# Country not ready for a woman or a black man



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

I was sitting at a bar in Newark,NJ when i heard the waiter say " This country is not ready for a woman president...This country is not ready for a black president". An italian woman sitting at the bar said, " We in Europe were not ready for a German pope. So what do you guys think?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I think the waiter would do better for tips if he kept his politics to himself. The owner would probably be happier, too.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

For me its not about race or gender. Its about their politics. Give me a Margaret Thatcher or Jeane Kirkpatrick anyday. I also really like what I've heard so far from Michael Steele and would like to see more of him in the coming years.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

A country is generally divided into two groups: those who see social evolution as progress, and those who see it as something other than progress. I believe it's a safe bet that most people who claim "this country isn't ready for" <whatever>, fall into that latter category.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> A country is generally divided into two groups: those who see social evolution as progress


"social evolution"? What if it evolves in a way that you don't approve of? Is it still progress?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Of course not. Liberals know what is best for us, just ask one.


----------



## Gong Tao Jai (Jul 7, 2005)

If India and Pakistan can have women as Prime Ministers I think America can handle a woman president.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> "social evolution"? What if it evolves in a way that you don't approve of? Is it still progress?


Oh come on. Unless you're claiming women shouldn't have the right to vote, or black people should still be considered legal chattel, etc, how could a woman or black president be considered something other than progress?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Oh come on. Unless you're claiming women shouldn't have the right to vote, or black people should still be considered legal chattel, etc, how could a woman or black president be considered something other than progress?


Did I claim that? I simply asked about your interpretation of social evolution as progress. If you want to read more into that than there is, well.......


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I think the electoral systems make a big difference. In a country with a parliamentary system a person gets to be in line to be prime minister by working hard and demonstrating his/her competence at doing the political work the party values. Then, at election time, the voters are electing the party as a whole, not the individual P.M. Although the voters know that the consequences of their vote is the choice of prime minister, it is only the voters in the prime minister's parliamentary district who actually vote for him or her. 

This suggests to me that advancement to the top in a parliamentary system is based more on competence than in the United States, where anyone is eligible to run for President, and bizarre confluences of factors unrelated to competence, including an appealing or unattractive personality, can make a big difference in the outcome. Obviously you still need to make it to the top of your party, and your party still has to be the majority party, but your election isn't as dependent on your ability to appeal to the mass of voters across the country.

I know there are other members who live or have lived under parliamentary systems who may have more insight into this. I'm not advocating for a parliamentary system for us, although the case has been made, especially where we have an unpopular president with years to go in his term.


----------



## Doctor B (Sep 27, 2006)

Maybe the waiter was talking to old friends. But he would do better not to talk politics with his customers. 

But let's put it this way:

I hope he's wrong and that he'll be proven wrong soon. 
I think he's right... for now. 

And whoever mentioned Michael Steele -- there was a lot in his campaign that didn't make sense. He could have done better without the self-inflicted wounds he got from flinging barbs at the White House and Ehrlich. Or by busing in homeless people from Philly to give out misleading voter guides.


----------



## Armchair (Nov 12, 2006)

I think the waiter is, sadly, spot on.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Question for all: If Hillary or Obama is not elected in 2008 will the primary reason be that the "country is not ready" for the female or black Presidency?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Relayer said:


> Question for all: If Hillary or Obama is not elected in 2008 will the primary reason be that the "country is not ready" for the female or black Presidency?


I think that it will be the reason touted by the liberal intelligensia and media. The real reason however is that for Obama he lacks any substantive experience and for Hillary she just can't be trusted.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

What if, say two elections ago, General Powell had been the black man in question? Would the country have been ready?

EDIT: I figured that if I posed the question, I should at least express a position. Personally, I sure as hell would have been ready. To the extent that it matters, I am, to the best of my knowledge, about as caucasian as one gets.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I think very possibly. I would have been.


----------



## Doctor B (Sep 27, 2006)

People will likely say that the country is not ready for a woman or African-American to lead it. I don't know if that's the case. 

Hillary is a sharply polarizing figure and may be one of those candidates who electrifies the Democratic party in the primaries but fizzles in a general election. 

For Obama, it may likely be questions about his experience, as has been raised here (although he has more legislative experience than the last Illinois resident elected president, Abe Lincoln, who did all right in the face of daunting odds). 

In all seriousness: why does "qualification" seem to be discussed more often as an issue when a presidential candidate is not white and male? Is it because we've been conditioned to believe that's what the default for an American president should be?


----------



## Doctor B (Sep 27, 2006)

Powell had a very good chance in 1996, but decided not to run. 

Now, after his turn as secretary of state, in which he argued for entering Iraq, he probably couldn't get elected dogcatcher.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Doctor B said:


> In all seriousness: why does "qualification" seem to be discussed more often as an issue when a presidential candidate is not white and male? Is it because we've been conditioned to believe that's what the default for an American president should be?


Qualification is always discussed. I would admit, however, that it has historically been rather easier for white males to acquire credentials than it was for women or minority men.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

As I stated previously, I feel the country is just dying to elect a female and/or black person. Powell would have been a shoe in if he had decided to run but I feel his wife's prior psych history decided him against it. 

Jack mentioned the electoral college but did not mention the main point: the most likely minority, for either party, to win a Presidency is hispanic. If you carry CA, TX, FL, and NY, you are very likely to win the election. Look at the demographics and do the math. Yes, I am assuming hispanics will cross party lines to vote for a fellow hispanic. Call that a racial assumption if you wish but until proven otherwise, that is my opinion.

I feel there are some on both sides of the aisle that are not ready for a female and/or minority candidate, for various reasons. However, I think a majority on both sides would be happy to vote for a Martian if they saw their own ideals mirrored in a candidate.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> However, I think a majority on both sides would be happy to vote for a Martian if they saw their own ideals mirrored in a candidate.


Hmm... can't be a naturalized Martian for the Presidency. That rules out TV's Uncle Martin. Would have to be a Martian born here. The children of the Roswell crash victims would certainly meet the age requirements!:icon_smile:


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I think the electoral systems make a big difference. In a country with a parliamentary system a person gets to be in line to be prime minister by working hard and demonstrating his/her competence at doing the political work the party values.


Two words: Belinda Stronach

Well, she didn't win, but she sure came close for a neophyte.


----------



## Doctor B (Sep 27, 2006)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> Qualification is always discussed. I would admit, however, that it has historically been rather easier for white males to acquire credentials than it was for women or minority men.


I agree that it is always discussed; but to me it appears the question is asked with a lot more frequency and intensity when the candidate isn't white or male or both.

Doug Wilder ran into the same thing in 1992 despite being governor of Virginia, and I think Colin Powell would have faced it too in 1996 despite his illustrious career to that point.

Nevertheless, your points are well taken and appreciated!


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

AMVanquish said:


> Two words: Belinda Stronach
> 
> Well, she didn't win, but she sure came close for a neophyte.


Never heard of her before, but apparently she has some baggage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belinda_Stronach


----------



## narticus (Aug 24, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I think that it will be the reason touted by the liberal intelligensia and media.


Agreed. This was clearly demonstrated in the recent congressional election in which I repeatedly was told (by CNN, FOX, and MSNBC) that Harold Ford Jr. lost because he was black.

Regarding the parliamentary system of selecting a PM, we would get party puppets like Bill Frist. I wouldn't consider him any more qualified than the usual presidential contenders.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I think the waiter would do better for tips if he kept his politics to himself. The owner would probably be happier, too.


I'd say to this waiter, opinions are like anuses everyone has one.

I personally don't think the country would get behind Hillary as our first woman, but I think Obama could possibly rally enough support to be our first black president.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> I'd say to this waiter, *opinions are like anuses everyone has one. *
> 
> I personally don't think the country would get behind Hillary as our first woman, but I think Obama could possibly rally enough support to be our first black president.


You forgot one thing Trenditional: and they all stink.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

It is probably true that it is harder for a woman or black to become president, though I'm not entirely sure of that. Many people would vote for a woman or African-American just because they are.... A more important obstacle for Hillary and Obama, is that they are liberals, and perceived as such, in a country that, on balance, leans more right than left. 
As implicitly suggested by some earlier comments, our first woman president and black president will each likely be more conservative than liberal, and therefore more likely Republicans than Democrats. But who knows? History is hard to figure out, and the future is even harder.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

80% of voters will follow their party, while the other 20% has been deciding elections for the last two decades. If anything is clear from the last election it's that independents voted against something, not for something, and they're definitely not in the mood for more of the same. This does not bode well for Giuliani and (to a lesser extent) McCain.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> 80% of voters will follow their party, while the other 20% has been deciding elections for the last two decades. If anything is clear from the last election it's that independents voted against something, not for something, and they're definitely not in the mood for more of the same. This does not bode well for Giuliani and (to a lesser extent) McCain.


2 years from now "the same" will be different than what it is now.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

I suspect most of you are probably like me. You don't know who you're voting for yet, but you're pretty certain about who you won't be voting for.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> 2 years from now "the same" will be different than what it is now.


By all indications we'll have close to 5000 American troops dead, 80,000 Iraqi civilians dead, we will have spent over a half trillion dollars and their country will be in even bigger shambles than it is now. The longer Bush avoids diplomacy and insists on waving his private parts to the world, the worse it's going to get. In the entire Middle East, not just Iraq.
​


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> . The longer Bush avoids diplomacy and insists on *waving his private parts to the world*, the worse it's going to get. In the entire Middle East, not just Iraq.


He does that? Why hasn't anyone reported this on the news?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> By all indications we'll have close to 5000 American troops dead, 80,000 Iraqi civilians dead, we will have spent over a half trillion dollars and their country will be in even bigger shambles than it is now. The longer Bush avoids diplomacy and insists on waving his private parts to the world, the worse it's going to get. In the entire Middle East, not just Iraq.
> ​


Again:

THIS JUST IN: Public notified Bush cannot run for another term. Has no bearing on topic.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Bush can't, but Rudy can. So can McCain.

You know, at this point I think I'll just sit back and let Darwin work his magic.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Bush can't, but Rudy can. So can McCain.
> 
> You know, at this point I think I'll just sit back and let Darwin work his magic.


