Question for Liberals.

[OCinBuffalo]

Social liberalism has many intrinsic flaws to its version of justice:

-Open minded about moral deviancy, but complain and act violently when Judeo-Christian ethics are employed by an individual to the detriment of what they consider "best" for others

-Preach give to the poor in the form of welfare, as long as they don't do so unless there are tax benefits that outweigh their "gift", also surveys show over 80% of all volunteers to the poor label themselves "conservative"

I don't know about the rest, but I have seen these two in action, right in front of me. I have worked in a soup kitchen on multiple occasions, but my liberal friends/family always find a convenient excuse to get out of if at the last minute, even though it was their idea, and they "mean well". I wonder how many of the not-Democrats, phony-ass socialists here can say they actually did something useful, rather than merely running their mouths?

StupidNation is in here too. If Molson and Wacka enter, can we lock them in and throw away the key?

Don't forget to add: JK2000(Molson v2.0), bluzurl, faking_importance and justnzane. They round out the list of "emote first, think never".

Not bad, that list took a lot of angst to construct. Many of that same list has a conservative yang to it... eg. Preach hate the sin, yet rwers condemn the sinner. Preach turn the other cheek, yet start an unjustified war in Iraq. Preach celibacy, yet the largest group of child predators are priests and ministers. Preach about saving one's sole and then demand money to do it.

Angst? Coming from a liberal? My how the times are a changin'. So now its the liberals complaining about the kids' "angst" and yelling "get off my lawn". Oh well, I guess even hippies have to deal with getting old sooner or later. <--The eventual downfall of the "me" generation = they try to turn it into the "us" generation when they can't do the job anymore.

 

What a wonderful description of MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, Michael Moore, and every retarded televangelist all in three sentences. Oh, the flip side of the "celibacy" argument? The fact that "fashion", MTV, and every insane a-hole in San Francisco are selling thongs for 12 year olds and hiding behind "safe sex" constructs to do it. What's more likely to get a 12 year old abducted and killed? A priest, or a thong and pasties? This is common sense, jackass.

80% of all volunteers of the poor are conservative... where is that figure coming from, some right wing church.

What if it is? What if it's coming from the Federal government? What if it's coming from Jesse f'ing Jackson?...which is the reason he said "off camera" that he was pissed at Obama? What if it's true and, again, you can't deal with the truth? Hint: it is true and it's an accepted fact. Sorry dude. You can get pissed all you like, but, when you are done yelling, this will still be true. Deal with it, and stop boring us with your bitching.

There are many volunteers of the poor and I will be many don't answer the question unless they have an agenda such as the Mormons who go out and do it while prosthelitizing (sp). We were told to do it without taking credit for it, doing it as anonymously as possible... the humble way as JCWD. Whatever..... another damn poll.

Let's add (grammar) to your (sp) as things you need to work on. The fact is that faith-based charities do a great job, the world over, and that data is beyond question. Since you are a Mormon, you already know that. If you had a bad time with some people who use religion poorly, join the club. Our club has about 500 billion members since the beginning of recorded history, but you are special? Please. A-holes are a-holes, and I have to walk by Scientologists every day just to buy milk/smokes/lunch, so you won't get much sympathy from me.

Moral deviancy, like the new VP nominee having a child conceived out of wedlock?

Ahh, I knew we would find some BS Protestant/Mormon hypocrisy someplace. Oh, and by the way, the facts are that it was her daughter, Mr. Holier than thou, not her having a kid. Do us a favor and get the story straight before you start spreading the church gossip. I know it's hard for Mormons to keep form being so judgmental, but why don't you give it the BYU try this time around? Perhaps that's not part of the "what Mormons do when they are out among the normal people" training? What would Jesus Do? In your case, STFU.

There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Yes, the liberals have theirs, I could name a few more for you on that side.

You don't say? Try reading the sentence I quoted above one more time.

Oh you mean Gay, not my place to judge, besides, I know plenty of bad marriages and a number of gay relationships that are a lot more committed, loving and stable.

