With the leading Democrat Presidential candidates all in a race with each other to propose the biggest universal health care system, complete with free drive-by abortion on demand, it's a good time to read what the people of a country with wall to wall welfare think about what it costs.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1891543.ece

"Mama, I have da biggest feet in da third grade. Is dat becoss I'm Norvegian?"
"No, it's because you're NINETEEN."

Would you rather spend your tax dollars on the Iraq war or for heath care for your fellow Americans? And the comment about "free drive-by abortion on demand" is horse crap.

Would you rather have your wife or girl friend wearing a sack over her head and you kneeling and praying to the east 5 times a day?

>>>"And the comment about "free drive-by abortion on demand" is horse crap."

If you'll bother to follow what the Democrat candidates for President are proposing, you'll find out it is more truth than "horse crap".

"Would you rather have your wife or girl friend wearing a sack over her head and you kneeling and praying to the east 5 times a day?"

Like who Deane? For only slightly different reasons, Orthodox Jews do too. Semites have ancient ways and like them or not, they will practice as they see fit. Xenophobia is a fun diversion, but if it translates into a holy war that kills us all, only the neo-cons, zealots and xenophobes will feel smug. If, however, we were to discourage all zealots, and stop subsidizing religion, you would cry foul.

At least the socialists do not waste taxpayer money on any "invisible friends for grownups" or encourage faith-based foreign policy. If one wants to worship, fine. Still, most of us -- even believers -- miss the secular days of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" during the seven inning. Now, I am waiting for every ballpark to swap the seats, scorecards and suds, for pews, hymnals and sacramental vino.

Our current holy war costs more in a month than taking care of every American down to their hunger, hangnails and sniffles during that same month. That -- more than any sort of imagined "red scare" or "Semitic takeover" -- is madness.

Pure madness!

My God....it's like Wayne has risen from the grave! You talk and talk and in the end just wind up with a splitting headache!

That's all I got to say bout that!

Run Forest Run!

>>>"For only slightly different reasons, Orthodox Jews do too."

By there own choice. Yes, that's a slightly different reason.

Deane writes:
If you'll bother to follow what the Democrat candidates for President are proposing, you'll find out it is more truth than "horse crap".

Deane, I think you would know "horse crap" better than pretty much everyone else here. I nominate you as the group expert!

Andrew

"Would you rather have your wife or girl friend wearing a sack over her head and you kneeling and praying to the east 5 times a day?"

Do you actually believe the "horse crap" you post? There is ZERO chance of that happening. ZERO.

Second that Andrew....after all the Horse Crap don't fall from from it's source now do it!

Ahhhhhh....this brings back those memories of day's past pounding my head on the wall trying to convince Wayner the Complainer about anything other than what his tunnel-vision view from the Pulpit allowed him to see!

(Merkin.....where ever she is.....suddenly gets the Shivers)

Deane, as powerful as they perceive God to be in the universe, I would not call what Orthodox Jews do a "choice" per se. They have a version of Judaism that is every bit as restrictive as the hyperconservative versions of Islam and Protestant Fundamentalism.

However, most Jews, like most Muslims, and most Christians, worship in a far less restricted context. They do not believe in violence as a solution to problems, they find strength of spirit in faith rather than fearing a God of mere brute force, and by and large, they all try to be good people.

Iraq was a nonsectarian society with cities that boasted all the modern amenities before the invasion. It had infrastructure, higher education, and every western convenience. Because Saddam knew it was a smart approach, it also had no singular enforced religion. Once he was removed, we had a good chance to unite, or at least rebuild Iraq.

In the context of a "modern Arab state" it compared favorably with Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Dubai -- also not "free" countries by any stretch of the imagination. We invaded a land that was educated, and largely enlightened to western thought. The problems came when we assumed the people were savages, treated them in kind, and created quagmire from cooperation.

Since this has been turned into a twisted self-fulfilling prophecy drawn straight from the fires of the big finish in the Bible, the holy nihilists on all sides are cheered by every death. The chaos has profited every single one of the cronies of this administration, and galvanized hatred in the hearts of the narrow minded worldwide.

Ironically, few socialist countries thought this was a good idea. Then again, few countries at all thought this was good idea. Of all the atrocities in history, few have been done without invoking the name of a deity and these past few years have been no exception. I mean, if faith meant peace, why would our so-called leader bat around a classic Christian bloodbath buzzword like "crusade" or prattle on and on about having "conversations with God" in the Oval Office.

I am all for worship as an individual sees fit, but if you are "hearing voices in your head" and you follow what they say, well, you are a first class nutcase and not fit to lead. It is bad enough that "God" is on all of our money, and according the "caustic gospels" he buried the oil under Iraq so we could "liberate" every gallon, but taking the charade that far is just plain loony.

Of course, as I've said before, America would be the greatest country in the world if we spent that money selfishly on ourselves. Or heck, even if we saved it for a rainy day. We could balance the budget again, like the bipartisan effort of a decade ago. Remember when we still lived in a free country, before the corporate backed faith-based fascist take over in 2000?

Glory days.

It has been eleven years since a real election, but if we are to ever actually elect another President, I want a candidate who talks to his or her God privately, quietly and without fanfare. They will be sworn to serve the American People first, and their hoodoo, ritual and mumbo-jumbo will have to fall down far lower on the list. We must demand real leadership from candidates of either party, not just a puppet with a bully pulpit.

To further return to topic, as a country, we need socialized medicine. Before you call me a Bolshevik, I have long stood by the idea of State-based healthcare initiatives without interference or expenditures from agencies in Washington. Those three and four letter shams are controlled by corporations and do not serve us. The Oregon Health Plan was not designed to make big profits for big medicine, and though I never had to use it, I liked it just fine.

>>>"It has been eleven years since a real election"

I assume a real election is one wherein a Democrat wins?

Littlesongs, I hope we learn something from the Oregon system. We certainly need to be searching for some answers on health care costs.

>>>"Deane, I think you would know "horse crap" better than pretty much everyone else here. I nominate you as the group expert!"

You guys have been attacking and belittling anyone who posts here from anything other than a liberal viewpoint for years. Doesn't bother me a bit.

"I assume a real election is one wherein a Democrat wins?"

Now now, let's not get hasty. I am not blind to the system. For instance, I am willing to concede that Joe Kennedy had a big role in 1960, and in the depths of my hypocrisy, I still like J.F.K. Other Presidents on both sides have been elected fraudulently, or by dirty tricks, or by yellow journalism, or with intense local pressure on minorities, or until last century, without a minority vote at all, and always, with wheelbarrow loads of cash.

The difference is that in 2000 we all knew it was a lie, but we were too shocked, too scared, or felt too marginalized to do anything about it. President McCain, and obviously President Gore, would not have had to resort to such measures to become our leader. A real POTUS is not a POS or an SOB from the get go.

I think we all would rather see state controlled programs. Let's move past the tangents and minutiae and talk about it. What would you folks say about a candidate who fully endorses state-based healthcare programs? Even right wing tightwad Libertarians like Dr. Ron Paul embrace the idea.