Are either of them black or female? If not, I would direct you to the title of this thread. Another failure at an _ad hoc_ rescue attempt.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

Rudy would be the first presidential candidate who has been publicly photographed in drag. Does that count?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

AMVanquish said:


> Rudy would be the first presidential candidate who has been publicly photographed in drag. Does that count?


:icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big:


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Ummm Benedict XVI is not the first German pope...somebody ought to tell that lady to do a little research...

RE: Black or Female presidents...

I'd welcome the idea of a black president...just, not Obama...I would vote for Colin Powell in a heartbeat if he ever decided to run for president, I dont think anybody could dispute that he is an intelligent and completely capable individual...it seems to me that the prospect of being the first black president is the only real credentials that Obama has going for him...and I'm not going to vote for him just because I'd appear racially insensitive if I didnt...I dont like his cockiness, and truth be told, he really isnt encouraging anybody to get to know him, much of the man's life is still a mystery to the vast majority of potential voters...

As far as Hillary running...eh...I have mixed feelings...personally I dont like her or her ideas, but I must tip my hat to her gumption...and I think that she's just shady enough to get the job done...I wont be voting for her...but I dont think she'd be the worst thing to happen to this country...


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

Any woman or a black man is better than what we have now.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Funny how we are always faced with this question yet the question of whether the African American community (which consistently votes 90% + Democratic) are "mature or sophisticated" enough (lefty buzz words for somone agreeing with them) to vote for Republicans, or any other party for that matter, is never asked. I suppose African Americans are satisfied with how Democrats have served their interests. One needs to only look at Detroit, Newark or Gary and decide for themselves if this a sound judgement.

That being said I would vote for a black person, a woman, a Mormon, a Jew, a Muslim, a homosexual, a disabled person or someone with any of the above qualities. How about a Condi Rice - Barney Frank ticket as we could kill quite a few birds with that stone?

I think those who question America's willingness to elect a black or a woman underestimate the electorate's tolerance. After all the last two presidents have included a pathological liar battling a sexual addiction and an alcoholic struggling with, if not a subpar intellect, than at least an alarming lack of curosity. And Condi Rice and Barney Frank are brilliant minds if nothing else!

Karl


----------



## JSK (Dec 17, 2005)

*Two birds could be killed with one stone...*

if Condoleeza Rice were to become president. I think she has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected if she were to run, though. :icon_smile:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> Funny how we are always faced with this question yet the question of whether the African American community (which consistently votes 90% + Democratic) are "mature or sophisticated" enough (lefty buzz words for somone agreeing with them) to vote for Republicans, or any other party for that matter, is never asked. I suppose African Americans are satisfied with how Democrats have served their interests. One needs to only look at Detroit, Newark or Gary and decide for themselves if this a sound judgement.


As someone once said, "Jesus may not be a Democrat, but he's certainly not a Republican." For some reason this was the first thing that came to mind while reading your post.

I've not heard anyone claim the Democratic Party has adequately served the interests of black people in this country. But at least Democrats throw them a bone every so often, which is more than can be said about the white hat waving, supply side good 'ol boys who now control the Republican Party. So if you're really interested in knowing why 90% of black Americans voted for someone other than George W. Bush, you can question their judgment, blame the media, or mass hysteria etc, but in the end, if you're honest with yourself you'll arrive at the correct answer.


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

Exactly right. How can you vote for a party that projects an image of hatred, bigotry against colored people. Republicans portray america as noble, there is nothing to fix etc... IT IS NOT NOBLE IN ANYWAY. A country that killed millions of natives "GENOCIDE" is not NOBLE in anysense.



FrankDC said:


> As someone once said, "Jesus may not be a Democrat, but he's certainly not a Republican." For some reason this was the first thing that came to mind while reading your post.
> 
> I've not heard anyone claim the Democratic Party has adequately served the interests of black people in this country. But at least Democrats throw them a bone every so often, which is more than can be said about the white hat waving, supply side good 'ol boys who now control the Republican Party. So if you're really interested in knowing why 90% of black Americans voted for someone other than George W. Bush, you can question their judgment, blame the media, or mass hysteria etc, but in the end, if you're honest with yourself you'll arrive at the correct answer.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Are you sure smallpox and other diseases weren't responsible for most of those casualties?

Anyway, I have not personally enslaved or murdered any of these people. I don't feel responsible for it. Wallowing in anger is going to do very little to lift up anyone.

We do have an obligation to make sure that minorities have the same chance at a good education as anyone else, and we are failing at that. (More and more, a true voucher system looks like the way to go. Throwing more money at the teachers' union is not.)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

bulla said:


> Exactly right. How can you vote for a party that projects an image of hatred, bigotry against colored people. Republicans portray america as noble, there is nothing to fix etc... IT IS NOT NOBLE IN ANYWAY. A country that killed millions of natives "GENOCIDE" is not NOBLE in anysense.


I have forgiven England for 1000 years of rape and pillage against my ancestral home. The lesson: almost every country has a history of violence in its founding. Picking at old wounds just gets them infected. Join us all in the 21st century bulla...or leave.

Cheers


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I have forgiven England for 1000 years of rape and pillage against my ancestral home. The lesson: almost every country has a history of violence in its founding. Picking at old wounds just gets them infected. Join us all in the 21st century bulla...or leave.
> 
> Cheers


Seriously...

Bulla...that argument is a little tired to say the least...I find it funny that people really believe that republicans are some kind of, like, nation-wide lynch mob made up of cross burning inbred fundamentalists or somehting...I often wonder if there wouldnt be more dems comming over to our side if they really stopped and looked at what the Republican party is all about...


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I have forgiven England for 1000 years of rape and pillage against my ancestral home. The lesson: almost every country has a history of violence in its founding. Picking at old wounds just gets them infected. Join us all in the 21st century bulla...or leave.
> 
> Cheers


If to pushed to choose a party I choose Republican, though I like to add New England as a prefix , but what Bulla is describing isn't necessarily the past. This stuff goes on still and probably always will, but like Gabba said it shouldn't reflect on the whole party. I'm pretty sure there are some racist democrats also, just racist in a different way and probably more dangerous.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Seriously...
> 
> Bulla...that argument is a little tired to say the least...I find it funny that people really believe that republicans are some kind of, like, nation-wide lynch mob made up of cross burning inbred fundamentalists or somehting...I often wonder if there wouldnt be more dems comming over to our side if they really stopped and looked at what the Republican party is all about...


When's the last time you read your party's platform? You might be surprised at what it contains. E.g. it calls for 14th Amendment equal protection rights to be assigned to fetuses, which means no abortions, no exceptions, not even in cases of rape or where the life of the mother would be jeopardized. Less than 1/4 of the American people support that position.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> If to pushed to choose a party I choose Republican, though I like to add New England as a prefix , but what Bulla is describing isn't necessarily the past. This stuff goes on still and probably always will, but like Gabba said it shouldn't reflect on the whole party. I'm pretty sure there are some racist democrats also, just racist in a different way and probably more dangerous.


jp, agree with your post. I will never be a Repub or Dem as I am the typical social liberal/sound economics type person, something neither party gets right IMO.

FrankDC, quoting what % of the population supports any initiative does not say whether it is correct or not, merely gauges its current popular support. Ergo, if that is your measure of morality, it shall be quite feckless. I am pro-abortion, but I would not support my position by quoting who agrees with me or not.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> jp, agree with your post. I will never be a Repub or Dem as I am the typical social liberal/sound economics type person, something neither party gets right IMO.
> 
> FrankDC, quoting what % of the population supports any initiative does not say whether it is correct or not, merely gauges its current popular support. Ergo, if that is your measure of morality, it shall be quite feckless. I am pro-abortion, but I would not support my position by quoting who agrees with me or not.


Yet another non-sequitur, WF. I didn't comment on the morality of the platform. I was simply responding to Gabba Goul's statement, "I often wonder if there wouldnt be more dems comming over to our side if they really stopped and looked at what the Republican party is all about". I believe the opposite is true, it's safe to assume if more Americans actually read the two party platforms there'd be fewer registered Republicans, not more. The claim that the Republican Party has been hijacked by right-wing extremists is far from a baseless accusation.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

and the Democrat party is way off to the left.

Both parties are dominated by extremist politics. 

Because of the way people are selected and because of the gerrymandering that has created "safe" districts for a lot of legislators, people who are extreme in their viewpoints have an advantage over centrists as far as getting elected.

If there was real competition between the parties, they would have to try to appeal to everyone. For most of these elections, the real race is the primary, where they just have to appeal to the "base." 

I'm no political scientist, but I have read and heard this theory a number of times and it makes sense to me.

I fear that all this extremism on both sides is going to really weaken our country in the long run, socially, economically and probably even militarily.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Yet another non-sequitur, WF. I didn't comment on the morality of the platform. I was simply responding to Gabba Goul's statement, "I often wonder if there wouldnt be more dems comming over to our side if they really stopped and looked at what the Republican party is all about". I believe the opposite is true, it's safe to assume if more Americans actually read the two party platforms there'd be fewer registered Republicans, not more. The claim that the Republican Party has been hijacked by right-wing extremists is far from a baseless accusation.


Yet another? Spare me.

You are correct though, you did not mention the moral stance of the platform, merely the political nature of it. I should know better than to think a liberal like you would be interested in morality.

Cheers

Edit: Oh yes...what forsgber said too. On target.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Thanks for your usual ad hominem, which is especially uncalled for in this case. If you believe it's somehow moral to force a 6 year-old girl, after having been raped by her father, to carry a pregancy to term -- a pregnancy that will likely either kill her or render her barren for her adult life -- that's your problem not mine. We all must deal with our own consciences.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Thanks for your usual ad hominem, which is especially uncalled for in this case. If you believe it's somehow moral to force a 6 year-old girl, after having been raped by her father, to carry a pregancy to term -- a pregnancy that will likely either kill her or render her barren for her adult life -- that's your problem not mine. We all must deal with our own consciences.


Thanks for your usual inability to read. And I quote:



Wayfarer said:


> *I am pro-abortion*


As the kids would say, wtfpwned.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

bulla said:


> You have not personally done anything... but if you were born during that time you would have. I am saying your genes carry that hate.


