot Acts through, we lost most of our rights if they want to use that law to trample on us, and I’m sticking to it. The DBA is ruining us as a nation with all the money he has borrowed and is still borrowing from China and Japan, they are going to own us before it’s all over. This debr would take a 100 years to pay off and these countries are not going to let it go that long.
You know Iraq does not want us to be over there stealing their oil and building big military bases. They do not even want a democracy. They’ve lived to long under a different type of power and most of them like it. They voted in large numbers I understand because Bush had authorities over there make them sign a form that they would vote or lose their food subsidies
And that makes me want to barf. I read where most of the money being spent over there goes to Halliburton and the cost of building these huge military bases. I also read where they send these big tanker trucks that are suppose to be hauling subsidies to the poor out empty and they come back filled with Iraqi oil and thats where most of our soldiers get killed, protecting these trucks along there routes full of oil for Bush and his friends.
I’ll let someone else take it from here.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Feb 3, 2005 at 1:10 PM Churches should pay taxes because they have been
in politics forever and we need to stop subsidizing their free ride. They are blatantly
political institutions and they should be no more
exempt from taxes than us many atheists.
Posted by Michael Hardesty on Feb 3, 2005 at 10:07 PM You think churches make any money? They barely make enough to operate from collections. Try not to talk out of your a$$hole anymore. You don’t know what you’re talking about Michael. Athiests don’t have Churches, so don’t try to compare the two. You pay taxes on your own smug sense of superiority, that is yourself.
Posted by Ryan Conover on Feb 3, 2005 at 10:30 PM I just think that with all the pressuring kids get from the likes of MTV and Tv and movies in general to have sex that these children should also be educated on consequences. The picture of a 16 yr old girl pregnant is horrible. With all we do in this country how come kids can operate a computer but not the human reproductive sysytem.
why in this day and age is abortion other than to save the life of the mother or rape,incest even a viable option. How come these kids don’t get the message if you have sex you are gonna get pregnant? How about thinking of that choice before having sex?
the government limits and taxes everything and the thing I see as wrong is women being a special class of citizens who alone have the right to do with their body as they choose. Before you jump on me let me finish. I am saying this that it is wrong to apply the laws concerning the only thing that you truly own- your body unevenly. By that I mean why is it ok for abortion to be legal and not say cannabis or opium. If a woman chooses to have an abortion should I not choose to have the right to smoke a spliff?? It’s my mind my body why the incongruity in the law??
taxing churches?? well i am the notorious reddog so i had better not push my luck.
Posted by reddog on Feb 4, 2005 at 1:42 AM Those two questions are not even related. When a person does drugs, it’s like when a person drinks. They don’t know what they’re doing, they get in a car and kill other people with their weapon the car.
A pregnant women should have the right because a baby in my opinion and allot of other peoples opinion is not really a baby when you first get pregnant. That is the only time I believe in abortion, in the first two months of pregnancy.
If you want to legalize drugs, you are choosing a way of life that is very harmful to your body.
That’s why their not legal, we have enough trouble with cigarettes and liquor.
Talking about 16 year old girls getting pregnant, were you out diddling every thing in sight spreading your wild oats everyway and where you could? Look at yourself before you start judging others.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Feb 4, 2005 at 6:12 PM Hi Ryan,
I know like you do that churches do not have any extra money to spend. I have belonge to different Catholic churches in my day, no Priests where I went to church or the one now, does not tell you who to vote for. They do not stand around having political dicussions with parishioners that I’ve seen. The only thing I’ve ever heard them say is vote with your consious. So Michael, I very much disagree with you about churches.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Feb 4, 2005 at 6:20 PM Ryan, the Roman Catholic Church owns a very
substantial chunk of land in the state of Maryland
for starters. There are many other wealthy churches. Rather than call juvenile names,why
don’t you try to argue the facts of the case ?
I pay plenty of taxes as an employee and as a
property owner.
Next time, THINK before you shoot off big mouth.
These churches also engage in political activities
up the gazoo, as an atheist I do not get tax exemption for politicking, neither should theists.
Posted by Michael Hardesty on Feb 4, 2005 at 7:24 PM Pat,
Thanks for your civilized tone.
The Catholic Church as a whole is in politics
up to its eyeballs as are the pro-Bush fundie
churches down south. They need to pay for it like
the rest of us.