"We certainly need to be searching for some answers on health care costs."

Answers will not come from those on the right side of the isle, that's for sure. The right's answer to affordable healthcare is to not get sick.

We have the answer, strictly limit medical lawsuits, so doctors dont have to run lots of tests, just to protect themselves.

Another way, or best of all, in addition to the above, a 1% national sales tax, applicable to all purchases.

Single pay.

That's it. Extend our low overhead medicare / medicaid system to everyone, enjoy the 3-5 percent overhead and put a lot of unnecessary large corporations out of business.

It is not possible to serve both masters of profit and human well being. We should not even try.

Deane sez: "The high price of socialism."

On the other hand we ARE dealing with the fallout from The High Price of Lying About WMDs in Iraq.

Certainly there is a middle ground where the presidents don't lie about motivations and healthcare is affordable?

Skeptical, it must be challenging to have a one track mind with nothing running on the track except hatred for Bush.

Disregard is not hate.

Pointing out his poor performance, crimes, etc... is not hate.

This gets said by GOP supporters a lot. It's slippery in that hate is bad, so if we can equate hate to critique, then critique is bad. Less critique equals a better shot for the GOP to go forward.

Spin all you want.

The viciousness toward our Commander In Chief is beyond anything leveled at Mr. Clinton. And Mr. Bush didn't sell the Chinese our secrets or de-fund our military.

Herb

Or demean the Oval Office with blow jobs.

>>>"The viciousness toward our Commander In Chief is beyond anything leveled at Mr. Clinton. And Mr. Bush didn't sell the Chinese our secrets or de-fund our military."

Herb, you have to consider the low grade source of these attacks. Understanding the limited grasp of reality contained therein makes the attacks more within a zone to be tolerated as liberal dribble. This understanding also allows you to comprehend how harmless and meaningless they are, except as they reflect back on the source.

Fair point, Deane.

Herb

Absolutely it is Herb! It's all warranted too. The more the merrier because it prevents people from ignoring the problems. If we just give things a pass, nothing will change.

Look at what he has done! The only way your comment makes any real sense would be if his poor performance were somehow justified.

It's just not. We've been over that for years. The verdict is in: he really sucks ass.

You both are speaking from a position that does not exist; namely, one where (P)resident Bush is actually a solid leader and the critique of him is unwarranted. This is fantasy. What Clinton did or did not do has nothing do do with this at all.

When this much damage has been done, people are gonna react. That's the way of things and any realist knows it. People are reacting to the events of our time here and now. Again, what Clinton did is a non-issue in this regard. He's not in office, (P)resident Bush is. So, we get to talk about that.

The kicker is his near complete disregard for the process that put him there in the first place. That's where a lot of the anger comes from. We are supposed to have checks and balances that keep this crap to a minimum.

The solid way to address this stuff is through that process, but sadly this (P)resident has essentially placed himself and his administration above that process. So, we are left with speech that is necessary to insure solid change.

Think about it. Those people who hammer Clinton feel very wronged over his sex games in the white house. Same with the secrets leaked. It's a betrayal isn't it? I sure think so. And I've said as much too. But that's over and this isn't.

Now take a look at it from another view. Those of us who comment about high crimes, disregard for the legal framework, etc... are just as pissed. And there remains high potential for even more harm to come. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT OVER.

The public discourse reflects that and none of it is hate. It's reaction, push back, accountabilty in it's most basic form. This is falling on the GOP, but hey, they are still working their asses off to support the guy. They get what they get, unless they want to step up and help get us on solid ground again.

If one is elected to office and does not do the job well, they are accountable to the people so poorly served no? Well, this (P)resident has built a wall of non-accountability that runs seriously deep.

That's gonna spark a reaction and it's just not gonna be a good one, for the majority of Americans. Look at the numbers! The only people who remain indignant over this speech are those still holding out, thinking it will all be ok and that the ends will justify the means. The rest of us know better and are speaking out, because if we don't we lose.

There is no shame in this, no guilt. It's not only our right to express ourselves, but our duty. This is how things work here. You two went to school same as the rest of us. Did you miss a day or two? Maybe swallow a bit too much dogma perhaps?

This is pretty basic stuff.

If this administration wasn't so horrible, the case could be made for the positions you two are taking. But it is horrible. Documented, known horrible. There is ZERO DOUBT.

"low grade" "attacks"

All attempts to both sideline the primary issues and marginalize others, doing what they are entitled and duty bound to do.

Both of you really should be ashamed.

"The kicker is his near complete disregard for the process that put him there in the first place."

In the dictionary, the term "sore loser" has a picture there of the radical left.

Herb

Not at all. I'm speaking about our legislative process, rule of law, code of ethics, etc...

Elections are / were not part of the point made above.

Edit: He holds the office now. How he got there sucks, but I can't really say I would be all that upset if it had gone the other way, in a similar fashion. My problem there remains with how things were done and the implications for us going forward. Simply too many elections in the courts, without said courts, working to extract a result from the people, which did not happen in 2000 --this will also get fixed, IMHO.

That's the sore loser element. It's valid, I've owned up to that many times. Thought making it clear here and now, again, would help differentiate that from my point above.

"And Mr. Bush didn't sell the Chinese our secrets or de-fund our military."

Well, first of all, Clinton didn't sell the Chinese "secrets". That's an urban myth pushed by the right wing that is simply bunk. But, Mr. Bush certainly has no problem selling US Treasuries to the Chinese to fund his error in Iraq and fill the pockets of the wealthiest among us. As far as "de-funding the military", correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Congress control the purse strings? And I believe that the GOP had plenty of Congressional power back in Clinton's time. Pesky facts I tell ya!

"Or demean the Oval Office with blow jobs."

If you think a blow job demeans the Oval Office, how about sending 3600+ US troops to their death for no reason? 3600 boxes of dead bodies seems a tad more demeaning than a blow job if you ask me. I'm sure the families of those dead soldiers would agree.

"3600 boxes of dead bodies"

Out of sight,out of mind.

And here is that disregard presented much better than I ever could:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/20/executive_privilege/index.html

That's why we speak, loudly and often. If we don't we lose, it's that simple. To attempt to put any of this back on us, as some kind of personal issue that somehow invalidates it, is just profoundly stupid.

The implications here are not insignificant. If we allow this jackass to claim he is above the law, then we risk everything that matters. This isn't about whose ideology is better, or anything like that. It's about our nation, what it means, how it serves us (or we serve it...), the rule of law and a whole bunch of other core --and NON PARTISAN things, I might add.

Last I looked, we don't elect Kings. This whole affair might be easier to take, if we were seeing some real gains, but that's just not the case.

We are getting hosed and laughed at.

How anyone can continue to support these clowns, and wake up in the morning not feeling like a popular whore is simply beyond me.

"How anyone can continue to support these clowns..."

Simple, clowns support clowns.

"Well, first of all, Clinton didn't sell the Chinese "secrets"."

Oh, really?

The Clinton administration had reset long-standing policies relating to technology transfers. By March of 1994, the administration had abolished the COCOM system that had safeguarded technology transfers from Western countries to East Bloc or communist nations.