Yes, I am sure that, as a Mormon, you know all about gay rights. Please explain to me how forcing a gay marriage agenda in Massachusetts, and thereby ensuring that 37 states and counting now have constitutional anti-gay marriage laws, HELPS gay people. If I was gay, I'd be pissed as hell at every liberal who "knows better" than I do how to "help" me.

Hate crimes... what do you mean by that? What? Where is your evidence, What are you talking about. As I said at the beginning, this list took a lot of angst. Find a good therapist, priest or minister. It would do you some good.

 

Better yet, go kick the dog and have a beer.

I ask you the exact same questions about this entire post...and the next 10 posts you make as well, just for good measure. You are a relative newbie here, prove to us that you aren't one more incarnation of Molson_Retard(or JK2000, or whatever that kid is going by these days)

 

Do yourself the same favor, Mr. Passive-Agressive liberal(but don't want to admit it), self-hating, LDS guilt ridden....wait, with all that hanging on you it's no wonder you write stuff like this...

There's one thing we can agree on = the beer...but kicking a dog in front of me gets you beat down 100% of the time.

[OCinBuffalo]

May be a record for the number of fallacious arguments in one post.

Which ones? I dare you to describe the fallacies you find in detail. For the record, I am pro-choice, for the simple reason that the pro-life position is fundamentally based on religion, and we have freedom of religion in this country. But, I want to see you actually define what exactly is wrong with the statements above, besides saying "because I said so".

[ExiledInIllinois]

Which ones? I dare you to describe the fallacies you find in detail. For the record, I am pro-choice, for the simple reason that the pro-life position is fundamentally based on religion, and we have freedom of religion in this country. But, I want to see you actually define what exactly is wrong with the statements above, besides saying "because I said so".

 

If you are pro-choice... How do you vote for a McCain\Palin ticket in good conscience? As "liberal" as McCain makes himself out to be... I just don't see his VP pick deviating from her position. This issue creates quite a conflict within the ticket itself. No?

 

It is this fact alone that has galvanized the Evangelical block... They weren't too keen on McCain alone.

[pBills]

Why are Liberals for abortion (killing an unborn baby), but against the death penalty?

 

I really do not understand this at all. Please enlighten me.

 

 

Right to Choose. Government should not be telling what women can do with their bodies.

 

Death Penalty - I am for as well.

 

 

Oh and McCain very much against Abortion and the Right to Choose.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I don't know about the rest, but I have seen these two in action, right in front of me. I have worked in a soup kitchen on multiple occasions, but my liberal friends/family always find a convenient excuse to get out of if at the last minute, even though it was their idea, and they "mean well". I wonder how many of the not-Democrats, phony-ass socialists here can say they actually did something useful, rather than merely running their mouths?

 

Don't forget to add: JK2000(Molson v2.0), bluzurl, faking_importance and justnzane. They round out the list of "emote first, think never".

 

Angst? Coming from a liberal? My how the times are a changin'. So now its the liberals complaining about the kids' "angst" and yelling "get off my lawn". Oh well, I guess even hippies have to deal with getting old sooner or later. <--The eventual downfall of the "me" generation = they try to turn it into the "us" generation when they can't do the job anymore.

 

What a wonderful description of MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, Michael Moore, and every retarded televangelist all in three sentences. Oh, the flip side of the "celibacy" argument? The fact that "fashion", MTV, and every insane a-hole in San Francisco are selling thongs for 12 year olds and hiding behind "safe sex" constructs to do it. What's more likely to get a 12 year old abducted and killed? A priest, or a thong and pasties? This is common sense, jackass.

 

What if it is? What if it's coming from the Federal government? What if it's coming from Jesse f'ing Jackson?...which is the reason he said "off camera" that he was pissed at Obama? What if it's true and, again, you can't deal with the truth? Hint: it is true and it's an accepted fact. Sorry dude. You can get pissed all you like, but, when you are done yelling, this will still be true. Deal with it, and stop boring us with your bitching.