Posted by Michael Hardesty on Feb 4, 2005 at 7:31 PM Your comments on abortion are also dense.
A woman who gets abortion IS “dealing with it.”
They are making a responsible choice not to have
children. I wish more people would make that choice instead of bringing unwanted children into
the world to be horribly abused, and sometimes
killed. The idea that we have to suffer all the
consequences of our actions is absurd, I abort
a headache or hangover by taking two aspirins
with water before I go to bed. The idea that we
gain nobility through duty and suffering is a
Protestant Ethic myth.
Posted by Michael Hardesty on Feb 4, 2005 at 7:38 PM I was referring to Ryan in my above comments on
abortion. The “great liberal” Ryan.
Give me a break !
Posted by Michael Hardesty on Feb 4, 2005 at 7:40 PM Pat did I understand you right when you said that the two questions are not even related??? really. Cannot you equate the idea of choice to anyone but women?? are pregnant women the ONLY people whom you deem worthy of any choice over their bodies?? If you have sex you might get pregnant , if you smoke a bone you might get stoned if you drink booze you could get drunk. Any of those choices is russian roulette.
this is where I dislike the whole abortion debate- women who think that only women should have choice over their bodies. Nobody else need apply because then you don’t think it’s appropriate for anybody else to have choice. If women had more control of themselves and their “choice” before they got pregnant we would not have unwanted pregnancies. How come after a woman displays bad judgement and lack of control of sexual urges is she suddenly deemed rational or capapble of choice. Is not her lack of judgement and poor choice what got her preganant in the first place? Bad choice equals more choice?? How about excercising that “choice” before getting pregnant so you do not get put in the position to kill a baby.And when I was young I did display good sense- i never got a woman pregnant because I was able to have control of my sexual urges beforehand to understand the consequences and use protection or just plain not have sex if it might result in pregnancy- it’s called making a smart choice -beforehand !!
Posted by reddog on Feb 4, 2005 at 8:57 PM Hardesty- I guess it’s OK to denigrate “fundies”- the south and bush supporters but not baby killers right. It’s not PC to bash anybody but Christians and conservatives is it?? OH the hypocrisy of the left. What is it they need to pay for Michael??
We already pay enough for your liberal northeastern and california arrogance and rudeness in the form of Kerry- Kennedy- Boxer and all the rest of the limousine liberals. what more do we need to pay for? Ya want us to pay more taxes for state funded abortion clinics right? Not with my tax money you don’t.
A woman who is getting an abortion is dealing with it?? really HOW ABOUT DEALING WITH IT BEFORE YOU GET PREGNANT AND KILLING A CHILD.
excersise that “choice” and use some protection or don’t have sex- we are not animals we are supposed to be able to control ourselves and realize actions have consequences!
Posted by reddog on Feb 4, 2005 at 9:07 PM Oh and that Protestant ethic you call a myth Hardesty- well that myth is what built America not liberals bitching about the right to murder children. It is what (sadly) paved the way for folks like you to be able to have the say you do and live in a free country where you can prosper and sit and complain about those bad Christians and conservatives. Hippies and liberals and abortionists did not build this country- look it up it’s in all the history books- I checked and it says nothing about “progressives”.
I would be real interested to see the reaction of the great folks who settled and built this country to the attitudes and views of the of some of the folks who talk about “choice”.
Posted by reddog on Feb 4, 2005 at 9:17 PM The line about “aborting” a headache with asprin and comparing it to aborting a chld is not only a terrible comparison, it is also disgusting and in horrible taste. I certainly am not the “great liberal. I am what I am, and I don’t change who I am to be part of some uber-liberal club of yours. Some of this “church taxing” business just sounds like the good-old American dislike of Catholicism. Churches don’t operate with the purpose of controlling your politics, certainly not my church or any that I’ve ever been to. If you’re talking about those abortion clinic bombing crazy “Christians”, the “dance party mass” type, that’s not the norm. You don’t get tax breaks for politicking, well you also don’t provide any of the functions of a church. So to compare an institution like a church to yourself is ridiculous. Feel free to not-pray that someday you will recieve the same tax exempt status as a church and ask yourself, where’s your no-God now?