Later the White House took the key decision-making powers over technology transfers from the State and Defense Departments and gave them to the Commerce Department.

These changes greatly expedited sales of U.S. technology, including supercomputers once prohibited for sale to communist countries and useful in developing nuclear weapons.

Another oft cited example of the administration's method of reclassifying military secrets surfaced in a 1998 New York Times report by Jeff Gerth. Gerth revealed that in 1996, Loral, an American aerospace company, had, without a license, provided China with ballistic missile technology that enabled China to improve its rocket guidance systems.

When the Justice Department began a grand jury probe of this apparent illegal transfer, President Clinton quickly reclassified the technology and approved its transfer, effectively undermining the Justice Department's case against Loral.

From:
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/3/11/55955

I think that every administration in my lifetime has had leaks, spies and shady deals. Am I off-base in that assumption? How about Israeli spies in the Pentagon while we are involved in a war with the Arabs? Um, any conflict of interest you can draw from that particular revelation? Remember Larry Franklin?

"CBS News has learned that the FBI has a full-fledged espionage investigation under way and is about to -- in FBI terminology -- "roll up" someone agents believe has been spying not for an enemy, but for Israel from within the office of the Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon.

60 Minutes Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports the FBI believes it has "solid" evidence that the suspected mole supplied Israel with classified materials that include secret White House policy deliberations on Iran.

At the heart of the investigation are two people who work at The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington.

The FBI investigation, headed up by Dave Szady, has involved wiretaps, undercover surveillance and photography that CBS News was told document the passing of classified information from the mole, to the men at AIPAC, and on to the Israelis.

CBS sources say that last year the suspected spy, described as a trusted analyst at the Pentagon, turned over a presidential directive on U.S. policy toward Iran while it was, "in the draft phase when U.S. policy-makers were still debating the policy."

This put the Israelis, according to one source, "inside the decision-making loop" so they could "try to influence the outcome."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/27/eveningnews/main639143.shtml

"It was just a Washington lunch—one that the FBI happened to be monitoring. Nearly a year and a half ago, agents were monitoring a conversation between an Israeli Embassy official and a lobbyist for American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, as part of a probe into possible Israeli spying. Suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, in the description of one intelligence official, another American "walked in" to the lunch out of the blue. Agents at first didn't know who the man was. They were stunned to discover he was Larry Franklin, a desk officer with the Near East and South Asia office at the Pentagon.

Franklin soon became a subject of the FBI investigation as well. Now he may face charges, accused of divulging to Israel classified information on U.S. government plans regarding Iran, officials say. While some U.S. officials warned against exaggerated accusations of spying, one administration source described the case as the most significant Israeli espionage investigation in Washington since Jonathan Pollard, an American who was imprisoned for life in 1987 for passing U.S. Navy secrets to the Israelis. The FBI and Justice Department are still reviewing the evidence, but one intelligence source believes Franklin may be arrested shortly."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5853706/site/newsweek/

"Lawrence Anthony Franklin is a U.S. Air Force Reserve Colonel who has pleaded guilty to passing information about U.S. policy towards Iran to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the foremost pro-Israel lobbying organization in the U.S, while he was working for the Defense Department in an attempt to get the information passed on to the United States National Security Council, which he could not do through regular Pentagon channels.

Two former employees of that organization are also facing charges that they assisted him in the AIPAC espionage scandal and passing classified information to an Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon. On January 20, 2006, Judge T.S. Ellis, III sentenced Franklin to 151 months (almost 13 years) in prison and fined him $10,000. The case was heard in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Ultimately, Franklin was charged with unauthorized disclosure of classified information, not with espionage."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Franklin

They went soft on the Colonel because he was funneling information and peddling influence to one of our allies. I do not care if it was Canada that was curious about things and wanted some weight in decisions, in my book, treason is treason. A decorated member of our Armed Forces undermining the security of our nation for any other nation is utterly disgusting.

Boys, he was playing for our team and gave away the playbook.

Herb, you're grasping at straws there with your Newsmax hype. Show us some real screw ups, like starting a war on false pretenses, then we'll talk.

deane sez: "Skeptical, it must be challenging to have a one track mind with nothing running on the track except hatred for Bush."

Bush sold me on the Saddam has WMDs story. So I supported the Iraq invasion when he asked for our support. (just use the search function here to confirm this.)

Later, after finding out that I was being lied to, not to mention STILL being taken for stupid, my hated from the presdient grew into what it is today.

Bush has nobody to blame but himself. I'll spit on his grave for convincing me 0n a lie to send 3600 Americans to an early grave.

Worst president ever. A dispicable human being.

Skeps in from the picket line. Now the fun can begin.

Herb said>>>
In the dictionary, the term "sore loser" has a picture there of the radical left.

Or and EXTREME RIGHT WING BIBLE THUMPER living in a shack down by the river.

DJ said>>>>
Or demean the Oval Office with blow jobs.

Or with the lives of 3500+ of our kids for NO GOOD REASON!!

SEX over death anyday! In a sane person eyes!
Yours????
Body bags......

That Fin' sucks!

Spin that anyway you want and I'm NOT sticking up for Slick Willy... I'd take 400 hummers a GD day over 3,000+ of our young men and women dead.

Bush sold me on the Saddam has WMDs story. So I supported the Iraq invasion when he asked for our support. (just use the search function here to confirm this.)

Later, after finding out that I was being lied to, not to mention STILL being taken for stupid, my hated from the presdient grew into what it is today.

Bush has nobody to blame but himself. I'll spit on his grave for convincing me on a lie to send 3600 Americans to an early grave.

This is why I feel Bush has committed an act of Treason (or, at the very least, 3600+ acts of involuntary manslaughter) and needs to be impeached for it - so that the alleged crime can be addressed.

There's something seriously wrong with this country when someone laughs about someone dying in Iraq, and three people lose their jobs (regardless of your opinion of the subject matter of the show and/or those personalities); someone calls a black woman basketball player a 'nappy-headed ho' and loses his job; one person dies in a radio stunt and 10 people lose their jobs; and those previously-mentioned 3600 troops die in Iraq, and those responsible are still allowed to be called the President and Vice-President of the United States.

I'm pretty much where Skep is at in this.

I remember the exact day I realized it was a war of lies. Standing near a table, I look at the TV. "THE REGIME IS THE WEAPON OF MASS DESTRCTION" scrolled on the little bar at the bottom.

All that day, I thought about that phrase and why somebody would utter it. Prior to that day, I was dismayed over Bush winning. None of the discussions we had ended up painting a picture even close to what ended up actually happening.

I refuse to hate though. That is one area I differ. It's a fight though. Much easier to hate, but with that gratification comes marginalization and harm to the self. No thanks. Not over that clown.

My deep worry is the next short time we have until election time. This administration is seriously going the distance. No boundaries period.

This means they are all about keeping their freedom and their loot. I can't imagine it's not also about keeping the power they've collected too.

Unless something seriously changes, the GOP is going down hard this next time around. Too many people have had enough.