 

Let's add (grammar) to your (sp) as things you need to work on. The fact is that faith-based charities do a great job, the world over, and that data is beyond question. Since you are a Mormon, you already know that. If you had a bad time with some people who use religion poorly, join the club. Our club has about 500 billion members since the beginning of recorded history, but you are special? Please. A-holes are a-holes, and I have to walk by Scientologists every day just to buy milk/smokes/lunch, so you won't get much sympathy from me.

 

Ahh, I knew we would find some BS Protestant/Mormon hypocrisy someplace. Oh, and by the way, the facts are that it was her daughter, Mr. Holier than thou, not her having a kid. Do us a favor and get the story straight before you start spreading the church gossip. I know it's hard for Mormons to keep form being so judgmental, but why don't you give it the BYU try this time around? Perhaps that's not part of the "what Mormons do when they are out among the normal people" training? What would Jesus Do? In your case, STFU.

 

You don't say? Try reading the sentence I quoted above one more time.

 

Yes, I am sure that, as a Mormon, you know all about gay rights. Please explain to me how forcing a gay marriage agenda in Massachusetts, and thereby ensuring that 37 states and counting now have constitutional anti-gay marriage laws, HELPS gay people. If I was gay, I'd be pissed as hell at every liberal who "knows better" than I do how to "help" me.

 

I ask you the exact same questions about this entire post...and the next 10 posts you make as well, just for good measure. You are a relative newbie here, prove to us that you aren't one more incarnation of Molson_Retard(or JK2000, or whatever that kid is going by these days)

 

Do yourself the same favor, Mr. Passive-Agressive liberal(but don't want to admit it), self-hating, LDS guilt ridden....wait, with all that hanging on you it's no wonder you write stuff like this...

There's one thing we can agree on = the beer...but kicking a dog in front of me gets you beat down 100% of the time.

 

 

First off, I must say impressive post. I enjoyed it. Wish you had a little more self depreciated sense of humor, though, it might some of you response some credibility.

 

As far grammar goes, my dyslexia kicks in always when I am tired and write fast, been dealing with all my life, anyway that is my excuse, stickin' to it, but nice insult.

 

So lets see if I can tackle some of this:

 

1. There are people full of it on the volunteer side on both sides of the street. I know liberals as well as conservatives who don't practice the golden rule. I grew up volunteering, helping out people who need help and still do. I am teaching my children that too. Just because some don't do soup kitchens don't assume they don't help out. Although there are those.

 

2. Many churches advocate helping out, in fact mine does too and I agree that church/synogogue goers do help out disproportionately, but they are not all conservative. I know many liberal churches that do too.

r

3. Hey, I am not denying the move.org and Michael Moore are over the top, but you are in denial if you don't think Fox News, O'Reilly, Rush Michael Savage, Hannity etc., are not full of it too. Never seen you even come close to acknowledging it. Please.....

 

4. I have a problem going out volunteering and doing anything other than volunteering. It is a requirement of a number of churches to go out and help out, which is wonderful, but then start preaching and converting folks. It is self-serving (in the church's case). It should be voluntary and stick to the singularness of purpose, helping out the poor. The rest church will show through. Otherwise it is a subtle coercive message, not, I believe what Jesus had in mind.

 

5. Do the math on her first pregnancy, I would have to go look up the specific dates, but they got married 8 months before he was born and it was an elopement. Nothing wrong in my opinion either way except that I have had too many rw knuckle draggers look down their noses at folks who have this happen. I am glad they got married and have had a good married. All marriages have issues. I only bring it up because of a rw double standard on the issue. Gets back to "hate the sin", but most of these folks also hate the sinner. They can't distinguish and that goes for liberals too.

 

6. Forcing a gay marriage agenda, please... I would be concerned if gays wanted extra rights. Call it what you want: marriage, civil union, I don't care, but under this Constitution everyone should be treated equally. I know some feel it is against their religion, so take the word marriage out of it if that is the way you feel, call it something else that everyone can be happy with. Short of saying something that I will regret, I will leave it at that.

