Just Another Political Post.

[Doc]

Wouldn't it have been funny if the person responsable for making abortion legal had been illegally aborted?

Kinda destroys that argument in a round about way.

[Doc]

Oh. And one more thing. It amazes me that some people haven't figured out that this post is satire. A spoof. Even though it's been stated in the thread.

The pig statement pretty much sums up the substance of this thread. It's been a real laugh riot.

Even more so because some people are taking it way to seriously.

Bolty and his Mod Squad will be tearing their hair out soon.

Come on people, FLAME ON! Get those pent up political frusterations out!

Get some gas on this bitch.

[Chaerophon]

Did you mean 'the right'? Or am I totally misreading your post?

Naw, I 'misposted' my post. :) As it stands, it could be read either way.

What I meant to say? Pundits on the Left often imply that in order to be a 'liberal' one must be pro-choice. After all, if you're not for 'women's rights' [sic] how can you be a liberal?

Pundits on the right (particularly Coulter, I've noticed) condemn any idea that appears to be vaguely 'liberal' on the basis of the fact that 'liberals' are bad people [sic, again] who think that its okay to kill a half-born baby.

I'd say that of the "Coulter rants" that I've had the good fortune to hear (or read), about 90% have come to one of two conclusions: "liberals kill babies" or "we should take over Canada". As you point out, rallying cries for the ignorant (which is not to say that that is only a problem in the US!).

[Minionman]

Naw, I 'misposted' my post.  :)  As it stands, it could be read either way. 

What I meant to say?  Pundits on the Left often imply that in order to be a 'liberal' one must be pro-choice.  After all, if you're not for 'women's rights' [sic] how can you be a liberal? 

Pundits on the right (particularly Coulter, I've noticed) condemn any idea that appears to be vaguely 'liberal' on the basis of the fact that 'liberals' are bad people [sic, again] who think that its okay to kill a half-born baby. 

I'd say that of the "Coulter rants" that I've had the good fortune to hear (or read), about 90% have come to one of two conclusions: "liberals kill babies" or "we should take over Canada".  As you point out, rallying cries for the ignorant (which is not to say that that is only a problem in the US!).
[right][snapback]89612[/snapback][/right]

Same goes for affirmative action it seems. I see both of them as "necessary evils", that have a point to existing, but hopefully the need for them goes down over time to nothing.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Pundits on the Left often imply that in order to be a 'liberal' one must be pro-choice.  After all, if you're not for 'women's rights' [sic] how can you be a liberal?[right][snapback]89612[/snapback][/right]

What am I missing here? One side is exactly that, "pro-choice". It forces no-one to do anything that they do not wish to do. The other side is *ANTI-choice*. It forces everyone to behave in a manner they think right (but, of course, when it is their daughters that need the abortion, then a quick trip to a Swiss 'boarding school" is arranged.)

The essence of being a liberal is to leave as much choice to the individual as possible. And that implies rights for everyone -- including but not limited to women.

The fundamental problem isn't 'liberal' versus 'conservative'. It is between power hungry fundamentalist cretins that want to regulate every aspect of our lives so that we can all be forced to do what they 'would' like to do (and, of course, when we find out that they are hypocrites, they always have a dozen good excuses) and Jeffersonian jackasses (and I'm only slightly referring to their party symbol) that would hold no-one accountable for anything.

The reasonable middle ground has been deserted by our political parties and by the bulk of the population led by a media full of hollow shells who have spent millions on their looks and nothing on their knowledge.

--Pete

[Doc]

Hi,
What am I missing here?  One side is exactly that, "pro-choice".  It forces no-one to do anything that they do not wish to do.  The other side is *ANTI-choice*.  It forces everyone to behave in a manner they think right (but, of course, when it is their daughters that need the abortion, then a quick trip to a Swiss 'boarding school" is arranged.)

The essence of being a liberal is to leave as much choice to the individual as possible.  And that implies rights for everyone -- including but not limited to women.

The fundamental problem isn't 'liberal' versus 'conservative'.  It is between power hungry fundamentalist cretins that want to regulate every aspect of our lives so that we can all be forced to do what they 'would' like to do (and, of course, when we find out that they are hypocrites, they always have a dozen good excuses) and Jeffersonian jackasses (and I'm only slightly referring to their party symbol) that would hold no-one accountable for anything.