Wow, I think you've done the impossible. You've gotten me to agree with forsbergacct2000. How does someone get hate in their genes? The idea of original sin makes no more sense in politics than it does in religion.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

bulla said:


> 80,000 iraqi's? WTF you talking about? it's about 600,000 people. Bombing is GENOCIDE YOU BLIND FU***


Bulla, first of all, if you're going to claim 600,000 dead Iraqi civilians, at least cite your source. And no, al Jazeera and Madeline Albright don't count as credible sources.

Second, do some research on any country (pick one, any one), and almost without exception you'll discover a very long and very bloody history behind it. The only difference in the U.S. is, we "care" (or at least pretend to care) about the cultures we conquered, committed genocide against, threw out of their homelands etc. Your ranting about native Indians (who in fact were not native but simply indigenous) is going to fall on deaf ears. Rightfully so, and especially on this board.

Lastly, if you haven't heard from jcusey or another moderator about your yelling, expletives etc you probably will soon.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Honestly, I don't really see why Obama's race is an issue. So would he simutainously be the nations 1st Black president and 44th white president? But that's beside the point. Obama isn't running on a pro- Black platform so why is his race an issue? I could understand if he was a modern incarnation of Marcus Garvey, but so far he just seems to be a left of center politician.


----------



## Daywalker (Aug 21, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> Honestly, I don't really see why Obama's race is an issue. So would he simutainously be the nations 1st Black president and 44th white president? But that's beside the point. Obama isn't running on a pro- Black platform so why is his race an issue? I could understand if he was a modern incarnation of Marcus Garvey, but so far he just seems to be a left of center politician.


Race is an issue because the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson has already announced that he is supporting Obama wihtout even knowing who will be the other candidates. So it is the supposed opponents of racial separation that make the issue a racial one. Of course, Jackson's interest is in keeping racism alive.

Our twisted society will not permit a man to just be a man; he must always be something in addition. I was sickened by all of the hype about Lovie Smith taking the Bears to the Super Bowl as the first African-American (whatever that is) coach to make it there, and I was impressed by Smith's class during the entire interview ordeal where the reporterette sought to extract the last bit of social commentary from Smith who just wouldn't play along. Let's just respect him as a man who has achieved something great in the sports world. All of this kowtowing to his race is embarrassing for us and to him.

The country is certainly ready for a woman or a black man to sit in the oval office, but not just because they are female or black, and that seems to be the reasoning behind electing them in the first place. I would have no problem with Condie Rice in the White House because she has impeccable credentials and a no-nonsense style about her that is exactly what the office demands. Side-by-side with Hilary Clinton, it is Rice's landslide. Until the system can come up with a black candiate other than the likes of Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, the prospect of a black male president is a bit farther down the road.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Bulla,

Please tell me you are Shiite. I would give me endless joy if we could refer to you from now on as Bulla Shiite.

And speaking of genocide, please present your bona fides and demonstrate you have the same commitment to those in Darfur, North Korea, Tibet and Zimbabwe before you lambast the American "genocide." And as incompetent as the occupation has been, please note that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis killed have been by other Iraqis and foreign insurgents. But then again I doubt you are a fellow that concerns himself too much with reality.

And look into the Caps Lock key while you're at it.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Daywalker said:


> I would have no problem with Condie Rice in the White House because she has impeccable credentials and a no-nonsense style about her that is exactly what the office demands. Side-by-side with Hilary Clinton, it is Rice's landslide.


No, that's your delusion. And a rather wild one at that. Look at job approval numbers for anyone in the Bush Administration, Rice's are almost as bad as Cheney's (16% favorable last time I checked), e.g.


----------



## Daywalker (Aug 21, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> No, that's your delusion. And a rather wild one at that. Look at job approval numbers for anyone in the Bush Administration, Rice's are almost as bad as Cheney's (16% favorable last time I checked), e.g.


It is interesting that it was only with the current Bush administration that the mainstream media began polling approval rating numbers on members of the administration other than the president. Obviously, publishing low job approval numbers gathered from respondents who know little-to-nothing about the individuals in question suits the objectives of the media. Polling on political issues in this country amounts to a pop quiz on the material that the media has previously churned out on page one and in the first two minutes of the ngihtly network news.

I almost laughed out loud the first time I saw a job approval poll for Dennis Hastert. 99.9% of the American people don't even know what the Speaker Of The House does!

Please, do not point to polls as an indicator of anything other than the media's successful attempt at manipulating the populace's ignorance.


----------



## Daywalker (Aug 21, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Bulla,Please tell me you are Shiite. I would give me endless joy if we could refer to you from now on as Bulla Shiite.


I just got it. LMAO at that one.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

bulla said:


> Al jazeera is a very credible non biased source of information.


To quote Karl, Bulla Shite.



bulla said:


> Why do you think Ex BBC reporters work for Al Jazeera?


Money.



bulla said:


> There is a saying, The person who inflicts the wound forgets but the person with the wound crys his lifetime. *Americans are just in the dark,* they have been blinded by the uncredible source of information from CBS,NBC,CNN etc... You should read *History of the united states by Howard Zinn *


Okay Bulla Shite, a little lesson is logic for you. If Americans are "in the dark", it makes no sense to reference an American for enlightenment. Howard Zinn is a Yank you fool, ergo he is in the dark per your own assertion. wtfpwned (I like that term).



bulla said:


> Go to school get an education and remove the blindfold from your eyes.


So please share with us your education.


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Howard Zinn is a Yank you fool


Ohh really? i didnt know he was a Yank? Sheesh! There are lot of Americans who are smart, educated, intelligent who know it all. Howard Zinn is one of them. Not you!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

bulla said:


> Ohh really? i didnt know he was a Yank? Sheesh! There are lot of Americans who are smart, educated, intelligent who know it all. Howard Zinn is one of them. Not you!


You are correct. Not me. I am not American.

Now back to logic, a very weak subject of yours. You just stated Americans are "in the dark" and now you want to tell me there "are lot of Americans who are smart, educated, intelligent who know it all." Logic dictates that you cannot have it both ways. You do understand that, do you not? You are contradicting yourself. However, do not let a little thing like set theory get in your way.

P.S. You have yet to share this vast education of yours with us. I am on the edge of my seat.


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

i am cayenne pepper. i stir the pot and light the flames. I think in different ways, evaluate, ponder. i see, you all ,chanting the same matra, like programmed monkeys.


----------



## Daywalker (Aug 21, 2005)

Howard Zinn is the poster boy for left-wing whackos. Seriously. There is nothing to be learned from him. Same goes for Chomsky, just in case anybody wanted to throw him into the mix.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Daywalker said:


> Howard Zinn is the poster boy for left-wing whackos. Seriously. There is nothing to be learned from him. Same goes for Chomsky, just in case anybody wanted to throw him into the mix.


No actually, there is much to be learned from Chomsky. For instance, how to make millions writing against, amongst many things, inheirited wealth, and then setting up a trust fund for your daughter to avoid death taxes! I always have to admire someone that can so totally fool their deluded legions.


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

You just dont get it. I am saying the "American people" are in the dark. It's a metaphor. I mean the majority of them. Never all of them.



Wayfarer said:


> You are correct. Not me. I am not American.
> 
> Now back to logic, a very weak subject of yours. You just stated Americans are "in the dark" and now you want to tell me there "are lot of Americans who are smart, educated, intelligent who know it all." Logic dictates that you cannot have it both ways. You do understand that, do you not? You are contradicting yourself. However, do not let a little thing like set theory get in your way.
> 
> P.S. You have yet to share this vast education of yours with us. I am on the edge of my seat.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

bulla said:


> i am cayenne pepper. i stir the pot and light the flames. I think in different ways, evaluate, ponder. i see, you all ,chanting the same matra, like programmed monkeys.


LOL, someone's mother has them convinced they are special. It is quite heartwarming to see this exercise in self-esteem.


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

Well, Chomsky does sound strange sometimes. He is a genius though. He is a history book. I am assuming you are a big fan of O'reilly?



Wayfarer said:


> No actually, there is much to be learned from Chomsky. For instance, how to make millions writing against, amongst many things, inheirited wealth, and then setting up a trust fund for your daughter to avoid death taxes! I always have to admire someone that can so totally fool their deluded legions.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

bulla said:


> You just dont get it. I am saying the "American people" are in the dark. It's a metaphor. I mean the majority of them. Never all of them.


I will not belabour this. Any intelligent reader can see the logical error and now you are _ad hoc'ing_ your way out. Please return to your homework for your freshman writing class. Did you take Anthro 101 and learn about Chomsky from some underpaid left wing academic this term?

Bulla, I like you. It has been awhile since I had a new toy here.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

bulla said:


> I am assuming you are a big fan of O'reilly?


As with all your assumptions about me this morning, that too would be wrong. I am not American as you claim, and I not a right wing fundie either.

Next?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

bulla said:


> Why? didnt your mother breast feed you?


I am not the one demonstrating pathologies here. That would be you.


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

As Cicero said... a person who thinks differently will always be frowned upon



Wayfarer said:


> I will not belabour this. Any intelligent reader can see the logical error and now you are _ad hoc'ing_ your way out. Please return to your homework for your freshman writing class. Did you take Anthro 101 and learn about Chomsky from some underpaid left wing academic this term?
> 
> Bulla, I like you. It has been awhile since I had a new toy here.


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

Allright i wont do any personal remarks..



Wayfarer said:


> I am not the one demonstrating pathologies here. That would be you.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Bulla,

WOW! You are an even apologist for North Korea. I suggest you you visit Pyongyang - check here for a flight, though admittedly their product looks a bit dodgy. And for the record Muslims are being killed in Darfur but again don't let the facts trouble your love affair with lunacy. Bulla I doubt anyone will top you for the most idiotic postings of the year and its only January - strong work son, strong work!

Karl


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Bulla, you are the one spouting hate.

My ancestors did not own slaves either. 

Go ahead and drown in your hate while the world passes you by. You don't know me and you don't know what's in my genes.

You can drown in your hatred or you can make a life for yourself. The choice is yours.

By the way, I have no more patience with the arguments of white Serbs that their mistreatment in the middle ages condones their behavior in the 80's and 90s than I have with yours.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

bulla said:


> Allright i wont do any personal remarks..