 

This probably doesn't help your angst any further, but when you learn some humility and self-depreciation, I will bet that you feel much more at ease with yourself and be more pleasant on this board. Peace!

[OCinBuffalo]

If you are pro-choice... How do you vote for a McCain\Palin ticket in good conscience? As "liberal" as McCain makes himself out to be... I just don't see his VP pick deviating from her position. This issue creates quite a conflict within the ticket itself. No?

 

It is this fact alone that has galvanized the Evangelical block... They weren't too keen on McCain alone.

Easy. I know how to set priorities properly because I am a grown-up. I understand that I often have to pick the "wrong" that's more "right", because I am a grown-up. I can also think about more than one thing at a time, because I am a grown-up.

 

Terrorism, the economy, and how this country gets run going forward, in general are all far and away more important issues than abortion.

 

And, again, because I am a grown-up, I know that making abortion truly illegal = the eventual end of the Republican party, and they know it too.

 

Finally, because I am a grown-up, I know how to tell the difference between the fantasy world and the real world. In the fantasy world, abortion is a real issue, in the real world, 10,000 degree sun-tans from nuclear weapons are a real issue.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Here is something to shock the conservatives.

 

Why are liberals for abortion and against the death penalty? Because one is a self-sustaining life, the other is not.

 

Read that carefully... Notice I didn't put a timeline in there. And because of that, I am for the most part against abortion after a certain time.

 

Let the debate rage!

 

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Easy. I know how to set priorities properly because I am a grown-up. I understand that I often have to pick the "wrong" that's more "right", because I am a grown-up. I can also think about more than one thing at a time, because I am a grown-up.

 

Terrorism, the economy, and how this country gets run going forward, in general are all far and away more important issues than abortion.

 

And, again, because I am a grown-up, I know that making abortion truly illegal = the eventual end of the Republican party, and they know it too.

 

Finally, because I am a grown-up, I know how to tell the difference between the fantasy world and the real world. In the fantasy world, abortion is a real issue, in the real world, 10,000 degree sun-tans from nuclear weapons are a real issue.

 

 

I don't know about the grown up part. I am not sure anyone on this board can claim that status, but I agree with the rest. In fact the opposite was true. Abortion and family values combined with an aggressive anti-government campaign was why the Dems lost Congress in '94 after so many years in power.

[OCinBuffalo]

First off, I must say impressive post. I enjoyed it. Wish you had a little more self depreciated sense of humor, though, it might some of you response some credibility.

 

As far grammar goes, my dyslexia kicks in always when I am tired and write fast, been dealing with all my life, anyway that is my excuse, stickin' to it, but nice insult.

I can only work with what you give me. If you write in a substandard fashion, you are going to hear it from this entire board, not just me. We place a high standard on grammar here, not so much spelling. If we didn't, how in the hell else would we know what each other meant? I had no idea you have dyslexia, and I still don't, you could be BSing me. But, I will keep it in mind.

 

The other thing is: unfortunately all you get is the written page, not my expressions, my goofy delivery, or the genuine smile that's always on my face. So, yeah, I can see where this comes off harsh, but without the whole thing it's kinda hard.

So lets see if I can tackle some of this:

Based on your "profile" so far, I doubt it, but it's always good to keep an open mind, until it's not.

1. There are people full of it on the volunteer side on both sides of the street. I know liberals as well as conservatives who don't practice the golden rule. I grew up volunteering, helping out people who need help and still do. I am teaching my children that too. Just because some don't do soup kitchens don't assume they don't help out. Although there are those.

Whiff. Strike one. I stipulate what you are saying but it has nothing to do with what I am saying. I have always found that the further to the left my friends, family an co-workers are, they less likely they are to help out. OR, they come up with an idea, and I end up doing it while they find a way out at the last minute. This was especially true for me in college. In all cases, the data is the data, and it says that most volunteers consider themselves to be "conservative". I will grant you that that concept can mean about 30 different things, and whether we are talking social conservative vs. fiscal conservative is up in the air, so let's simply take it for what it is. The point is, they don't call themselves: liberal.