So, with no boundaries, any solution remains on the table. Terrorist event? Killings? Further perversion of the law? What?

I fear something is gonna happen --might be made to happeh so they can leverage the fear as they always have.

"Unless something seriously changes, the GOP is going down hard this next time around."

That is what worries me.

All appologies to Andrew on the Impeachment thread, and various conspiracy theories, I believe that this administration has demonstrated that they have no boundaries.

The very Constitution that they took an oath to "protect & defend" has been cast aside when it has become inconvenient.

Sara Taylor even seems to be confused as to what/who her oath was to.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/12/24310/3309

If an oath taken with a hand on the Bible means nothing to this group of supposedly Christian Conservatives, what's to stop them from (insert your greatest fear)?

I'm right there with you.

No boundaries means exactly that! Our system is a solid one, but those supposedly "upholding and defending it" are not.

I know the voting has been manupulated. Cases are now hitting the courts and the truth on that is coming out. There was fraud, it was distributed like Andrew says, but here's the kicker:

Those 20 percent of us, in support of this administration, have few to no boundaries either! It then becomes a shared effort and that's the slippery part about it.

It's not really a conspiracy. There isn't a king pin driving all of it. It's a movement that justifies it's own mis-deeds. Our leaders are setting the example. They are above the law and social norms, doing what it takes to get their way.

The strong efforts to bias the courts, is more or less empowering others, who share their view, to go ahead and do what they are doing; namely, what it takes to get the shared goals accomplished.

I'm at a loss for objective words on this, so I'm gonna put it out in terms of an example. Not bashing anyone in particular --know this before flaming!

Let's take the Christian Nation bit and tie that to the unitary executive.

Those among us, who believe their highest authority trumps the law, have no real respect for said law. This belief impacts their reason as well, thus allowing for ends justify the means kinds of ideas to ring true.

This is their shot, right here, right now, to redefine this nation as they see fit. Nothing else matters, and that's key.

Being one of these people, having a position of authority where things can get done, means being able to actually do those things, with the goal of a shared "New Nation" vision.

Normally, public oversight, is what checks this. It's one of our defining principles. We are open for a reason and that reason is to check our own selves as the number of baddies is not high enough to do real harm.

We have the press to help in this and we have freedom of speech as well.

Look at what is coming together:

This administration has rejected ALL OVERSIGHT. The closest they have come is to have some of their own oversee and report. This is a cheap parlor trick at best.

Media ownership has consolidated to the point where real reporting, that would actually impact this whole affair, does not happen here, but for the Internet and overseas.

The reluctance to return the vote to the people speaks volumes about this whole dynamic. It's our vote and yet we either must deal with machines that manage it, or secret counters. No part of this is a secret, yet at every turn we end up with some elements being hidden from us, in the name of security.

The security is in the open nature of the process! We have nothing to fear when we all can see it happen. Both parties are denying us this, and debate on the matter is essentially zero.

Movements to neuter the Internet, morph it into something more like our highly managed media are ever present and starting to see some success.

Faith based support really means one faith in particular.

Divisive framing on anything that actually matters only helps to keep us from actually coming to consensus on things, meaning it's easier to choose for us.

This all runs deeper than simple party politics, or any one issue. In fact, the framing on most issues really comes down to leveraging those of us foolish enough to place one above being American into supporting things we would not otherwise support.

Being pro-live means supporting the GOP or killing babies on demand. Supporting single pay healthcare means either being a tax us to death socialist, or supporting private business to handle this important matter for us.

Private busines means no boundaries, no rules, just like the fine example set by this administration. Again, divisive. No talk of balance, no public interest, it's either all or nothing false choices.

It goes on and on and on.

Those of us foolish enough to buy into this, at whatever level, swallow the all or nothing bit whole.

So we end up with a recount effort somewhere that could impact the GOP --really the movement that has co-opted it. If we have supporters, who are in the all or nothing mindset, the incentive for them to manupulate is very high.

Why?

Becuase they have accepted the all or nothing false choice!

For the majority of us, this false choice is not in our interests. What those interests are is a matter of public debate. That no longer happens in a solid way, because of the intense framing being done 24/7.

IMHO, it comes down to those of us, who believe in democracy, to either seriously step up and start making changes back toward the balance we are supposed to have, or lose.

That portion of us, who have surrendered the boundaries for selfish reasons, will not rest, do not care, and will do what it takes to see their shared vision realized.

It's almost like we are handicapped too. The easy way to address this is to stoop down, break a bunch of rules and just get it done, but doing this means becoming what we know is wrong.

So, can that be done and we get back afterword?

If this Democratic congress stands for us and these things really matter, how come they just don't act as they clearly can?

Is it because they want that power for themselves this next cycle? Do they actually believe they would get it? Are they afriaid, or are they bought?

Anyway, I'm there. It's better characterized as a movement, not a consipracy. Better, I believe there are people working together to empower others, less aware, to do the wrong things more of the time than not.

Again, coming back to the voting. The system works best open. This is time tested and known true. Until it's actually open as in we the people are counting our votes, we suffer the consequenses.

At this point, crimes have been committed. They've been talked about, are on record, etc...

The courts are controlled, and a lot of the vote is controlled.

How do we know we wouldn't have had a clear majority right now. Maybe so many votes came in, the only sane approach was to just limit the damage?

I don't believe the GOP is going to go down in flames calmly. I don't believe this power structure built up will just yield and let others do their thing. Why do this when having it longer term is within their grasp?

Some people are holding out, have dug in, waiting for good things to happen this next time around.

Maybe that will happen, but I'm not optimistic.

Given we've seen enough to spark revolutions in other nations, yet we see nothing here, I have to seriously wonder if the battle is not already won.

It's laughable.

The left, having abandoned any sense of absolute truth or boundaries, is outraged when they accuse others as having done the same.

You can't make this stuff up.

Hand wring on.

Herb

It's laughable.

The REICH, having abandoned any sense of absolute truth or boundaries, is outraged when they accuse others as having done the same.

We have NEVER made this stuff up!

Spin on fairy tale makers!!!!

Nowhere has it been demonstrated the "left" generally speaking, has abandoned absolute truth, or boundaries.

Edit:

The stated goal of this administration is to maintain a Republican majority power for as long as is possible.

This lies in contradiction with what they are supposed to be doing; namely, to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Let's play the nothing else matters game again huh?

Let's say that nothing else matters but concentrating and holding on to power. This advances a lot of other goals; therefore, the case for considering this primary is solid.

What does that mean really Herb?

You have stated, "nothing else matters but..." a few times here. Been pretty true to form here too.

So truth does not matter? Justice does not matter? The law does not matter? People don't matter?

See how that works?

When nothing else matters, boundaries don't matter either, or am I missing something elemetary?

It's no longer in doubt. This administration (should I say regime now?) has demonstrated it has no boundaries. They have been true to form, as you and others have in supporting them.

The implication is that this is somehow good for us, or a trait to be admired, respected, etc...

I've not seen that case for it being good for us made anywhere really. Until we get somewhere on that score, what really is to be admired and respected, if doing so means we really don't matter?