Posted by Ryan Conover on Feb 4, 2005 at 9:58 PM If there really is no God as athiests insist, they ought to be a little less cocky and smugly self-satisfied. If you’re right, you don’t get to give me an “I told you so” in the end. The greatest affirmation that you were correct in your beliefs will never come, since apparently when we die, that’s the end of the story. Maybe this is why you guys have such a miserable and closed minded outlook? Your inability to even imagine that you might be wrong is as closed minded as a hard-headed Christian’s approach to life. You’re not so different from them.
Posted by Ryan Conover on Feb 4, 2005 at 10:07 PM You can’t tell an athiest anything Ryan. They think they are right about everything and they only have one go around, so they want everyone to hear them. I on the other hand am not closing my mind to anything. I do think there is something more after death on earth. Maybe you can get to heaven or maybe you can be like Shirley McClain and have many different lives
However if your an athiest, maybe they just let you die and say thats it for you, do you think thats what happens to athiest Ryan? RedDog has some interesting things to look forward to down the road I’m thinking.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Feb 5, 2005 at 12:24 AM Hey I am not the one endorsing killing babies Pat.I would not want that on my head. How do you think God is gonna take that? My heart is good. I have not said I have no sins but I am a good person and know it and do not need any of you to judge me- I answer to a MUCH higher authority.
You mistake close mindedness for having a moral code to live by. it’s not hard headed it’s just firm resolve to live a certain way.I think in terms of what is right and what is wrong. I don’t live my life by what is “in” or hip or politically correct.I really don’t care what anyone thinks of me.That is how I can put up with attack after attack here. My outlook is one of optimism and great things for the future. You have a totally wrong idea of folks like me and I am sorry you feel like you do. Have you ever even tried looking at the people you put down and seem to hate?
Posted by reddog on Feb 5, 2005 at 1:00 AM Reddog is ignorant of the basic facts of biology.
Aborting a fetus is not and NEVER has been considered “murder” even under the old anti-abortion laws. Birth is the clearest, least arbitrary line of demarcation.
A fetus is not a baby, a zygote is not a baby,
a spermatozoa is not a baby. You are a real baby
at birth. The basic facts of biology.
Next and more crucial point, What human being has
the right to remain inside the body of another
human being against that person’s (the carrier)
will ? Answer, none. There is no right to be
born. You properly have no choice in the matter
of your birth.
“God” is a myth and has never existed. Intelligent
people, as distinguished from Ryan and the Dogg,
realize that existence is primary and that consciousness derives from existence, not vice-versa. Positing a “god” only begs the question of
who created “god” and thus leads to an infinite
regress. We KNOW existence exists so it makes
more sense to start with THAT as our primary
or foundation.
Reddogg, listening to a lecture from YOU on hate
is like listening to a lecture on anti-semitism
from Hitler or a lecture on sobriety from the
town drunk. Or a lecture on terrorism from Bush.
Ryan, when we die that’s the end of our physical
and mental existence. You have a problem with that ? Then take it up with Objective Reality.
You can do all the praying in the world but you
are going to wind up in the same place as Hitler
and EVERYBODY ELSE in the end. Death is the great
equalizer and the ONLY place where equality exists.
Ryan, I didn’t compare abortion to a headache, I
was giving an analogy but you must remember an
analogy is not an exact comparison. Ever take a
logic course ? Catholics have a rep for being
kind of stupid but you are ridiculous !
Reddogg, no form of birth control is foolproof,
since YOU AS A MAN DO NOT GIVE BIRTH YOUR MORALISMS HERE ARE MEANINGLESS AND YOU CAN SHOVE
THEM UP THE OLD ANAL CAVITY. Comprehend ?
Pat, you seemed so intelligent in your earlier
comments, atheism is not asserting there is no
“god”, a-theism is asserting that the case for
“god” has not now and never has been made. It
is not up to an atheist to disprove “god” but
up to the theist to PROVE “god” since they are
asserting the positive AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
PROVE A NEGATIVE.
Reddogg, I never called for state-funded abortions,I simply insisted that you Christers
keep your mitts off a woman’s vagina.
What part of that do you not understand ?
I never denigrated everybody in the red states,
but only the retards who think like you.
The Protestant Ethic never built anything except
prolonged mental madness, it was laissez-faire
capitalism that built America and many of the
Founders were near-atheist deists like Paine.