The reasonable middle ground has been deserted by our political parties and by the bulk of the population led by a media full of hollow shells who have spent millions on their looks and nothing on their knowledge.

--Pete
[right][snapback]89615[/snapback][/right]

Pete... That post was so full of bile and venom that it is very difficult to make any sort of joke or sarcasm out of it.

[Roland]

I think Doc needs a hug.

Come to think of it, I could, too. Better wake the g/f up. :)

[Cybit]

Pete... That post was so full of bile and venom that it is very difficult to make any sort of joke or sarcasm out of it.
[right][snapback]89617[/snapback][/right]

But he's so...right!

As for me, I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty. I like consistency.

[Occhidiangela]

Pete... That post was so full of bile and venom that it is very difficult to make any sort of joke or sarcasm out of it.
[right][snapback]89617[/snapback][/right]

Doc, what Pete wrote is called objective reporting. ;)

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

But he's so...right!

As for me, I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty.  I like consistency.
[right][snapback]89621[/snapback][/right]

Pro Choice? Yes, but make it early. :)

Pro Death Penalty? Yep. And faster.

Occhi

[Doc]

But he's so...right!

As for me, I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty.  I like consistency.
[right][snapback]89621[/snapback][/right]

Pro Choice wont be around much longer. Whatsisname, the Supreme Court Nominee fella, everybody knows he is going to get his name in the history book by overturning Roe vs Wade.

When they overturn that, they can have the entire public so outraged and fixated on that issue that nobody will be paying any attention to other major blunders like Iraq, or future blunders like the coming Iran war, or the Korean scuffle. All of the news networks will be completely fixated on the abortion issue, allowing the evil puppet masters free reign to do whatever it is they wish. And nobody will care... Everybody will be looking in the other direction and nobody will be paying any attention to what's going on behind them. I predict all of us getting some unlubed dutch door action pretty soon.

It's the perfect distraction you know. They ultimate smokescreen. And occasionally have a white woman come up missing on some tropical island.

[Doc]

Doc, what Pete wrote is called objective reporting.  ;)

Occhi
[right][snapback]89622[/snapback][/right]

The whole point was to lampoon the current political state. Pete brought in some real fire instead of smoke and flash bombs.

This really is going to become the Mother of All Trolling Threads.

**Hunkers down and holds on tight**

Incoming!

Sarge, I'm scared.

[Doc]

It was all going to be harmless fun. But Pete showed up.

Now, it's all fun and games till somebody loses an eye, and then it's Keep Away.

[Chaerophon]

Hi,

I'm NOT going to be dragged into an abortion tiff. What I will say is that, while I don't agree with your blanket characterization of 'what it means to be liberal' (which is overly general and seemingly ignorant of the fact that 'liberty' can be decontested/conceived in a many different ways), you have answered your own question within your own definition of the term: it is not any less logical to say that an unborn child ought to be considered a legal individual than to say that the opposite is true.

Back to my comments re: 'liberalism' above: affirmative action is perfectly consistent with many 'liberal' conceptions of what constitutes freedom. One's definition is all about what freedom consists of. I would argue that at least some modern supporters of what is now called 'conservative' politics are little more than 19th century liberals.

You seem to me to be arguing that modern liberals are not liberals at all on the basis of the fact that their conceptions of freedom are out of line with the Lockean/Smithian variant. I would argue that a doctrine can evolve, split, and take on new meanings without becoming meaningless and that your definition is far too limiting in this day and age - you are equating what we would today refer to as a libertarian notion of property- and 'equality of rights'- based freedom with the entirety of the modern liberal tradition, and that is a mistake. Equality of opportunity is a legitimate notion that can be entailed in one's definition of 'freedom' without sacrificing one's status as a 'liberal'.

My point? Nowadays, there are all kinds of 'liberals'. When North Americans use the term 'liberal' in the popular medai, I believe that they are most often doing so as a result of the rise of the (new, as opposed to old) Rawlsian conception of the term, a move that has taken this particular modern notion of liberalism a good ways away from its Lockean roots (and fortunately so, to my mind).

Your idea that 'it's about personal freedom' does not in any way specify 'what is freedom', leaving it a bit hollow.

[eppie]

Pro Choice?  Yes, but make it early.  :)

Pro Death Penalty?  Yep.  And faster.