Is this the kind of thing we see with other dictators? A segment of the population loves them because they are strong, and continues to love them on that basis alone?

Can we really make the case that evil is everywhere, just waiting to enter our homeland here, if it were not for such strong leaders, keeping us safe and secure?

Why would they do this, if we don't matter?

Again, see how that all works?


I started doing this to learn and maybe believe. Drinking the kool-aid is a lot easier than thinking through this crap is. Tried really hard to get that done, but in the end it just didn't happen.

It does not ring true and just. Elementary questions like these just don't have answers that resonate.

How do you do it really? You respect and honor these people, who could care less about you, other than for your support. That helps them, and it's good, but what does it do for you?

Do you actually think we might stop all the abortions? Would painting Christ on the flag really change anyones core beliefs? Would it be somehow more real that way? Perhaps you feel better about it, seeing it all more realized?

You do know that God does not matter to these guys either, don't you?

Deane nailed it actually. It's about power.

What happens when said power ends up biting back?

I guess that doesn't matter does it?

Herb??
Missing asked a question....

Beuller?

Beuller?

Beuller?

@ Trix. Damn, we missed you!

HERB!!!!!!!!!!
Answer all! You said you answer all???
neo-CON at the highest level...
Herb...
Are you sure your not Insannity???

'Do you actually think we might stop all the abortions?'

All or none, eh?

Just because we can't stop ALL terrorist actions doesn't mean we don't stop those we can prevent.

Herb

We cant stop all murders or rapes either, does that mean we shouldnt try?

Heard on the news, only about 44 thousand Americans died in auto accidents last year, does that mean we shouldn enforce traffic laws?

I think that the same people who embrace huge wasteful inefficient war expenses but are against things like universal health care are just really embittered at the thought of certain underclasses they resent getting something for free. They're rather go along with the wasted money going into the Bush cronie coffers than help some little kid who comes from people who aren't good enough.

Oh you mean the little kid who the left was all too happy to support aborting?

Herb

Or do you mean the little kid who was born that the right doesn't want to support?

Love the fetus, hate the child.

"Love the fetus, hate the child."

That may be your deal, but don't foist it off on us.

Herb

"Oh you mean the little kid who the left was all too happy to support aborting?"

I don't know anyone who's "happy to suport aborting", so keep your foists to yourself.

Herb goes to the Abortion or Trick Dick card when backed into a corner....
WOW!
Leave for awhile and nothing changes....

When you're so confused on something as basic as letting an unborn kid live, don't expect mercy from conservatives.

Herb

I HAVE NEVER AND I REPEAT NEVER SAID I'M FOR ABORTION!!!!!!!! But I don't cram my opinion about it down everyone's throat! Bible Thumpin' half-wits do!

"I don't cram my opinion about it down everyone's throat!"

So how you would have dealt with slavery?

Would it have been morally fine with you as long as you yourself didn't directly participate? And at what point do you become outraged and defend those who cannot defend themself?

Herb

Herb said>>>
And at what point do you become outraged and defend those who cannot defend themself?

Like all the homeless children in AMERICA??? Instead of spending TRILLIONS of dollars a day in Iraq fix OUR problems FIRST!

I would have FREED them just like Abe did!

Slavery: The straw man. Toss it, it's garbage, it doesn't apply.

Bottom line, I don't think the government has the right to force a woman to give birth. Abortion ain't pretty, but a forced pregnancy is third world policy. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

"Slavery: The straw man...it doesn't apply."

Hold on there, Einstein.

A slave was considered 2/3 of a human being.

To so-called 'pro-choicers', a pre-born baby seconds before birth doesn't even rank that high and isn't guaranteed a right to life.

Yeah, try to defend the killing of the innocent unborn.

You can't.

Herb

This is all fine and good, but it's really drifting away from the question. Let's try it again, remember my post above:

We have the potential to stop nearly all abortions. Stopping all of them is not within our means. I believe this to be fact.

So, then we are left with a value judgement, which was the focus of my post above.

Is stopping nearly all abortions worth it?

No compartmentalizing this one. I think we all agree life is precious and abortion is an ugly thing. The later it is, the uglier it gets.

One sub-judgement has been made here and we've said a late term abortion is not worth doing period. That's where we are right now. What did that decision cost?

That's where my post above was going.

It's safe to say that decision was the result of our recent SCOTUS changes. Those changes came about through strong support of this (P)resident. Therefore, that decision also came with all the other trouble we are seeing.

These are the costs, in total, I'm getting at.

Would a majority of Americans say this is a fair trade? In other words, was this forward movement on the pro live agenda, worth this war, the lies, the boundary violations, etc...?

Is stopping abortion, making hard right conservative decisions all that really matters Herb?

And again, from my post above:

Answering yes to that means we don't matter, the law does not matter, you Herb, don't matter, etc...

This is why issue voting is dangerous. Once any of us decides on that kind of "nothing else matters but" value judgement, we then become tools to be leveraged and a divided people.

We then get this mess we are living right now.

For me, this isn't worth it. I think that's true for a majority of Americans. It's why we are divided and have trouble right now.

We are Americans first and foremost. If we get that boundary established again, we then can work on our other decisions, abortion, wages, health care, schools, etc...

I think your position on abortion is defensible Herb. They shouldn't happen at all, in an ideal world.

I don't think tolerating this amount of crime against the people (it's a lot of harm), to advance that goal is defensible. And this is why people say "love the fetus, hate the child" kinds of things.

If I know nothing else matters but, then I can lie and or deliver on that somewhat and get those that say it to do my bidding. You've surrendered Herb and others have power over you and others.

The price is rising, and a growing number of people are realizing the danger inherent in issue voting.

Is it worth it? Do we really not matter?

Herb, I'm not defending the "killing of the unborn", I'm defending the right to choose. I'll leave the defending of the procedure itself up to the ones that make that choice.

Abortions will always be with us, especially now that there is so much information on the internet about herbal abortions.

To see some voters give up anything that's in the best interest of them and the US to obsess with abortion as the one single thing that matters makes me think that there are some deeper issues going on with that voter.

We've had some pretty rotten leaders and lawmakers who claim to be anti-abortion but have proven that they care nothing for the sanctity of human life. Somehow that all gets lost on a lot of anti-abortion single issue voters. Irrational.

"Is stopping abortion, making hard right conservative decisions all that really matters Herb?"

Yes to the first part of your question. Maybe no on the second part. How about this:

I would be willing to bargain on this important single issue.

As a conservative, I would pay higher taxes, be willing to leave Iraq in a timely manner, PLUS ban all capital punishment, AND maybe even restrict the 2nd Amendment a tad...

...IF...

...the left would agree to let the little kids live and help stop abortion.

If even I'M willing to give a little, what say you, liberals?

Herb

Herb, if snti-abortion people would open their minds about everything else, I'd support a liberal anti-abortion candidate. I think that Mark Hatfield fit that description

Well, I'm for bringing everything to the table that can cut abortions.

They will not stop --that is physical reality, and therefore a matter of choice, despite what our law may or may not say.