Son, are you that blind?



bulla said:


> Bombing is GENOCIDE YOU BLIND FU***





bulla said:


> Your mind is programmed to be in denial.





bulla said:


> Hate is in the blood of Americans





bulla said:


> There are lot of Americans who are smart, educated, intelligent who know it all. Howard Zinn is one of them. Not you!





bulla said:


> Also to all you Anti-Abortonist republicans... how come you support killing babies in IRAQ? you filthy hypocrites!





bulla said:


> i see, you all ,chanting the same matra, like programmed monkeys


I take back liking you. You make it too easy.


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

I have no hate. I am the victim.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> Bulla, you are the one spouting hate.
> 
> My ancestors did not own slaves either.
> 
> ...


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Your lack of hate certainly shows in your posts.

Say what you want; you're not worth my time. For the record, I probably vote for more Democrats than Republicans.


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

and you are an apologist for America... 650,000 IRAQIS DEAD.



Karl89 said:


> Bulla,
> 
> WOW! You are an even apologist for North Korea. I suggest you you visit Pyongyang - check here for a flight, though admittedly their product looks a bit dodgy. And for the record Muslims are being killed in Darfur but again don't let the facts trouble your love affair with lunacy. Bulla I doubt anyone will top you for the most idiotic postings of the year and its only January - strong work son, strong work!
> 
> Karl


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

What are you doing in Arizona? Patrolling the borders and making the mexicans die of thirst?



Wayfarer said:


> Son, are you that blind?
> 
> I take back liking you. You make it too easy.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

bulla said:


> What are you doing in Arizona? Patrolling the borders and making the mexicans die of thirst?


It seems you do make personal remarks. Too bad you turned out to be a one trick pony. I have rhetorically eviscerated you in five ways and it only took 30 minutes. All the fun is gone.

Bah Bi.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Daywalker said:


> Race is an issue because the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson has already announced that he is supporting Obama wihtout even knowing who will be the other candidates. So it is the supposed opponents of racial separation that make the issue a racial one. Of course, Jackson's interest is in keeping racism alive.
> 
> Our twisted society will not permit a man to just be a man; he must always be something in addition. I was sickened by all of the hype about Lovie Smith taking the Bears to the Super Bowl as the first African-American (whatever that is) coach to make it there, and I was impressed by Smith's class during the entire interview ordeal where the reporterette sought to extract the last bit of social commentary from Smith who just wouldn't play along. Let's just respect him as a man who has achieved something great in the sports world. All of this kowtowing to his race is embarrassing for us and to him.
> 
> The country is certainly ready for a woman or a black man to sit in the oval office, but not just because they are female or black, and that seems to be the reasoning behind electing them in the first place. I would have no problem with Condie Rice in the White House because she has impeccable credentials and a no-nonsense style about her that is exactly what the office demands. Side-by-side with Hilary Clinton, it is Rice's landslide. Until the system can come up with a black candiate other than the likes of Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, the prospect of a black male president is a bit farther down the road.


Racism is plenty alive no matter what Jesse does, racist keep racist alive, not Jesse Jackson. Jesse hasn't been Black issue orientated in a while, I think your barking up the wrong tree. He's been a crazy leftist far as I know lately. In any event Jesse endorsing Obama doesn't make them similar.


----------



## Daywalker (Aug 21, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> Racism is plenty alive no matter what Jesse does, racist keep racist alive, not Jesse Jackson. Jesse hasn't been Black issue orientated in a while, I think your barking up the wrong tree. He's been a crazy leftist far as I know lately. In any event Jesse endorsing Obama doesn't make them similar.


I never said Obama & Jackson were similar. It is obvious that Jackson endorsed Obama strictly because of race. THAT is racism. You are correct that Jackson doesn't care about black issues; he cares about Jesse Jackson issues and one of those issues is keeping his pockets full. He does that by finding racism where there is none, by pitting black against white. Yes, racism is still alive, but it is not institutionalized like Jackson, Sharpton, and their ilk would like you to believe. Jackson is a fraud and a joke. Obama has quite a bit of substance that would appeal to a great many to the left-of-center, but he is not ready to hold the Office.


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

Hey English! i can say what i want. Your kind is not to be trusted. your kind has caused enough troubles around the world.



Wayfarer said:


> It seems you do make personal remarks. Too bad you turned out to be a one trick pony. I have rhetorically eviscerated you in five ways and it only took 30 minutes. All the fun is gone.
> 
> Bah Bi.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

bulla said:


> Hey English! i can say what i want. Your kind is not to be trusted. your kind has caused enough troubles around the world.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

To the Devil's Island with you troll! :devil:


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

bulla said:


> I was sitting at a bar in Newark,NJ when i heard the waiter say " This country is not ready for a woman president...This country is not ready for a black president". An italian woman sitting at the bar said, " We in Europe were not ready for a German pope. So what do you guys think?


I would frame this issue another way.

*Racist rant deleted by moderator.*


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Old Brompton said:


> I would frame this issue another way.
> 
> *Quote of racist rant removed by moderator.*


Are you and bulla having a contest to see who can make the biggest fool of themselves?


----------



## Clio (Jan 22, 2007)

Daywalker said:


> I never said Obama & Jackson were similar. It is obvious that Jackson endorsed Obama strictly because of race. THAT is racism.


I forgot about the omniscience of conservatives, who have the ability to peer into the minds of others and make categorical statements about their motivations. It makes discussion so much more interesting and rewarding. How is it obvious that Jackson endorsed Obama strictly because of race? Jesse Jackson's son and Obama have longstanding ties from Chicago/Illinois activism and politics--why wouldn't Jesse Jackson support Obama?


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

I'm not going to go back and read thru this whole thread. I'll just say that it's the best candidate that should be elected. Unfortuantely, many will present a female or ethnic minority as a candidate just so they can check the square. The same is true with promotions given in corporations, etc.


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

The papacy is so foolish and troglodytic. The world is 2000 years old to those EDITED OUT BY MODERATOR STAFF

BULLA: CLEAN IT UP!



Old Brompton said:


> I would frame this issue another way.
> 
> *Quote of racist rant removed by moderator.*


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Old Brompton said:


> I would frame this issue another way.
> 
> *Quote of racist rant removed by moderator.*


At least your open with what many on the site believe.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I think Brompton and Bulla both speak for themselves. Egad.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

So when will be we be ready for a woman president? When will we be ready for a black president?


----------



## chadn2000 (Aug 4, 2006)

*ready now*

Oh, America's ready. They're ready now. Just not for one in the mold of Obama. He's as liberal as it gets.

And Hillary, no way. She's got all the personality of a rock. She's the least likeable Democrat in the race so far. She just seems so fake. Remember when she was asked if she'd be a Yankees or a Mets fan and she couldn't even answer it? She's just always so politically calculating. Just say you don't follow baseball!

At least Obama's likeable. I'll even go so far as to say he's charismatic. America just doesn't vote for extreme libs.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

cenelson43 said:


> At least Obama's likeable. I'll even go so far as to say he's charismatic. America just doesn't vote for extreme libs.


Dont underestimate how pissed they are at the Republicans right now...

I mean...I certainly hope you're right...I think Obama getting elected would be the worst thing that could happen to this country...but I'm very fearful that people are just angry enough to do it...


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Bulla,

Perhaps you and WA can get together and compare anti-Catholic notes. Though in WA's defense he has never been an apologist for North Korea.

Karl


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> If you believe it's somehow moral to force a 6 year-old girl, after having been raped by her father, to carry a pregancy to term -- a pregnancy that will likely either kill her or render her barren for her adult life -- that's your problem not mine. We all must deal with our own consciences.


1) How often does that happen? Never ,as 6 year olds haven't reached Menarche. Nice construct, but you still have to deal with realistic scenarios.

2) Dealing with rape and incest generally,and remember, it's a VERY small porportion of pregnancies, please explain to me how it's the kid's fault (worthy of execution)that he/she was conceived by an immoral act? Do what you like to the rapist, he's deserving.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> 1) How often does that happen? Never ,as 6 year olds haven't reached Menarche. Nice construct, but you still have to deal with realistic scenarios.
> 
> 2) Dealing with rape and incest generally,and remember, it's a VERY small porportion of pregnancies, please explain to me how it's the kid's fault (worthy of execution)that he/she was conceived by an immoral act? Do what you like to the rapist, he's deserving.


First of all, your first claim is wrong. For reasons not yet clear to science, menstruation age for girls has been steadily decreasing for the last century. Although your "never" is only slightly overstated for pregnancy in 6 year-olds, e.g. 
https://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp, these days it's not at all uncommon to find 7 and 8 year-olds who've reached menarche. In any case it's a semantic issue that isn't really relevant to the point I made.

Second, if you've read this forum for any length of time you know where I stand on the issue of abortion. It's not relevant to the point I raised, regarding the Republican Party's current platform and the claim that "more Americans would register as Republicans if they understood what the party is really about" (or words to that effect). I believe on many issues, three out of four Americans would be horrified by the Republican Party's current position, while a much larger percentage would be in general agreement with the Democratic Party's position on these same issues.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> First of all, your first claim is wrong. For reasons not yet clear to science, menstruation age for girls has been steadily decreasing for the last century. Although your "never" is only slightly overstated for pregnancy in 6 year-olds, e.g.
> https://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp, these days it's not at all uncommon to find 7 and 8 year-olds who've reached menarche. In any case it's a semantic issue that isn't really relevant to the point I made.


The "point" you made? LOL, you were asking me to justify banning abortions when I have constantly stated my pro-abortion stance. I would fail to call that a point in the least.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

It's always about you, isn't it.

Ok, replace "you" with "they" if it makes you feel better.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> It's always about you, isn't it.
> 
> Ok, replace "you" with "they" if it makes you feel better.


About me? You quoted me and asked me directly. Let me refresh your memory:



FrankDC said:


> ..you believe it's somehow moral to force a 6 year-old girl, after having been raped by her father, to carry a pregancy to term -- a pregnancy that will likely either kill her or render her barren for her adult life -- that's your problem not mine. We all must deal with our own consciences.


You made it about "me" when you addressed me like that. If you meant "anti-abortionists" or "Republicans" or the like, you should have said that. Now you are just committing a weak _ad hoc_ rescue. Funny you and English Buffoon are accussing me of weak rhetoric skills when I just keep pointing out your deficiencies.