2. Many churches advocate helping out, in fact mine does too and I agree that church/synogogue goers do help out disproportionately, but they are not all conservative. I know many liberal churches that do too.

Define "liberal" church. The only one I know of that can even be slightly considered "liberal" is the Catholic church. But then again, you will find a whole lot more conservatives there as well. See above, we really have no idea of the context of the question. If there are little protestant churches here and there that let gay people worship, for example, that's fine, but I guarantee you that they don't expend anywhere near the resources, or the time in terms of man hours that the Catholics, Methodists, etc. do, nor do they have anywhere near the membership. Hence, this is why the "conservative" # makes sense. Right?

3. Hey, I am not denying the move.org and Michael Moore are over the top, but you are in denial if you don't think Fox News, O'Reilly, Rush Michael Savage, Hannity etc., are not full of it too. Never seen you even come close to acknowledging it. Please.....

Oh, BS. I have said on multiple occasions that Sean Hannity is completely in the tank. It's his friggin job, he is good at it, and that is the point of the show he is on. What I can't understand is why liberals insist on giving him easy target after easy target. Seems pretty stupid to me-->Rev. Wright. Savage is more nuts than Hannity<--and that's why he isn't on TV. The more nuts they are, the less likely they are to be on TV. It's a simple rule really, just ask Dan Rather. You can be on TV for 20 years, but if you act like a real idiot once, it's bye-bye time...

 

But, Obama went on O'Reilly's show, in case you missed it. Why do you think that is? You can try to denigrate O'Reilly all you want, but the fact is he will always be different than the rest of the turds, because...he has always been a real news guy, and he is all about being the best. You simply cannot be the best if you are in the tank. He wants/needs/demands that everybody in the world watches his show. He's not going to get that to happen unless he is truly "fair and balanced". The fact is: weakling liberals don't like it when they are asked tough questions. They'd rather do the Oprah, bobble-head thing. So, to them, O'Reilly looks like he is against them, when the fact is: he is going to confront everyone if it means more ratings. I simply don't see why that is hard to understand, or why it's hard for you to differentiate from one show from another. Is there another learning disability I should know about?

4. I have a problem going out volunteering and doing anything other than volunteering. It is a requirement of a number of churches to go out and help out, which is wonderful, but then start preaching and converting folks. It is self-serving (in the church's case). It should be voluntary and stick to the singularness of purpose, helping out the poor. The rest church will show through. Otherwise it is a subtle coercive message, not, I believe what Jesus had in mind.

Yeah, but we are talking humans here, not Jesus. And even he wasn't right all the time, and he said so. I will take the 90 points of helping others and ignore the 10 points of self-serving crap. Why not? It beat the F out of nothing, or sitting around bitching.

5. Do the math on her first pregnancy, I would have to go look up the specific dates, but they got married 8 months before he was born and it was an elopement. Nothing wrong in my opinion either way except that I have had too many rw knuckle draggers look down their noses at folks who have this happen. I am glad they got married and have had a good married. All marriages have issues. I only bring it up because of a rw double standard on the issue. Gets back to "hate the sin", but most of these folks also hate the sinner. They can't distinguish and that goes for liberals too.

Whiff. Strike two. I do math, every day all the time. I simply don't to BS, and you'd have to check with the ladies on this, but the last time I checked you can't be pregnant for 2 f'ing years. The only thing it gets back to...BS, non sequitur logic, or circular reasoning, that is the friend of the far-left and is rapidly becoming their entire argument regarding this issue. Save it. This isn't going anywhere and the only place this is "getting back to" for you is "jackassville".

6. Forcing a gay marriage agenda, please... I would be concerned if gays wanted extra rights. Call it what you want: marriage, civil union, I don't care, but under this Constitution everyone should be treated equally. I know some feel it is against their religion, so take the word marriage out of it if that is the way you feel, call it something else that everyone can be happy with. Short of saying something that I will regret, I will leave it at that.