A woman also has a right to change her mind
about giving birth, to repeat, having an abortion
is the responsible choice for women who do not want to be mothers.Again, since YOU do not face the choice of pregnancy termination, your opinion
doesn’t mean anything.
Normally, I oppose corporal punishment, but if
I had kids as stupid as you three people, I’d
have to tan their bare butts.
Posted by Michael Hardesty on Feb 7, 2005 at 6:34 PM Pat, just saw your STUPID comments against the
decriminalization of drugs. After almost 100
years of the insane wars on drugs haven’t you
learned ANYTHING ? They do not work for the same
reason that alcohol prohibition didn’t work.
All they do is create a large criminal class that
wouldn’t exist otherwise. In fact, tobacco and
alcohol kill far more people than heroin.
Of course, a liberal statist munbskull like you
would probably want to outlaw them too.
See Thomas Szasz’s Our Right To Drugs.
Posted by Michael Hardesty on Feb 7, 2005 at 6:43 PM The Democratic Party needs to be much more
forthright in defending its social libertarianism
on abortion, censorship, gay sex, so-called war
on terror, etc. They can jettison the gun control, civil rights, affirmative action,
federal aid to mackerel snapper schools, pro-Israel bias and much of the old left agenda.
Posters here should read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand to help in your respective marches back toward objective reality.
Less of MLK, JFK, RFK, the KKK, and FRD-Truman
and more for JR Ewing as a genuine role model.
Reddogg, please give my regards to baby JEEEEZZZUUZZ.
Posted by Michael Hardesty on Feb 7, 2005 at 6:52 PM Well Michael the know it all, how do you know there isn’t a GOD? You must have heard something that I didn’t.
I’m against most things that do physical harm to the body. I hate to see children introduced to bad habits by people who think it’s okay and ends up ruining their lives by using it or ingesting it and die young from it. All drugs and alcohol do for a person is take them out of reality they do not want to face for a little while. But when they come out of their haze, everything is still there to be faced. Usually at the expense of their families who are doing without basic needs because the father or mother has spent all the funs for a chance at lala land for a brief period of time. I can think of alot of other ways to have a good time.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Feb 7, 2005 at 10:03 PM I don’t hate people like you Reddog. Have you ever tried being a woman? Life is very different in our shoes then in men’s. I belive what I believe and you have your agenda. It’s okay to banter back and forth. If we all felt exactly the same way, we would be very boring.
I do not feel like God hates me for my thoughts.
I don’t believe in abortion for abortions sake, I believe their are times when it is appropreiate. God doesn’t want children to be brought into this world to be despised because it wasn’t wanted. Even if it is given up for adoption, agencies make it very hard for the average, childless person to be able to have a child in their lives. Maybe you should check your thoughts. I live a standup form of existence also. I like to help out if I can where I can.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Feb 7, 2005 at 10:14 PM Pat,
I’ve never seen any evidence for the existence of
something called “god.” All the arguments advanced
for the existence of “god” have been refuted, so
that takes care of both empirical and rational
ways to acquire knowledge.
It’s not up to me to prove a negative, until this
proposition is proven, I do not believe it.
Thus I am an a-theist instead of a theist.
Posted by Michael Hardesty on Feb 8, 2005 at 12:02 AM Pat,
Most people can do alcohol and drugs in moderation. The basic point is that it is
their choicem their body, same principle
as in abortion.
I escape by watching Charlie’s Angels or Dallas
or Starsky & Hutch. So what ?
Who dictates that I have to live in boring mundane
reality 24 hours a day ?
Posted by Michael Hardesty on Feb 8, 2005 at 12:05 AM Pat,
You are WAY too nice to Red Dogg. We have to stop
appeasing and licking the dirty butts of the redstaters. Kerry tried it, that absurd hunting
trip, softpedaling the abortion issue, letting
W get away with that nonsensical “partial birth
abortion” crap. Red Dogg is a nasty dude who probably hangs outside legal abortion clinics to yell “murderer” at the women who enter.
He needs to get a life. Maybe get castrated
to relieve his obvious sexual obsessions.
Posted by Michael Hardesty on Feb 8, 2005 at 12:10 AM Just taking a brief breaking from watching Dallas
to see any of you redstaters posted any dumb responses…......thankfully no, you “people”
would give an aspirin a headache.
Posted by Mchael Hardesty on Feb 8, 2005 at 10:17 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Cynthia L. Cooper
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