Cheers


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Here's the relevant section:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

That does not mean that a pregnant woman must die to protect the life of a not yet born child,since case law clearly allows such taking of life to preserve the life of the mother even before Roe v. Wade. The Republican party does not advocate in their platform a change in the law to prefer the life of the child over he life of the mother. Due process does not mean a total abortion ban.

Here's the relevant section of that:
We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.​


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Bulla,
> 
> Perhaps you and WA can get together and compare anti-Catholic notes. Though in WA's defense he has never been an apologist for North Korea.
> 
> Karl


Thanks Karl. Your a swell guy.

I did some reading about R. Catholic beliefs on the Internet and it is nice to see that they believe man is above the animals so they didn't evolve from animals. I only listened to people who come or came from R. Catholic about what they were taught or happened to them. I even taught some R. Catholic children how to ski and they were the nices group of children I was ever around. My Grandmother left the R. Catholic as a child and her brother became a R. Catholic Priest. And there are other bits and pieces, too. When you/we/me/somebody else has some of the pieces and try to put them together without all the pieces the incomplete but finished puzzel looks kinda funny. And a sence of humor does come in handy.

Karl you are a much smarter person than me. And higher educated. But one thing you lack is experience. And when you are dealing with somebody that has 10 or more years over you they have that much more experience. When I look at all the data place here trying to prove somebody is right and somebody is wrong and there is so much conflict data, then you realize that experience is bottom line and your guessing about what is before your time or guessing about something you didn't live even during your time.

I didn't plan on coming back to the Interchange and still don't plan on coming back. Anyway, I wish you well.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Roman Catholics are the bedrock of civilization with an unbroken line reaching back to the antiquity of Rome. We are the original Christians.

Bring back the Latin Tridentine mass. I say bring back the traditions and out with the guitar masses and other frolic brought on by Peter, Paul, & Mary. And out with Vatican II which started the big slide of modern man and set the example for the rebellious Protestant sects to follow.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I am 99.9% agnostic (the other .1 is athiest) but I have to say, if I was to be Xtian, I would have to be fundie Catholic. Part of my gripe with religion is that they change things. Take Judaism for instance. Now we have men and women praying together? Hogwash. If a god reveals something to you, it's right now and for all time, it does not get to change with current sensibilities. 

Call me old fashioned, but I think all power and omniscient beings get things right the first time.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I am 99.9% agnostic (the other .1 is athiest) but I have to say, if I was to be Xtian, I would have to be fundie Catholic. Part of my gripe with religion is that they change things. Take Judaism for instance. Now we have men and women praying together? Hogwash. If a god reveals something to you, it's right now and for all time, it does not get to change with current sensibilities.
> 
> Call me old fashioned, but I think all power and omniscient beings get things right the first time.


Yeppers. Think we've had this talk before. I have always thought that religion is the guidepost and foundation of civilization. Ban religion that has its roots in the respective civilization, and that civilization falls.

I think Jan may attest that Islam is what really finished off Rome.


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

24 tv show has a black president. Tell you what Obama will be a good president. But America will not give him a chance.



StevenRocks said:


> So when will be we be ready for a woman president? When will we be ready for a black president?


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Colin Powell would have made a great president. But then he joined the Dubya administration, and that was that.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Here's the relevant section:
> 
> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> ...


To assign 14th Amendment protections to fetuses would necessarily require the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which (back to my point) Americans oppose by a wide margin, better than 2-1:
https://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

It would also legally (and necessarily) place fetuses' right to life paramount to all health concerns of women short of death, e.g. the right of pregnant women to avoid permanent damage to their reproductive systems.

By definition it would also make any woman who has an abortion, and any physician who performs an abortion guilty of murder, unless they can prove in court that the abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother. Again back to my point, this position is opposed by a large majority of Americans.

We can argue personal opinions about abortion, but the intent of the Republican platform is unequivocal. Those who're responsible for this platform want a return to the "good 'ol days" of back alley, coat hanger abortions, thousands of dead and maimed American teens annually, and beyond that, prosecution on murder charges of both women and doctors, etc etc.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

Yes, thats exactly what pro-life Republicans want - back alley, coat hanger abortions! Perhaps the GOP is secretly financed by the wire hanger industry. Does Halliburton have a hanger subsidiary?

You had better pray that Bulla doesn't get banned as he is perhaps the only member who makes you look only mildly delusional.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Bulla has the same problem you do: an inability to debate without resorting to ad hominems.

Pot. Kettle. Black.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> FrankDC,
> 
> Yes, thats exactly what pro-life Republicans want - back alley, coat hanger abortions! Perhaps the GOP is secretly financed by the wire hanger industry. Does Halliburton have a hanger subsidiary?
> 
> ...


OUCH!!! I Laughed so hard at this that hot coffee came out my nose...I was drinking hot coffee at the time, it didnt just spontaneously come out...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Pot. Kettle. Black.


I am not sure you are ready for a black kettle or pot FrankDC.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Bulla has the same problem you do: an inability to debate without resorting to ad hominems.
> 
> Pot. Kettle. Black.


FrankDC,

That's rich! You accuse me of resorting to an ad hominem attack yet in a previous post you write that the Republicans responsible for the party platform long for the day of illegal back alley abortions! You are the one making an ad hominem attack, I am just pointing out that you are mildly delusional. In every other respect you may be a fine fellow but in this regard you are delusional. You make personal attacks not I.

But FrankDC, we all know your type. The earnest, well meaning Leftist who just cares more than everyone else and who is smarter than everyone else as well (at least you think so!) So keep patting yourself on the back Francis bc no one else will.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wow, were you responsible for writing the Republican Party platform? If so, I offer my sincere apology for the ad hominem. But if not, find a good Latin translator (even a decent dictionary will do) and look up the phrase "ad hominem".

BTW this is yet another recurring theme with your responses, not just to my posts but in general: you take everything personally. Definitely not an enjoyable way to go through life.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

Is that all you have? To suggest I get out my Wheelock's Latin Grammar?

You took at very cheap shot at Republicans and now you are shocked that you are being exposed as a crank - a hypocrital one at that!

But if you don't won't address the issue bc you can't address the issue than fair enough. We know not to expect too much from you in the way of meaningful posts.

But be of good cheer Francis, Bulla will surely post something today that will make you look positively reasonable.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

If quoting a party's platform and discussing its legal, social and moral ramifications qualify as a "very cheap shot" in your book, that's your problem and no one else's.

The Republican platform position on fetuses has existed since 1996, in plain black and white for anyone to read, and has been analyzed (with the same conclusions as what I've outlined) by hundreds of legal scholars. Entire books have been written about this single sentence. So the problem isn't my delusion, it's your ignorance. And yes that is intended to be a personal comment to you. Specifically.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

But you said that Republicans wanted to go back to the "good old" days of back alley, coat hanger abortions. And if you really believe that than you are not only ignorant and delusional but a host of other things as well.

Go ahead and call me ignorant - its not as if I take anything you say seriously.

Have a good day Francis.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Speculation isn't required here. Have you forgotten abortion was widely illegal in the U.S. prior to 1973? We already know perfectly well what the effects of illegal abortion are on women.

So the only explanation for this position is, those who're pushing it simply don't care about its effects. And that's not even going into the sheer hypocrisy of the matter, i.e. if the daughters of many or most of these right-wingnuts had unwanted pregnancies, the last thing they'd want is our government involving itself in the situation. This has been indicated in every poll ever taken on the question.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

For those who so firmly believe that the majority of Americans feel that abortion should be a right why are you so afraid of Roe being overturned. If it were the matter would simply be thrown back to individual states to determine the issue. If so many are for it you have nothing to worry about, right?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> For those who so firmly believe that the majority of Americans feel that abortion should be a right why are you so afraid of Roe being overturned. If it were the matter would simply be thrown back to individual states to determine the issue. If so many are for it you have nothing to worry about, right?


Again, we already know the answer to that question. It's the reason Roe v. Wade was filed in the first place.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Yeppers. Think we've had this talk before. I have always thought that religion is the guidepost and foundation of civilization. Ban religion that has its roots in the respective civilization, and that civilization falls.
> 
> I think Jan may attest that Islam is what really finished off Rome.


Islam? Are you referring to the first wave of Islamic conquests that began near the end of Heraclius's reign? Or are you referring to Sultan Mehmed's conquest of Constantinople? Or something in between? A much stronger argument could be made that Christianity finished off Rome, as the relative ease of the initial wave of Islamic conquests suggests. The savage theological disputes that plagued the Eastern Empire weakened it considerably, and the Muslims were initially welcomed in many parts of the East and North Africa as theological reformers who might put an end to the endless factional strife. The career of Bishop Anthanasius of Alexandria is illustrative of the effect of these controversies during the Fourth Century, and Heraclius was still dealing with similar problems in the mid-Seventh Century when Muhammad's lads arrived on the scene. Augustine's well-documented hatred for Arians, Donatists and other heterodox believers also illustrates the poisoned ideological climate that frequently prevailed in the later Empire. It was ripe for the picking.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Again, we already know the answer to that question. It's the reason Roe v. Wade was filed in the first place.


No, there was no issue with having differing laws for the several States. Roe was filed , as were previously dismissed cases, at the urging of Planned Parenthood, who as part of Margaret Sanger's eugenic fantasy, wanted to make sure that the "less fit" such as blacks and poor southern whites wouldn't reproduce. ( the South, had more restrictive laws than the Northeast). 
Frank, it would be helpful to investigate the reality of the years before R v.W before going into the whole "coathanger abortion" diatribe. Self induced abortion was and is a canard that PP used to try to gain public support for permissive abortion. In actuality, such cases were exceedingly rare. Actually, death from botched surgical abortions, increased risk of suicide, as well as sterility, subsequent inability to carry a pergnancy to term and a markedly increased risk of breast cancer are all benefits that women have been given in this enlightened post Roe world- Far exceeding the death rate from the coathangers you fear.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> *Self induced abortion* was and is a canard that PP used to try to gain public support for permissive abortion. In actuality, such cases were exceedingly rare.


It would seem to me the "Morning After" pill is text book self-induced abortion. I guess things have gone full circle.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> It would seem to me the "Morning After" pill is text book self-induced abortion. I guess things have gone full circle.