Prevention, advocacy, review for everything but early term abortions, education, contraception, abstinence, adoption, new mother assistance, all of it is good stuff.

I favor all of it, and that means all of it, not just some of it in particular.

My position is that we first keep the matter from coming up, via prevention

second, we provide alternatives to make choosing not to do it worth it,

third, we regulate it more strongly the later it comes up for a decision.

I do not favor an outright ban on it.

Here's the kicker Herb.

We have a lot of common ground. All of what I just wrote is "the Left helping to stop abortion."

IMHO, you lose your chip because what's gonna happen is this. Because stopping abortion is top priority, you supported those that dangled that carrot in front of you.

(I know it's over simplified, just focus on the greater point... No belittlement / attack intended!)

Physical realities prevent that carrot (vision) from being realized! So it's a false promise in that respect, meaning no matter what, we will still be living with abortion happening!

So that's a part of how we got here.

These clowns have taken people with priorities like this, namely, issue of value voters, roped them in, and delivered only what was necessary to keep them on the hook.

That's the tool part I mentioned above. Again, no attack, just some advocacy on my part.

And what's worse is the high cost. Now, it's highly likely we swing another direction, and we've taken a big hit nationally in general to boot.

I will never be for forced birth, which is exactly what Herb wants.

Me neither, in case the above was not clear.

"herbal abortions"

I have never heard of that. I'll look at it.

Herb!!!!!!!!!!!
It's time to concentrate on the problems we have in THE UNITED STATES!!!!!!!!!!!!
Whilewe are killing INNOCENT CHILDREN in Iraq!
Are you deft???

Author: Darktemper
Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 7:52 am

"Mama, I have da biggest feet in da third grade. Is dat becoss I'm Norvegian?"
"No, it's because you're NINETEEN."

The first response to this screed is still the best.

"I will never be for forced birth, which is exactly what Herb wants."

Hey Einstein-So if your Mother wanted, you'd prefer that your mother had aborted you?

Herb

He would not be worried about it, now would he?

None of us would.

Same matter comes up if ones parents were to not have married.

Two doctors are discussing their profession.

Says one, "About the termination of a pregnancy, I want your opinion. The father was syphilitic, the mother has tuberculosis. Of the four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, and the fourth also has tuberculosis. What would you have done?"

The reply was given quite unhesitatingly: "I'd have terminated the pregnancy."

"Then," said the other, "you'd have murdered Beethoven."

So Herb if what Missing is advocating, and I hardily agree, if cutting abortions back to where they are not even registering enough as a statistic, and with solid policies in place to help regulate what few abortions that would happen, is that something you could live with? Along with continued research in finding ways to hopefully eliminate it altogether.

Oh and as far as your "two doctors" story. You could replace Beethoven's name with Hitler.

I see abortion as evil.

It's the killing of an innocent little kid.

I would consider compromising with the left on many other political fronts if they agreed to help stop it.

I would love to go after the so-called 'doctors' who practice it.

Regulating abortion is as repulsive to me as regulating murder.

If the left stopped supporting naral and so-called planned parenthood, I would compromise in other areas where liberals want change.

Herb

I see killing INNOCENT Women and CHILDREN EVIL too!
You WANT to spend TRILLIONS of dollars a DAY and INNOCENT women and children are been killed????
Oh that's right.... Once their born then it's okay to neglect them because then their someone elses problem.
CUT funding for health care for the born but save the UNborn???
That's as twisted as it get's.....

Hey-I offer an olive branch and you give me a ham fist?

Herb

Yes, but others don't. (consider it evil) Stay with me on this one!

Nobody likes it either.

Both your, "It's murder" position and others, "it's not yet a person" positions are completely defensible.

That is reality, known fact. Absolutely unquestioned at this point in time.

Coming to acceptance on that, does nothing to change your pro-life view, faith, or conviction.

What it does do is face a couple of supporting realities:

-we don't know enough to clarify / prove / disprove the various positions

-all of us make some choices in what we believe

-said choices are permitted by law, with said permission supported by our ignorance otherwise.

That's why we have faith Herb. If the facts were in, then we would call it truth and those that don't believe would then just be ignorant or in denial.

I think it's very important to realize that being able to differentiate one's faith from what is known absolutely true does not diminish said faith. It can't, unless one confuses truth with conviction.

So here is another value judgment. Evil is bad right? There are always gonna be ignorant people right? (and I'm taking your view on that, for effective advocacy)

Given some level of ignorance, does that not then mean living with evil no matter what?

One can take an absolute stand, no stand, realist stand and it simply does not matter! Evil will endure, until such time as we are brought to some higher state, right?

Therefore, working to reach common ground, does not diminish ones conviction in the least! In fact, a case could be made for sharing ground being a more effective solution to evil period.

Think about it.

Holding an absolute no tolerance position got some decisions made, but the cost was lots of other evil! Lies, wars, killing, cheating, etc...

Did the net evil go down, or did it just get moved around somewhat?

What if we ended up with common ground regulation that could easily surpass the decision made, and there were no other evils, or sharply reduced ones as cost?

Now we've reduced the overall evil, and made a significant impact on the primary evil!

Not only that, but the potential for push back, due to the high cost and legislating morality perception is quite high right now.

America is pissed!

America is gonna act out. Historically, that means an overcompensation the other way. It may well undo the hard won gains, without having achieved meaningful reductions in the overall abortion evil.

That's a lose lose!

It pains me to read, "Nothing else matters but...", when it clearly does matter to both of us, despite what we boast here.

So, my point here is simple:

Your top priority is better served through common sense and common ground solutions, no matter how you look at it. Extremes, on this matter --likely on any matter, rarely pay off.

If your position truly is that abortion is evil, then doing what it takes to eliminate that evil is top priority.

Another positive. Doing this does not take the goal of stopping it completely off the table! In fact, successful advocacy, prevention and regulation efforts, move the conversation your direction without the negatives that are highly likely to bite back.

As Americans, we are being divided on this stuff and it's increasingly clear to me it's costing all of us huge. I'm totally for stopping that.

The only people, who have any serious problem with what I wrote above are extremists on all sides. If we get a few less people divided, we will still have extremists, just as we do evil, or ignorance.

However, their numbers will be small enough to manage, allowing the rest of us to move forward and continue to improve our lot.

C'mon! Think hard about it.

Seriously. I did.

Read back through archives on this topic. I once was fairly extreme on this matter. Cost is too high. So, I give up nothing in terms of my beliefs and get some of what I want, and expect the favor to be returned in like kind.

Both sides have solid points, so pro-choice is best done early --extremely early. The later it goes, the higher the regulation. This favors pro-life! Perfect split --there is none better at this time and a majority will support it.

Edit: This is what we are supposed to be doing. This is politics --discourse, reasoned discourse so that we all may share in the improvement over time.

Remaining divided is cheating ourselves, while at the same time allowing those who would leverage that for their own selfish ends to do so at our expense.

Herb...I'll put a it a different way. Would you be willing to take small steps towards a no abortion society?

Those steps would include strong advocacy to stop unwanted pregnancies from happening. You stop that and most likely you stop many of the abortions. But what does that really look like and how realistic is it?