Occhi
[right][snapback]89623[/snapback][/right]

One should distinguish between the fact that somebody who comitted a terrible crime deserves a death penalty and the fact that a state can decide to sentence people to death. Those are two completely differenty things. The way it is now, (a considerable rate of wrong judgements, and a too big influence of the lawyer that you are able to pay) death penalty is wrong.

And pro choice...of course...I have never understood why americans (that are always whining on about that they don't want the government to interfere with their personal lives) want to decide for another woman if she is allowed to have an abortion, I would say (to them) , just pray a bit more and mind your own business.

[Occhidiangela]

Please try to distinguish between the fact that somebody who comitted a terrible crime deserves a death penalty and the fact that a state can decide to sentence people to death. Those are two completely differenty things. The way it is now, (a considerable rate of wrong judgements, and a too big influence of the lawyer that you are able to pay) death penalty is wrong.

And pro choice...of course...I have never understood why americans (that are always whining on about that they don't want the government to interfere with their personal lives) want to decide for another woman if she is allowed to have an abortion, I would say (to them) , just pray a bit more and mind your own business.
[right][snapback]89640[/snapback][/right]

The death penalty is correct. Convicting a man without sufficient evidence is incorrect, Your attempt to mix the two is a red herring, go fish. I will discuss this no further with you, eppie, as you have already made up your mind, for reasons that are completely immaterial to me.

As to Pro Choice, you don't understand, it seems, that in a nation of 300,000,000, there can be more than one opinion. We don't play overfederalist here, or at least, we are in a constant struggle against expanding federalism. The "you Americans" overgeneralization applied to a matter under dispute is garbage argumentation, and has been your recent statndard. Next time you want to point a finger somewhere -- and "you Americans" is finger pionting -- point it straight up your colon.

You would do well to take your own advice -- "mind your own business" -- however, since you were kind enough to offer advice, turn about is fair play.

Wrap your rascal until you want to have kids. That way, you will never be faced with the choice. It is good to have to choice, it is bitter to have to face it.

Occhi

[Nystul]

The essence of being a liberal is to leave as much choice to the individual as possible.  And that implies rights for everyone -- including but not limited to women.
[right][snapback]89615[/snapback][/right]

That's hardly accurate as applied to the "typical American Liberal". The same people who don't want to interfere with a late-term abortion because of women's rights would gladly take a newborn child away from it's mother into the ward of the state at the slightest hint of abuse. And raise taxes to pay for it.

[Occhidiangela]

That's hardly accurate as applied to the "typical American Liberal".  The same people who don't want to interfere with a late-term abortion because of women's rights would gladly take a newborn child away from it's mother into the ward of the state at the slightest hint of abuse.  And raise taxes to pay for it.
[right][snapback]89643[/snapback][/right]

The current American Liberal is a Paternal Federalist Socialist Pig, but just doesn't know it.

A real liberal would be appalled at what has been done to American liberalism since WW II.

Occhi

[Nystul]

As to Pro Choice, you don't understand, it seems, that in a nation of 300,000,000, there can be more than one opinion.  We don't play overfederalist here, or at least, we are in a constant struggle against expanding federalism. 
[right][snapback]89642[/snapback][/right]

I'm I wrong, or does federalism mean the opposite of how you use it? If someone tells me he is a federalist (not that this ever actually happens), I would tend to assume he is a pretty strong advocate of states' rights; the type of person who could theoretically be Pro-Choice at the state level, and still oppose Roe v. Wade as overstepping the bounds of federal government.

[Occhidiangela]

I'm I wrong, or does federalism mean the opposite of how you use it?  If someone tells me he is a federalist (not that this ever actually happens), I would tend to assume he is a pretty strong advocate of states' rights; the type of person who could theoretically be Pro-Choice at the state level, and still oppose Roe v. Wade as overstepping the bounds of federal government.
[right][snapback]89647[/snapback][/right]

As I am using the word, a federalist would prefer greater centralized power for the federal government at the expense of the sovereignty of state governments. That yields greater federal control of state and local matters. If I am misusing that, I need to come up with another word.

I am still madder than hell that the Feds busted that Doc over medicinal marijuana in Oakland, even though CA did not prosecute him and he was breaking no CA law, and there was nothing in the case that told me his practice was crossing state lines. The War on Drugs was the beginning of creeping Federalism, and I never really "got" that until recently.

Maybe I should use Centralist? Doesn't seem to fit.

Occhi