Also carrying attendant risks. I believe the death toll in the US from RU-486 is at least 7 as reported here: ( not including women who needed transfusions and surgical intervention due to uterine bleeding (about 600 of those)). Chemical coathangers -where's PP now?


----------



## Clio (Jan 22, 2007)

yachtie said:


> Self induced abortion was and is a canard that PP used to try to gain public support for permissive abortion. In actuality, such cases were exceedingly rare.


Exceedingly rare? Do you know anything about the history of abortifacients in American society? Or is "exceedingly rare" one of those weasel expressions people use to make it seem like they have some actual statistics when all they have is their own uninformed opinion?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Clio said:


> Exceedingly rare? Do you know anything about the history of abortifacients in American society? Or is "exceedingly rare" one of those weasel expressions people use to make it seem like they have some actual statistics when all they have is their own uninformed opinion?


Or is your numerically unsupported comment of the same ilk?


----------



## Clio (Jan 22, 2007)

yachtie said:


> Or is your numerically unsupported comment of the same ilk?


Let's see, in the late 1890s in Michigan it was estimated by the state medical board that 1/3 of all pregnancies were terminated. How's that for starters? Abortion and the means of achieving an abortion were not uncommon in the late 19th century but the public outcry against them had the effect of making them less visible. Abortion has been a constant in American history and, when doctors were pressured to stop doing them in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, women used different methods.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Abortion has been around in all human history, so I fail to see your point. As to the 1890's, doctors themselves led the charge to enact laws prohibiting abortion, so from where did the "pressure" come? 

I'd like to see where you got the 1/3 of all pregnancies statistic-do you have a cite, or are you making this up?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> No, there was no issue with having differing laws for the several States. Roe was filed , as were previously dismissed cases, at the urging of Planned Parenthood, who as part of Margaret Sanger's eugenic fantasy, wanted to make sure that the "less fit" such as blacks and poor southern whites wouldn't reproduce. ( the South, had more restrictive laws than the Northeast).
> Frank, it would be helpful to investigate the reality of the years before R v.W before going into the whole "coathanger abortion" diatribe. Self induced abortion was and is a canard that PP used to try to gain public support for permissive abortion. In actuality, such cases were exceedingly rare. Actually, death from botched surgical abortions, increased risk of suicide, as well as sterility, subsequent inability to carry a pergnancy to term and a markedly increased risk of breast cancer are all benefits that women have been given in this enlightened post Roe world- Far exceeding the death rate from the coathangers you fear.


Most of that is unqualified and unsubstantiated nonsense, and the statement as fact that deaths from botched abortions "were exceedingly rare" is nothing short of outrageous. If you're going to make these crazy and frankly immoral assertions at least have the decency to cite your sources. And no, Bernie Nathanson doesn't count as a credible source.

The simple fact is, no one -- including Dr. Nathanson knows how many women died in the U.S. due to botched abortions during the years it was illegal. Studies in the mid and late 1960's consistently put the number at ~5,000 annually in the U.S., with almost unanimous agreement that these numbers were at least partially and probably greatly underestimated. In many parts of the world even today, where abortion is still illegal it's still a leading cause of death among women, teenage women in particular.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Again, citations please in support of your statements. I've never seen "death by attempted self induced abortion" listed on any of the WHO lists of leading causes of death among teenage girls (or any other demographic, for that matter)


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Also carrying attendant risks. I believe the death toll in the US from RU-486 is at least 7 as reported here: ( not including women who needed transfusions and surgical intervention due to uterine bleeding (about 600 of those)). Chemical coathangers -where's PP now?


Childbirth is kind of dangerous as well. Just an observation.

EDIT: A quick look indicates that in 2000 the obstetric maternal death rate in the US was 17 per 100,000; and 11 deaths were reported for about 857,000 legal abortions in the same year, according to the CDC. If these numbers are accurate, giving birth is more dangerous than having an abortion. Which surprises me.

Well, more dangerous for the mother . . .


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Here's one of many available references. Do your own research:

The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, published July 1, 1967:

"As many as 5,000 American women die each year as a result of criminal abortion. That figure may be a minimum estimate, inasmuch as many such deaths are mislabeled or unreported. In Philadelphia, over 50 percent of pregnancy related deaths result from complications of abortion, 57 percent in Michigan, 33 percent at Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn. Induced abortion is the most common single cause of maternal deaths in California."


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Childbirth is kind of dangerous as well. Just an observation.
> 
> EDIT: A quick look indicates that in 2000 the obstetric maternal death rate in the US was 17 per 100,000; and 11 deaths were reported for about 857,000 legal abortions in the same year, according to the CDC. If these numbers are accurate, giving birth is more dangerous than having an abortion. Which surprises me.


I've seen that too. It is immediate deaths for both procedures and doesn't include deaths from subsequent complications (sepsis and the like). Now I'd like to see _those_ numbers...


----------



## Clio (Jan 22, 2007)

yachtie said:


> Abortion has been around in all human history, so I fail to see your point. As to the 1890's, doctors themselves led the charge to enact laws prohibiting abortion, so from where did the "pressure" come?
> 
> I'd like to see where you got the 1/3 of all pregnancies statistic-do you have a cite, or are you making this up?


Doctors were responding to societal pressures, especially from those alarmed by the declining birthrate among white native born Americans--you'll note that anti-abortion pressure really heats up as immigration to this country from southern and eastern Europe mushrooms. Given the state of racial "science" at that time and the connections between doctors and scientists, it really isn't that difficult to figure out. What didn't change was the demand for abortion, which went increasingly underground.

You said self-induced abortion was "exceedingly rare", and you still haven't shown any evidence of what "exceedingly rare" is. I'm not going to bother to ask you for statistics or citations because you're wrong. I will, however, give you the citation you asked for: William Haggard, _Abortion: Accidental, Essential, Criminial_. Address before the Nashville Academy of Medicine, Aug 4 1898.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

yachtie said:


> I've seen that too. It is immediate deaths for both procedures and doesn't include deaths from subsequent complications (sepsis and the like). Now I'd like to see _those_ numbers...


The CDC report I cited describes reported abortion-related deaths as follows:



> CDC has reported data on abortion-related deaths periodically since these deaths were first included in abortion surveillance reports for 1972 . . . An abortion-related death was defined as a death resulting from 1) a direct complication of an abortion, 2) an indirect complication caused by the chain of events initiated by an abortion, or 3) aggravation of a preexisting condition by the physiologic or psychologic effects of an abortion . . . Sources of data for abortion-related deaths included national and state vital records, maternal mortality review committees, surveys, private citizens, media reports, health-care providers, medical examiners' reports, and computerized searches of full-text print media databases. All deaths causally related to induced abortion are classified as induced abortion-related regardless of the duration of time between the abortion and the death


It seems that the number of abortion-related deaths is quite low, however they may be defined. This is surprising for several reasons, not least the fact that many abortions are performed for health reasons.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

> CDC has reported data on abortion-related deaths periodically since these deaths were first included in abortion surveillance reports for 1972 . . . An abortion-related death was defined as a death resulting from 1) a direct complication of an abortion, 2) an indirect complication caused by the chain of events initiated by an abortion, or 3) aggravation of a preexisting condition by the physiologic or psychologic effects of an abortion . . . Sources of data for abortion-related deaths included national and state vital records, maternal mortality review committees, surveys, private citizens, media reports, health-care providers, medical examiners' reports, and computerized searches of full-text print media databases. All deaths causally related to induced abortion are classified as induced abortion-related regardless of the duration of time between the abortion and the death


Seems complete to me. I stand corrected. I wonder how they determine that the psychological cause is abortion related or not given that they state that the classification is made regardless of time.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Clio said:


> I'm not going to bother to ask you for statistics or citations because you're wrong.


After all, we can't let any contravening facts get in the way of our position now, can we.:icon_smile_wink:

Thank you for the cite- should make an interesting read.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Here's one of many available references. Do your own research:
> 
> The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, published July 1, 1967:
> 
> "As many as 5,000 American women die each year as a result of criminal abortion. That figure may be a minimum estimate, inasmuch as many such deaths are mislabeled or unreported. In Philadelphia, over 50 percent of pregnancy related deaths result from complications of abortion, 57 percent in Michigan, 33 percent at Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn. Induced abortion is the most common single cause of maternal deaths in California."


So, you're saying that 875,000 deaths per year is an adequate remedy for 5000 deaths per year?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Seems complete to me. I stand corrected. I wonder how they determine that the psychological cause is abortion related or not given that they state that the classification is made regardless of time.


Got me.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Here's one of many available references. Do your own research:
> 
> The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, published July 1, 1967:
> 
> "As many as 5,000 American women die each year as a result of criminal abortion. That figure may be a minimum estimate, inasmuch as many such deaths are mislabeled or unreported. In Philadelphia, over 50 percent of pregnancy related deaths result from complications of abortion, 57 percent in Michigan, 33 percent at Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn. Induced abortion is the most common single cause of maternal deaths in California."


Perhaps. But its always 100% of the cause of death of the child.


----------



## Clio (Jan 22, 2007)

yachtie said:


> After all, we can't let any contravening facts get in the way of our position now, can we.:icon_smile_wink:
> 
> Thank you for the cite- should make an interesting read.


As there don't appear to be any contravening facts, I think I'm in the clear.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Clio said:


> As there don't appear to be any contravening facts, I think I'm in the clear.


One cite made in a speech does not a definitive data set make. Don't clear yourself, or your position, too soon:icon_smile_big:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

yachtie said:


> One cite made in a speech does not a definitive data set make. Don't clear yourself, or your position, too soon:icon_smile_big:


Clio didn't claim it was a definitive data set. It was a response to your implication that it was made up. Whether the speaker was correct or not, this seems a definitive rebuttal to the suggestion that Clio made up the idea that in the 1890's 1/3 of pregnancies ended in abortion.

Do you admit that?


----------



## Clio (Jan 22, 2007)

yachtie said:


> One cite made in a speech does not a definitive data set make. Don't clear yourself, or your position, too soon:icon_smile_big:


Look, as a historian I know how to make a definitive data set. Suffice to say that there is a host of literature about women's sexuality, birth control, and abortion in the late 19th and early 20th century that I've read and enough other information I've come across in my own research to make some informed conclusions about the prevalence of abortion during that time. If I really wanted to devote the time to it, I'd go back and find the citations, but that would mean you would miss out on all the fun of doing your own research wouldn't it?