However in order to achieve a no abortion society from where we are now, one step at a time is better than no steps or make it illegal now. I think you would see more abortions.

We have to meet somewhere to compromise Herb. It means getting to the eventual goal both you and I want.

BTW- My grandfather was born to an unwed 20 year old woman. However back in 1891 that was a real hush hush kind of secret. Back in June of this year while visiting Denmark we finally learned the name of my grandfathers biological father.

Secrets hurt families Herb. Making abortion illegal at this time could create more of the very problem you want to avoid and more secrets being withheld from parents. I'd like to see that not happen...wouldn't you?

Our government should provide free birth control to any woman that wants it. Pills, condoms, whatever. It should all be free and encouraged, especially in the poorest areas.

I respect people that are against abortion, but I also respect people enough to let them decide how to handle it. I don't see abortion as murder at all. And the thought of my government mandating that my wife give birth if she doesn't want to is repulsive, more so than the act of abortion itself. I don't ever want to have to be involved in an abortion, but I want to have control over our lives without government interferance.

So, if you're against abortion, fine, but don't force others to live by your definition of "life". If you or any other pro-lifer was serious about lowering the number of abortions, you would support scientifically proven sex ed, not the abstinence only crap pushed by the religious right.

I totally agree with that!

Very aggressive prevention has so many positives it should be a no brainer!

The only downside is the potential for increased sexual activity among young people, but I'm not so sure it's as big of a deal as people think it is. I am completely sure the bennies outweigh this potential negative.

-social costs of early pregnancy are very high

-this is quite possibly the number one source of abortions Lots of late termers happen this way too, largely because of the taboos and set expectations in place right now.

-having honest education and advocacy efforts happening in tandem with greater availability of contraceptives will, impact abortion huge

-said education can be combined with sex advocacy at the same time --nothing is off the table in that regard --in fact, the more open conversation will reinforce the anti-sex advocacy efforts, largely by removing the stigma surrounding the topic. Where this is done, kids respond far better than when it isn't.

Case in point: Go watch what a whole lot of sheltered kids do in their late teens and early 20's, and tell me that opening up this topic won't do some serious good. (works for my family --we are completely open about it and our kids are responsible about it. No brainer.)

-IMHO, doing this could easily sway support for more strict later term review and regulation of those kinds of abortions (There will be few reasons for not choosing to do it early, or avoid it in the first place!)

No matter what anyone says, a really early abortion is better than a later one. The later it gets, the worse it is. Somewhere in there, a person is complete enough to have been viable and that's really ugly. Morning after pills prevent the whole thing from happening after the sex act, in an increasingly high number of cases.

(This is quite possibly the most potent prevention tool we have and it's hobbled by stigma and fear of loss on ground on an overall ban, that's never, ever gonna happen.)

-later term abortions will drop even more, by percentage of overall abortions, in that the change in social norms, surrounding the issue, will encourage early discussion, fewer secrets as Chris pointed out, thus far fewer late termers.

If we started this right now, in 5 years, the numbers will be a small fraction of what they are now. In 10 years, the whole scene will have changed, disease would be less, those educated are considering parent hood, vs being parents. The change in our social burden will begin to sink in, as we have fewer new families struggling and in need of social assistance.

In 15 years, the generation coming up with the new social norms will be the parents having an impact on future generations. Abortion will then be considered the ugly thing it is, options will have been fully refined to the point of extreme viability and availability. The bar will have been raised very high. Actually having an abortion and feeling good about it will be difficult. And that's all good in that choice then will be a deliberate, reasoned thing --not an escape from what could happen in a confusing and dangerous environment with many set ups to fail.

At the same time, contraceptives will improve, research will happen, morning after pills will improve, sex as a whole will be safer and have fewer taboos surrounding it, etc...

Those of us, posting here now, will get older, look back and see how much damage the fight over absolutes caused and watch in wonder as the up and comers grapple with their own issues, knowing we nailed this one for them.

I, for one, am curious to see just what those issues will be. I'm not gonna get to see that if we are still fighting over the same ones over and over...

Herb said>>>
Hey-I offer an olive branch and you give me a ham fist?

I gave you the truth and I get an insult???
WOW!

Dance around it all you want.

It's still the truth: Liberals support the killing of innocent little kids.

I don't blame you guys for be so uncomfortable. You've drunk the Kool-Aide and you've attempted to defend the indefensible. Hey, if it's OK to kill little innocent pre-born babies, what else really matters? You've surrendered to evil.

Actually, it's worse than that, for by supporting abortions en masse, you've signed off on the death of MILLIONS of innocent babies. We're talking mass evil.

Herb

But my wife and I are not for abortion. Does that mean I am guilty by association?

Heck, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what and where DJ's "free drive-by abortion on demand" places are.

Okay Herb let's do it your way. How would you begin the process of making abortion illegal.

What steps need to happen and how do you regulate doctors who perform them once they are illegal.

What programs do have in mind that will help those considering abortion as an option, that will help them steer away from such surgery.

I don't want just, "make it illegal", I want you to tell how you plan on making it illegal. What do you see as possible backlash and how would you handle it.

Give me specifics Herb, not just one line catch phrases you seem to use a crutch.

You're the President Herb, make the rules.

Great question, Chris.

Here's your specifics:

We prosecute the 'doctors' who perform them.

These women are often victims of a boyfriend, husband and/or abortion provider who gets paid handsomely.

The criminal is the 'physician' who stops the beating heart of an innocent little one.

All pregnant women should have their pre-natal care paid for by the state. Even from a strictly fiscal viewpoint it makes sense to have healthy kids.

Adoptions should be rewarded with incentives and further de-stigmatized, as they are a wonderful option.

Herb

"These women are often victims of a boyfriend, husband".

Yeah, right.

Herb sez:
"Dance around it all you want.

It's still the truth: Liberals support the killing of innocent little kids."

The truth is that conservatives are against all forms of birth control - except abstinence. Those that call themselves pro-life are actually pro-birth. They want to make sure that if you screw around you must bear the fruit.

BTW, outlawing abortion doesn't lower abortion rates.

>>>"The truth is that conservatives are against all forms of birth control - except abstinence."


I've never heard of anything this ridiculous before. What is the source of your informtion?

Off the top of my head, resisting giving birth control to minors comes to mind as something that the right fights againsts, or, at least, used to.

If one cannot give a child an aspirin in a school setting, how do you justify giving a child other potentially life-threatening drugs?

Herb

Herb, are you calling birth-control pills, depo-provera shots, and morning-after pills "life-threatening drugs"?

I assume you think it's preferable to deliver, and then hide the dead bodies of 4 infants in your home like the woman in Maryland today?

And DJ, most, if not all, schools in Utah preach only abstinence, if they even discuss sex ed.

Assume all you want.

The bottom line is if a drug like the morning after pill will destroy the unborn, so do you honestly believe it can't have dreadful side-effects?

You made an assumption about me. How about this assumption: Since you're so hot to provide children with potentially dangerous drugs, are you an employee for NARAL looking for money?