Well what else would you call it besides "forcing it"? Nobody in Mass. wanted it, or else their legislature would have passed a law. They found the weakest of cases to bring it up the ladder to the state court. In fact there's speculation that the whole thing was a setup. There is no finer example of "legislating from the bench". I look at it as I look at everything else: objectively. And, objectively, if the agenda was to make gay marriage legal, they failed miserably. Doubly so because they tried to sneak it through the courts, on the way to the US Supreme Court, instead for letting "the people", through their elected reps., decide on the matter. All that did was piss everybody off, even people like me, who have no problem with gay marriage, but every problem with aholes trying to play games. Honestly I really don't see a problem with it. I have a problem with little bitches who aren't man enough to put their issue before the entire government and try to convince people of what they are saying, and instead try to sneak schit by us.

 

And again, if I was gay, I'd be pissed as hell that the "help" I got from liberals has turned into constitutional amendments against me in 37 states and counting. Please explain how that is "help", because that is the current situation. This looks like dumbass, liberal hubris once again serving to hurt those it intends to help. How else can you possibly define this?

This probably doesn't help your angst any further, but when you learn some humility and self-depreciation, I will bet that you feel much more at ease with yourself and be more pleasant on this board. Peace!

Ha! Angst. I am at peace just fine buddy, but thanks for your condescension. Boy, I really wasn't sure if you were a self-righteous bible thumper before, but now this has me convinced. Perhaps you aren't one now, but the judgmental crap is still bleeding through. How about this for a plan: you worry about your stuff, and I will worry about mine? In other words, I didn't ask for your "help"(judgment) or "advice". I will let you know when I need it Until then, why don't you start with being able to defend your position reasonably and not whining, or playing phony condescension games, or acting "morally superior"(I know that's a tall order, but give it a try), when somebody throws a BS flag on you?

[molson_golden2002]

Does anyone acutally believe that the Supreme Court, packed now with Conservative judges, will ever overturn abortion?

 

Six of the nine judges have been appointed by Republicans and.........and what? Nothing. McCain's appointments will change this how?

[molson_golden2002]

I don't know about the grown up part. I am not sure anyone on this board can claim that status, but I agree with the rest. In fact the opposite was true. Abortion and family values combined with an aggressive anti-government campaign was why the Dems lost Congress in '94 after so many years in power.

 

 

And its a good thing! The Government is smaller now, families are happier and abortion is a thing of the past!

 

Oh wait...

[OCinBuffalo]

I don't know about the grown up part. I am not sure anyone on this board can claim that status, but I agree with the rest. In fact the opposite was true. Abortion and family values combined with an aggressive anti-government campaign was why the Dems lost Congress in '94 after so many years in power.

Complete crap. Perhaps you aren't familiar with this little document-->Contract with America

 

Which was specifically predicated on NOT being about dumbass issues like abortion and school prayer.

 

Buddy, do me a favor, before your next post, go to google, type in anything you are about to say, and read the first three links.

 

This is like Molson_Retard version 3

[OCinBuffalo]

Does anyone acutally believe that the Supreme Court, packed now with Conservative judges, will ever overturn abortion?

 

Six of the nine judges have been appointed by Republicans and.........and what? Nothing. McCain's appointments will change this how?

Once again, even if there were 9 Scalia's on the court, there's no way they overturn Roe Vs. Wade without a follow up law that makes sense right behind it, that....allows for abortion.

And its a good thing! The Government is smaller now, families are happier and abortion is a thing of the past!

 

Oh wait...

I didn't think it was possible, and hey, how are you? btw, but it appears we have found somebody on this board even sillier than you are Molson.

 

Or, you are doing your 3 identity thing again.

 

Either way, how's the surge doing? Obama just admitted it worked "beyond our wildest dreams". So, by your definition, both he and I are "delusional" and "divorced from reality". So I guess you are voting for McCain, huh?

[molson_golden2002]

Complete crap. Perhaps you aren't familiar with this little document-->Contract with America

 

Which was specifically predicated on NOT being about dumbass issues like abortion and school prayer.