I'm still waiting for evidence for any kind that shows my position to be incorrect, or even questionable. I've just poured myself a drink--I think it is going to be a long wait.

In the end, self-induced abortion among American women has never been "exceedingly rare".


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> So, you're saying that 875,000 deaths per year is an adequate remedy for 5000 deaths per year?


Of course not. I'm saying an estimated 1.2 million abortions were performed in the U.S. in 1969, and in the other years prior to 1973.

I'm saying the goal of virtually all Americans, regardless of political affiliation is to find the most effective ways to reduce the number of abortions, and I'm saying it's been established beyond any doubt that having government intrude itself into your family and between women and their doctors is neither an effective nor moral way.

I'm saying we now know education, access to contraception, and above all else, a raising of social awareness and conscience about the issue are the primary effective tools in this battle. Numbers of elective abortions in the U.S. have been decreasing almost every year since 1996.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Clio said:


> Look, as a historian I know how to make a definitive data set. Suffice to say that there is a host of literature about women's sexuality, birth control, and abortion in the late 19th and early 20th century that I've read and enough other information I've come across in my own research to make some informed conclusions about the prevalence of abortion during that time.


So, based on the evidence you have, you can conclude that 1/3 of all pregnancies ended in self-induced abortion in the late 19th century? My issue is that you statement appears on its face to be too over-reaching to have good support. 
FWIW, I did say this:



> Self induced abortion was and is a canard that PP used to try to gain public support for permissive abortion. In actuality, such cases were exceedingly rare.


And I think that during the period that abortion was illegal, that statement is true. I do understand that in the late 19th century, abortion, usually by ingestion of chemicals, was more common, but 1/3 of all pregnancies? That's a lot to swallow without support.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Clio said:


> Look, as a historian . . . "


I should have guessed . . .


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I'm saying the goal of virtually all Americans, regardless of political affiliation is to find the most effective ways to reduce the number of abortions...


I agree with and applaud that sentiment. That being said, I think that there are a set of people who make a good deal of money off of this and really don't want to reduce the number of abortions. Fighting a ban of partial birth abortion, parental notification, requiring the police to be informed if the mom is a minor- why would anyone want to take these positions if there is not money involved? And still,after all the education, contraception etc., does not the kid have any rights in this? Should not those rights be protected as well?


----------



## Clio (Jan 22, 2007)

yachtie said:


> So, based on the evidence you have, you can conclude that 1/3 of all pregnancies ended in self-induced abortion in the late 19th century? My issue is that you statement appears on its face to be too over-reaching to have good support.
> FWIW, I did say this:
> 
> And I think that during the period that abortion was illegal, that statement is true. I do understand that in the late 19th century, abortion, usually by ingestion of chemicals, was more common, but 1/3 of all pregnancies? That's a lot to swallow without support.


Did I say that I concluded that 1/3 of all pregnancies ended in self-induced abortions? No, I did not. Statistical evidence for that time period is rare--I happened to quote (and provided a citation for) one number which I remembered reading and was quite clear on its limitations, namely that it was an estimate from Michigan's public health authorities. However, the preponderance of other evidence for the time period indicates that abortions were not "exceedingly rare". Women had the knowledge and the means to self-induce abortion (although I believe most states had outlawed chemically induced abortions by that time) and they did, right up to the time of the Roe v. Wade decision. The real question is this: what constitutes "exceedingly rare" and what evidence did you base your conclusion upon. I've played most of my cards and you're still bluffing on a bad hand.


----------



## Clio (Jan 22, 2007)

Lushington said:


> I should have guessed . . .


Which means what, precisely?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Clio said:


> Which means what, precisely?


Clio, daughter of Zeus and Mnemosyne, muse of heroic poetry and history. One should have guessed that someone sporting that screen name was, is, or shall be a historian That. Precisely.


----------



## clothingconnoisseur (Oct 9, 2005)

Talk about going off topic! Intelligent people can make a reasoned argument both for both the pro-choice and pro-life positions but this was not the question asked.

As to whether the country is ready for a black or woman president, that is unclear. Certainly the majority of the more educated people in the country could not care less about gender or race. The masses may feel differently. 

In my opinion, the first black or woman president elected will likely be a right of center republican since that is the mindset of the majority of the population. Both Hillary and Obama or far left of center, this I find it unlikely that either one will ever be President.


----------



## Clio (Jan 22, 2007)

Lushington said:


> Clio, daughter of Zeus and Mnemosyne, muse of heroic poetry and history. One should have guessed that someone sporting that screen name was, is, or shall be a historian That. Precisely.


Actually, it is simply easier to spell Clio than Terpsichore or Polyhymnia. Can you imagine trying to log in with that?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Think of how your typing skills would improve!!


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

yachtie said:


> That being said, I think that there are a set of people who make a good deal of money off of this and really don't want to reduce the number of abortions. Fighting a ban of partial birth abortion, parental notification, requiring the police to be informed if the mom is a minor- why would anyone want to take these positions if there is not money involved? And still,after all the education, contraception etc., does not the kid have any rights in this? Should not those rights be protected as well?


There are a couple of points to make. First, the statements of Yachtie, ptu467, and perhaps others, that refer to aborted fetuses as people are clearly begging the question. I understand that some people believe that abortion kills a human being, but it is, at a minimum, a debatable point, and I doubt that most people agree that a fetus the size of my thumb, which represents about 90% of abortions in the United States (, is a complete human being, entitled to all the rights of the mother, if not more.

Second, do you really have a hard time imagining any reason other than the desire for profit to fight against restrictions on abortion? That there is no other reason for the tens of thousands of abortion-rights advocates and supporters to do what we do than the desire to enrich Planned Parenthood and the doctors who work for Planned Parenthood? You're kidding, right?

If you really can't imagine it, here's a clue: the phony issue of partial birth abortion, parental notification, referrals to police, are all ways to incrementally move toward outlawing all abortions. Anyone pushing those issues who wants to speak honestly would have to admit that. One major reason we have to push back is that this is the way to preserve women's rights in general. Another reason is that these measures are an attack on some of the most vulnerable people in need of abortion, minors and younger women, and a way to force or prevent them from access to abortions in the guise of protecting them, and those young women need advocates.

And, Yachtie, if you agree that it is desirable to reduce the number of abortions, do you support increased access to contraception? That's the way to reduce abortions, not beating the dead horse of abstinence-only sex education.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> I agree with and applaud that sentiment. That being said, I think that there are a set of people who make a good deal of money off of this and really don't want to reduce the number of abortions. Fighting a ban of partial birth abortion, parental notification, requiring the police to be informed if the mom is a minor- why would anyone want to take these positions if there is not money involved? And still,after all the education, contraception etc., does not the kid have any rights in this? Should not those rights be protected as well?


Well, "partial birth abortion" is one of those intentional misnomers with the sole purpose of pushing people's hot buttons. The phrase doesn't exist in established medicine. As for the rights of fetuses, in my view they fall squarely into the category of 'certainly preferable in a perfect world, but completely impractical in the real one'.

It might surprise you to know I also consider Roe to be a bad decision, but for a reason that's probably the exact opposite of most pro-lifers. I don't believe intruding government into women's reproductive systems at any stage is moral, nor is it effective in reducing the numbers of abortions. The issue has always been, is, and can only be one of the most personal of family matters, and one that should be kept in the family and between women and their doctors.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> There are a couple of points to make. First, the statements of Yachtie, ptu467, and perhaps others, that refer to aborted fetuses as people are clearly begging the question. I understand that some people believe that abortion kills a human being, but it is, at a minimum, a debatable point, and I doubt that most people agree that a fetus the size of my thumb, which represents about 90% of abortions in the United States (, is a complete human being, entitled to all the rights of the mother, if not more.


So, what most people believe is the primary determinant of the morality of action? How interesting. A similar argument has been made in favor of most immoral actions that have occured in history- its invalidity has not changed due to that fact that it's happining now.

We all were the "size of a thumb" at one time, Jack.



> If you really can't imagine it, here's a clue: the phony issue of partial birth abortion, parental notification, referrals to police, are all ways to incrementally move toward outlawing all abortions. Anyone pushing those issues who wants to speak honestly would have to admit that. One major reason we have to push back is that this is the way to preserve women's rights in general. Another reason is that these measures are an attack on some of the most vulnerable people in need of abortion, minors and younger women, and a way to force or prevent them from access to abortions in the guise of protecting them, and those young women need advocates.


As I see it, allowing a minor to have an abortion without informing police subverts the rights of such minor with respect to statutory rape laws at the very least. The only person protected is the felon who impregnated the girl in the first place.

I'll be bluntly honest with you Jack as you requested. Yes, I'd be very happy if abortion were outlawed. But since that is unlikely to happen in the near future, I think that making abortion less easily accessible and subject to more restrictions is as good an interim step as can be reasonably achieved. Not meaning to push any "hot buttons" but late term abortions of viable kids are heinous and unnecessary.



> And, Yachtie, if you agree that it is desirable to reduce the number of abortions, do you support increased access to contraception? That's the way to reduce abortions, not beating the dead horse of abstinence-only sex education.


Kids have virtually unrestricted access to contraception now and it doesn't seem to have had any salutary effect on the abortion rate. I don't think that teenagers are little animals that are incapable of controlling their urges. With that as the thesis, why should I support a program that works under a premise counter to same?

I'll respond to Frank as well:



> As for the rights of fetuses, in my view they fall squarely into the category of 'certainly preferable in a perfect world, but completely impractical in the real one'.


So was abolishing slavery in the 1850's. We do have an obligation to try to perfect our world to the extent we can, do we not? I think we've made some small progress.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> I'll respond to Frank as well:
> 
> Quote:
> As for the rights of fetuses, in my view they fall squarely into the category of 'certainly preferable in a perfect world, but completely impractical in the real one'.
> So was slavery in the 1850's. We do have an obligation to try to perfect our world to the extent we can, do we not? I think we've made some small progress.