Herb

Geez, DJ, just Google "conservative-abortion-abstinance-Bush" and you get millions of articles, like:

Survey reveals Americans disagree with Bush's abstinence-only sex education programs

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20897


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR2006032101723_ pf.html

Beneficiaries of more than $2 million each from the compassion fund include five organizations run by black and Hispanic leaders who endorsed Bush and Operation Blessing, a charity run by television evangelist Pat Robertson. It has received $23.5 million.

Hundreds of struggling antiabortion and pregnancy crisis centers have received federal grants that often doubled or tripled their annual budgets, allowing them to branch out and hire staff, especially for abstinence education.

Altogether, local antiabortion and crisis pregnancy centers have received well over $60 million in grants for abstinence education and other programs, according to a Post review of federal records.

Bush appoints “choose life” conservative to head family-planning programs

A Woman’s Concern, the Massachusetts-based family planning agency Keroack currently directs, opposes contraception on moral grounds and does not distribute contraceptives or educational materials on contraception at its six locations. The organization’s web site states, “A Woman’s Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading to human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness.”

Rather than provide access to contraceptives or education about protecting against sexually transmitted diseases, the organization promotes abstinence, or “sexual purity and self-mastery,” claiming without basis that “distribution of birth control, especially among adolescents, actually increases out-of-wedlock pregnancy and abortion.”

Comment from a blog that cracked me up:

"Let’s start by having the Bush Twins virginity medically verified."

Why, Yes, Herb, that's me!

After Baby Merkin goes to bed, I go around to all the bus benches advertising the "pregnancy crisis center" and carefully paint my own phone number over theirs. So far, I'm doing quite well with donations, with which I buy diapers and send the rest to PETA.

And yes, I am "hot'...Thanks for noticing!

Herb said>>>
Dance around it all you want.

It's still the truth: Liberals support the killing of innocent little kids.


As YOU and your neo-CONer EXTREME RIGHT friends did and do of INNOCENT children in Iraq.

The difference, Trixter is that abortion kills millions and intentionally.

Any deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians were both unintentional and far smaller in number.

But I understand. To those on the left, good or bad, it's all grey.

Spin that.

Herbert Milhous

Mrs. M! Hahahha! Nice to see your posts!

Herb,

Do you agree with the Griswold v. Connecticut decision which involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy?"

If the founding fathers had of wanted a right to privacy, they would have put it in the constitution, or later congressional leaders could have.
to "Find" a right, thats not in the constitution, is a gross abuse of power.

Wait. What? What is a gross abuse of power? Say that again. It didn't make sense to me.

The constitution is not a document that enumerates our rights. The constitution defines the structure of our government and limits its powers over the people. The Bill of Rights is somewhat a misnomer.

From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

But the decleration of independence is not what our laws are based on. That's the constitution.

And the writers built into the constitution, a way to modify it.

Do you have a right to take a crap in private or not Nwokie?

Coupla things and then I am done with this topic:

The morning after pill, prevents contraception. And it's also the earliest post sex process we have, and highly reliable and physically mild, in terms of risks or side effects.

I guess it's coming down to how much we want to thrash about it. I've posted up a very solid overall balance. I know others that find ideas in that same vein more than agreeable.

"...that they are endowed by their Creator..."

Yeah, leftists like to dust that document off when convenient, EVEN THOUGH MANY OF THEM DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN A CREATOR.

Talk about duplicitous.

Herb

I try not to be that. For that it's worth.

For a moment, let us set aside personal notions of deity in the present or in the moment when the document was written. Every person in the land believes in a creator. Honest to goodness, we all do.

We have a national name for him too:

Dad.

When you are born an American, you are born with rights that were fought for, died for and passed down for generations -- by Dads.

This country was founded by Dads who were Dads from the moment their babies were born. They did not possess the technology to see the sprout deep in the earth. Many had no clue until Mom started to bloom.

The main concern for Women at the time was to survive childbirth. Even after all these years of developing fancy notions, potions, lotions and motions, it is still the most important reason for prenatal care. A Woman's survival is also the most solid reason for abortions, trumping both rape and incest by the narrowest of margins.

Among consenting partners, condoms are still the best birth control ever developed. They are cheap, portable and fairly reliable. The fingers typing these very words are proof that the pill does not always work, so leave her moods and body alone. Get a rubber.

In fact, get your first few rubbers from Dad.

Nicely done.

Do you have the right to take a crap in private, no, just look at the public restrooms downtown.
The ones maintained by the city have no stalls.

"Do you have the right to take a crap in private, no,"

Wow, thats news to me. Better get the KPTV news crew out to Vancouver to film NWokie on the crapper.

?!?

"Liberals support the killing of innocent little kids."

And by your reasoning, conservatives support the killing of innocent kids in Iraq.

Spin that, Einstein.

"..conservatives support the killing of innocent kids in Iraq."

Classic leftist twaddle.
You're essentially calling our troops assassins.
Prove it, oh brainy one.

Herb

Talk about classic fascist twaddle. You simply assume that I'm saying that our troops are assassins. This is simply not true. What I'm saying, and you know this but are trying your best to spin the other direction, is that our policy in Iraq and those that support it, contribute to the killing of innocent Iraqis every day. You support an effort that is ending lives in Iraq every single day, therefore it is YOU that's the assassin. Every car bomb that goes off is a car bomb that would NOT be going off if it weren't for George W. Bush's decision to invade and our lame Congress people that are too chickenshit to tie his arms behind his back.

So, by supporting the the policy in Iraq, you are yourself supporting the killing of innocent Iraqi children AS MUCH OR MORE than anyone that's pro-choice. The mere fact that you need to trot out the abortion twaddle is proof positive that you have no real leg to stand on anyway. Talk about a hypocrite.

You're essentially calling our troops assassins.
Prove it, oh brainy one.

I know this sarcasm was meant for someone else, but I wanted to shed a bit of light on this sentiment. Informed Americans have solid doubts about many of the folks who are fighting this conflict. I support our Military. I do not support violent adventurers who profit from every new day of chaos.

Some of "our troops" are not "our troops" at all. Are you aware that hundreds of thousands of men and women operate outside of the rules of law enforcement and war all over the globe -- even here in America?

There is a prominent American firm called Blackwater that continues to stir up trouble in the midst of all of the violence. Here is their website:

http://www.blackwaterusa.com

A brief overview from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA

This article about Blackwater from The Virginian-Pilot was a Pulitzer finalist this year:

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=108106&ran=202193

Here is an article by Chris Hedges -- former Chief of NY Times Middle East Bureau -- about the firm and their goals:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20061231_chris_hedges_americas_holy_warriors /


Here is an excerpt in the Nation from a comprehensive book by Jeremy Scahill:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060508/scahill

For those who are not under our flag, or our rules, occupying Baghdad might simply be a dry run for the seizure of a large American city. Did that ever cross your mind? Or is the sand around your ostrich still cozy? One might call it the high price of privatization.

Read it all, then get back to me.

Nicely done!

Herb said>>>
Classic leftist twaddle.

WTF?

Twat???