 

Buddy, do me a favor, before your next post, go to google, type in anything you are about to say, and read the first three links.

 

This is like Molson_Retard version 3

Retard? That's not nice!

 

Why didn't Bush and the GOP Congress do these things?

 

And a three-fifths majority to pass a tax increase??? That's insane! Its a destroy the federal government act.

[molson_golden2002]

Once again, even if there were 9 Scalia's on the court, there's no way they overturn Roe Vs. Wade without a follow up law that makes sense right behind it, that....allows for abortion.

 

I didn't think it was possible, and hey, how are you? btw, but it appears we have found somebody on this board even sillier than you are Molson.

 

Or, you are doing your 3 identity thing again.

 

Either way, how's the surge doing? Obama just admitted it worked "beyond our wildest dreams". So, by your definition, both he and I are "delusional" and "divorced from reality". So I guess you are voting for McCain, huh?

Agreed on abortion. I'll start an Iraq thread

[OCinBuffalo]

Retard? That's not nice!

 

Why didn't Bush and the GOP Congress do these things?

 

And a three-fifths majority to pass a tax increase??? That's insane! Its a destroy the federal government act.

As you know, I will always stipulate the truth.

 

But, as I know, you will always try to obfuscate or change the subject.

 

My point was and is: the Democrats lost the Congress because the Republicans put forward a FISCAL, not SOCIAL, conservative set of policies and implemented many of them. Abortion had nothing to do with it. It wasn't until later that they realized there was no money in it, and starting backing off their plan in trade for campaign and personal $$$

[Max Fischer]

Once again, even if there were 9 Scalia's on the court, there's no way they overturn Roe Vs. Wade without a follow up law that makes sense right behind it, that....allows for abortion.

 

Uh, no. They can overturn it today. Seven of the Nine are Republican appointments and they haven't overturned the ruling. First time I ever heard the need for a "follow up law" that "allows for abortion." Who thought that up?

[OCinBuffalo]

I'll start an Iraq thread

Great, I'm sure none of us can wait. I wish my brother was awake because I would have bet him all the money in his wallet that you would "start another thread".

 

[Max Fischer]

As you know, I will always stipulate the truth.

 

But, as I know, you will always try to obfuscate or change the subject.

 

My point was and is: the Democrats lost the Congress because the Republicans put forward a FISCAL, not SOCIAL, conservative set of policies and implemented many of them. Abortion had nothing to do with it. It wasn't until later that they realized there was no money in it, and starting backing off their plan in trade for campaign and personal $$$

 

Which fiscal policies did they implement? Was that when pork barrel spending went through the roof, they never submitted a balance budget or would continue to pass unfunded mandates to the states?

 

Edit: I will credit the 1995 congress under Gingrich for Welfare Reform but that was the last instance of fiscal reform I can recall.

[OCinBuffalo]

Uh, no. They can overturn it today. Seven of the Nine are Republican appointments and they haven't overturned the ruling. First time I ever heard the need for a "follow up law" that "allows for abortion." Who thought that up?

The smart Republicans. This is probably going to happen because Roe vs. Wade doesn't do a very good job of setting a legal precedent for things like cloning or stem cell research. It's really a lawyer thing. Ask any objective lawyer and they will tell you it's simply bad law in terms of its functional capability to tell people what's cool and what isn't.

 

It was a bad case to set a precedent on to begin with, and it's so old and goofy that nobody(legislatures) can use it to make good laws today. It's exactly like needing an "upgrade" for your software, because it's not compatible with new things.

 

Now, I will grant you that the Republicans will try to get things like late-term abortions and ice-picking live babies in the neck out of what's "legal", but, the Democrats will probably take that in trade for keeping the birth control, morning after pill, and about 5 billion in sex ed and condoms.

 

Well, that's how I would do it. Everybody gets something, we get a good law we can actually use, and we put this thing to bed forever and get on to the important stuff. Of course, politicians will probably do the opposite and find a way to f it up. I give my plan about one chance in 4 of actually happening.