I absolutely agree, and again, after 40+ years on this planet I've yet to hear a single person claim, "Gee, I just love abortion. I think every woman should have one."

In my view the issue isn't whether abortion is one of, and possibly the most egregious components of the culture of death, it's simply a question of finding the most effective ways of dealing with and minimizing the problem. We've already tried the strong-arm tactic found in the current Republican platform and it simply didn't work, nor is there anything to suggest it would work any better today than it did 30 or 40 or 100 years ago.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

Stop contradicting yourself. You said that Republicans long for the day of back alley abortions. So I suppose you have heard Republicans say that they long for the day of back alley abortions. What a joke your arguments are.

I don't think abortion is a fruitful discussion here. I am pro-life and realize that there is no possible compromise (and though I find it distasteful I would accept that abortions under any circumstance be legal through the first trimester and illegal after that - except in a physical danger to the mother's life) with the pro-choice side. Hopefully SCOTUS will reverse Roe and the states will decide. 

Can we move along though, no one is going to change anyone's mind.

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I blame 90% of the current abortion debate on the melding of two concepts; Aristotle's concept of "forms" and the medieval concept of an homunculus. Just my $.02 though.

I would be interested to see what one of the resident board scholars have to say was the official position of the Catholic church after the first Council of Nicea on this topic.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

You scamp you! But I think the Catholic position on issues of life is best presented in Humanae Vitae (1968) and Evangelicum Vitae (1995). And don't listen to the likes of Charles Curran (in exile at SMU now) and some of the more "progressive" Jesuits as they will surely lead you astray from the authentic Catholic position.

Karl


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> You scamp you! But I think the Catholic position on issues of life is best presented in Humanae Vitae (1968) and Evangelicum Vitae (1995). And don't listen to the likes of Charles Curran (in exile at SMU now) and some of the more "progressive" Jesuits as they will surely lead you astray from the authentic Catholic position.
> 
> Karl


Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae are the definitive positions of the Catholic Church on this issue. See also the relevant section of the Catechism. Curran is a heretic and should be ignored.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

I find the sovereignty of a woman over her own body to be a profoundly boring question, and one that has already been decided correctly by American courts, so if you guys don't mind let's go (mostly) back to the original topic.



Gong Tao Jai said:


> If India and Pakistan can have women as Prime Ministers I think America can handle a woman president.


Don't forget Bangladesh, who have elected as many woman presidents as India and Pakistan combined!

I think we could handle a woman president. Could we handle HRC? Sure, but we also couldn't elect her. And the Democrats won't be so stupid as to nominate her. (My bet at this early point in the race is that the Democrat*ic* ticket will be Obama-Biden, though I'd much prefer a better Veep prospect, such as Wes Clark.)



The Gabba Goul said:


> Seriously...
> 
> Bulla...that argument is a little tired to say the least...I find it funny that people really believe that republicans are some kind of, like, nation-wide lynch mob made up of cross burning inbred fundamentalists or somehting...I often wonder if there wouldnt be more dems comming over to our side if they really stopped and looked at what the Republican party is all about...


Probably not. People believe what they do about Republicans because, by and large GOP policymakers have been tied to the worst elements in American society: Christianists, fascists, Trotskyites, and racists.

The irony is that for most of its history, the GOP has been the civilized party on racial issues, and the Democrati*ic* Party less so. That changed, of course, in the late-1960s, when the GOP made its power play for the South in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act through the so-called "Southern Strategy" of racism that was occasionally thinly-veiled but often overt. The GOP rode this profoundly bigoted strategy for election after election, up to and including 2006.

The problem of courting racists to take shelter under one's tent is that the whole tent is poisoned by them.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> and the Democrat party is way off to the left.


First, learn the names of the political parties in your country. Messing them up only makes you look like an addled, brainwashed twit. Second, perhaps you should learn what "left" positions are. Do that, and you'll see that the Democrati*ic* Party is, at the very worst, on the global center-right. There is no substantive or powerful left in America, only a mainstream center-right (Dems), bedrock-right (Hagel/Shays/Chafee GOP), and fascist-right (neocons such as Cheney, Christianists such as Ralph Reed).


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

So far as I'm aware, the Council of Nicea did not address the issue of abortion. I don't believe that any of the twenty canons discuss it, but I haven't looked at them in a while. The Council of Ancyra, a much smaller convocation of Bishops a decade earlier, had discussed various doctrinal problems arising from the number of believers who had lapsed during the persectution of Diocletian and Galerius, which ended with the Edict of Milan. Abortion was a pagan practice and it was denounced by the Bishops at Ancyra, along with fornication, sacrifices, and other pagan pastimes The Nicene Council also addressed problems posed by the lapsed, but it was much more concerned with theological doctrine and schismatic issues. The very early, non-canonical Christian treatise, _Didache_, from the late first century, also expressly forbids abortion.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

This is why I would appreciate some input from the resident scholars. Somewhere in the dusky by-ways of my cranium, I seem to remember the Council ruled something about there being no issues before the quickening, i.e. the mother felt movement. After that, anyone to induce an abortion or miscarriage owed a payment to the father. As I say, I could well be imagining this at this point as the only thing I do with dogma is to put it on a leash and take it for a walk


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> This is why I would appreciate some input from the resident scholars. Somewhere in the dusky by-ways of my cranium, I seem to remember the Council ruled something about there being no issues before *the quickening*, i.e. the mother felt movement. After that, anyone to induce an abortion or miscarriage owed a payment to the father. As I say, I could well be imagining this at this point as the only thing I do with dogma is to put it on a leash and take it for a walk


Isn't that from The Highlander? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Isn't that from The Highlander? :icon_smile_big:


There can be only one!


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

SGladwell said:


> There is no substantive or powerful left in America, only a mainstream center-right (Dems), bedrock-right (Hagel/Shays/Chafee GOP), and fascist-right (neocons such as Cheney, Christianists such as Ralph Reed).


Quite. There is no left to speak of in this country. Any Leftism worthy of the a name is rooted in a militant labor movement, which, at the very least, will threaten captial sufficiently to coerce concessions in the form of more worker control over the means of production and wider distribtution of the profits labor generates. Nothing of the kind exists in the US, and hasn't for many years. Capital now has sufficient resources to prevent anything of the kind from happening in the immediate future. As Stephen Roach wrote last year:



> What do the world's three largest economies have in common? The answer underscores one of the key tensions of globalization -- unrelenting pressure on labor income. The corollary of that phenomenon is equally revealing -- ever-rising returns to the owners of capital. For a global economy in the midst of its strongest four-year boom since the early 1970s, this tug-of-war between labor and capital is an increasingly serious source of disequilibrium. It has important economic, social, and political implications -- all of which could complicate the coming global rebalancing . . . Today, courtesy of a doubling of the world's work force and an increasingly potent global labor arbitrage, high-wage workers in the industrial world are all but powerless to act.


The game's over and capital won.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> This is why I would appreciate some input from the resident scholars. Somewhere in the dusky by-ways of my cranium, I seem to remember the Council ruled something about there being no issues before the quickening, i.e. the mother felt movement. After that, anyone to induce an abortion or miscarriage owed a payment to the father. As I say, I could well be imagining this at this point as the only thing I do with dogma is to put it on a leash and take it for a walk


The Council of Nicea had nothing to say about "quickening" or fines for infanticide. You're probably thinking of a passage in the _Lex Salica_ regarding the payment of a fine for the killing of a fetus; or perhaps Blackstone's oft-quoted passage in his _Commentaries_ regarding abortion and infanticide.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> FrankDC,
> 
> Stop contradicting yourself. You said that Republicans long for the day of back alley abortions. So I suppose you have heard Republicans say that they long for the day of back alley abortions. What a joke your arguments are.


Give us a break. The resident wingnut crew in this forum got spanked in this debate. Badly.

And you'll need to remind us who it was that first made safe, legal abortion a reality in California. C'mon, you shouldn't have a problem remembering that.

What a sad fool you are.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> And you'll need to remind us who it was that first made safe, legal abortion a reality in California. C'mon, you shouldn't have a problem remembering that.


Not sure if I would call any elective procedure with the possible complications of abortion "safe". Then again, what do I know about healthcare?



FrankDC said:


> What a sad fool you are.


After reading this _ad hom_ Frank, please refrain from whining when someone tosses in a little one on you, m'kay?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> *What a sad fool you are.*





Wayfarer said:


> Not sure if I would call any elective procedure with the possible complications of abortion "safe". Then again, what do I know about healthcare?
> 
> *After reading this ad hom Frank, please refrain from whining when someone tosses in a little one on you, m'kay?*


Maybe he will make this his signature, that way he can use it in all of his posts. :idea:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Yes, apologies for lowering myself to your level. Absolutely no need for that.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Yes, apologies for lowering myself to your level. Absolutely no need for that.


I'm rubber and you're glue....

Could we get more juvenile FrankDC? This does seem to be your tactic when confronted with your faulty facts, logic, and consistency.

Cheers

Edit: Sorry forgot your other tactic. Just ignore the post that nails your rhetorical hide to a wall. Always a game ploy.


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

*BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA*

He is Clean, his father was a muslim, his middle name is Hussein. That alone is enough to bring him down in this fundamentalist evangelical land.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

However, for a conservative, all you have to do is look at Obama's political record.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

bulla said:


> He is Clean....


Wow, capitalized "clean". Does this hold some special meaning for you?

He has already let his socialist leanings out, I have previously posted a cnn.com link where he laid out his desire for universal healthcare. Reason enough not to vote for him.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

bulla said:


> He is Clean, his father was a muslim, his middle name is Hussein. That alone is enough to bring him down in this fundamentalist evangelical land.


Clean? As opposed to the dirty African Americans? Nice job Senator Biden. First Hillary says that Gandhi "ran a gas station down in St. Louis," and now Biden lets one slip.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

bulla said:


> He is Clean, his father was a muslim, his middle name is Hussein. That alone is enough to bring him down in this fundamentalist evangelical land.


Pay attention folks! This is the genesis of the straw man argument right here. Believe me, Sen. Obama has many other REAL issues that are of concern to me and other conservatives. That's the thing with you libs. You can never blame your own crazy views. Everything has to boil down to race or religion and the perceived backwardness of your ideological opponents.


----------

