MSNBC's Carlson pushed false contrast between Clinton and Giuliani on desire to "reduce the number of abortions"
While discussing 2008 presidential candidates with Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on the June 12 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson asked: If the nominees are Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), "who takes a lot of money from the abortion lobby, from people who actually commit abortion, and [former New York City Mayor] Rudy Giuliani [R], who is pro-choice but says he wants to reduce the number of abortions, that's not a clear choice?" Carlson reiterated his question later, asking: "If you're morally opposed to abortion, you've never supported a pro-choice candidate, but it is a choice between a pro-choice candidate, Giuliani, who says he will work to reduce abortions, and Hillary Clinton, who takes money from people who commit them, what do you do?" Contrary to Carlson's suggestion, Clinton has stressed on numerous occasions the need to reduce abortions, having advocated making abortion "safe, legal, and rare" for years, as Media Matters for America has noted.
During a forum for presidential candidates on the June 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Clinton was asked if she "could see [her]self, with millions of voters in the pro-life camp, creating a common ground with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortions to zero." She responded:
CLINTON: Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And by rare, I mean rare. And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts. ... There are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions.
Also, during a speech to the New York State Family Planning Providers in January 2005, Clinton said:
So we have a lot of experience from around the world that is a cautionary tale about what happens when a government substitutes its opinion for an individual's. There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our Constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances. But we cannot expect to have the kind of positive results that all of us are hoping for to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions if our government refuses to assist girls and women with their health care needs, a comprehensive education and accurate information.
From the June 12 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: But at this point, we're looking at Rudy Giuliani relative to the other Republican candidates, or conservatives are. But if it comes down to Giuliani versus Hillary Clinton, here's what Pat Mahoney -- he's the head of the Christian Defense Coalition, some of you know -- tells The Politico. Quote, "Where Giuliani is today, I absolutely could not support him. However, I would not completely rule it out. There are two words that change the whole dynamic, and those two words are 'Hillary Clinton.' " Is that a fair position?
PERKINS: Well, let me give you one word: November. This past November, look what happened to the Republicans in Congress because of the scandals, in large part because of [former Rep.] Mark Foley [R-FL], the spending issues. The Republicans voted, social conservatives voted, exit polling shows that they voted, but what they did not do is they did not work for Republican candidates. They were not excited. Will social conservatives go and vote for Giuliani? Yes, some will. I would say not a whole lot, but some will. But they will not work, they will not get excited for him. And in closely decided elections -- which, our last two presidential elections have been very close -- every vote counts, and there will be a lot of votes that won't show up.
CARLSON: But the election will not likely be a choice between Giuliani, Hillary, and [Focus on the Family founder and chairman] James Dobson. It's going to be a choice between two people. Only one is going to be president. And if it is going to be a choice between Ms. Clinton, who takes a lot of money from the abortion lobby, from people who actually commit abortion, and Rudy Giuliani, who is pro-choice but says he wants to reduce the number of abortions, that's not a clear choice?
PERKINS: It's a degree, and I think what you have is you have people that may vote for him but who will not work for him. That's going to have impact --
CARLSON: So it's worth losing on principle, is what you're saying?
PERKINS: No, I'm saying it's just a fact. It's a reality you cannot excite people -- how are you going to excite people who come to politics not just because they're partisan? They come because of the issues they're passionate about.
CALRSON: Right.
PERKINS: How are they going get excited about a candidate who is anathema to them?
CARLSON: I absolutely agree with you. You're arguing the politics of it. I'm asking, though, a question about ethics. Which is -- what's the right decision to make? If you're morally opposed to abortion, you've never supported a pro-choice candidate, but it is a choice between a pro-choice candidate, Giuliani, who says he will work to reduce abortions, and Hillary Clinton, who takes money from people who commit them, what do you do?
From the June 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
REV. JOEL HUNTER (senior pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, in Longwood, Florida): Hi, Senator Clinton. Abortion continues to be one of the most hurtful and divisive facts of our nation. I come from the part of the faith community that is very strongly pro-life. I know you're pro-choice, but you have indicated that you would like to reduce the number of abortions. Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in the pro-life camp, creating a common ground with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero?
CLINTON: Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And by rare, I mean rare.
And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me --
[applause]
CLINTON: There are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions.
There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today.
We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make.
And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed.
We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally. And so I think there is a great opportunity. But it would require sort of a leaving at the sides the suspicion and the baggage that comes with people who have very strong, heartfelt feelings.
You know, when I first started thinking about this very difficult issue -- because it is. It's a moral issue. And it should not be in any way diminished as a moral issue, no matter which side you're on. Because I have seen cases where I honestly believed that the moral choice was very complicated and not so straightforward as to what a young woman, her family, her physician, her pastor should do.
And what concerns me is that there's been a real reluctance for anyone to make a move toward the other side for fear of being labeled as turning one's back on the moral dimensions of the issue from either direction.
So, I would invite you and I would be willing to work with you to see whether there couldn't be some common ground that one could find.
No "Hillary Campaign site" posts yet? What's the deal?
Never mind. I think all you need to know about Carlson as a reporter is in his reference to people who "commit" abortion.
Hey Beach, isn't that Commandment #11?
Thou shalt not commit abortion
I think that's the 12th Commandment, Jeter.
The 11th commandment is:
"Thou shall not commit the troops without a damned good reason!"
I think Tucker's problem is that he's committed too many sins against the sixth commandment with himself.
That's the phrasing the nuns taught us to use when I went to school.
I'm not sure which number it is either. Somewhere between "Thou shalt not force thyGay Agenda down my throat" and "Though Shalt not raise my taxes".
We can always just stick with the ones we have, like thou shalt not murder. But, since killing a human life before birth isn't considered murder that one is already gone. So, why worry about any of the others, right?
Tucker Carlson is right, as Hillary's voting record proves conclusively. Hillary's NARAL rating is 100%, as it has been since she carpetbagged her way to NY. Her 0% rating from the National Right To Life Committee tells the same story. That MMFA would intentionally ignore all of this in the name of spinning a remark from Tucker Carlson is appalling.
Maybe the gang at MMFA is new to this political stuff, but if you want to be taken seriously you have to judge a senator on a specific issue based on how she votes, not on her remarks.
If you're naive enough to think that she wants to reduce the number of abortions just because she says she does, even though her voting record makes very clear that she has no interest in reducing abortions, congratulations.
It takes a special kind of nerve to admit you're that naive in public.
A 100% rating from NARAL means something, as does the 0% rating she gets from the NRTLC.
Well, apparently it doesn't mean anything to MMFA. Either they didn't bother to do any research, or they pitifully ignored what they found.
I look forward to reading various replies about how NARAL's ratings don't mean anything, to which I'll reply in advance that it sure is odd that comments from Tucker Carlson (who, unlike MMFA, researched the matter) mean more than NARAL's rating.
Now regarding that thread about why the media think MMFA is irrelevant...
Pro choice is pro-choice no matter how Tucker and you try to make it a pretty word for Rudy and pro-abortion a dirty word for Hillary.
I notice you didn't comment on the fact that both Hillary and Rudy support CHOICE when it comes to abortions.
MMFA didn't research this at all.
This annoys you.
Tough.
I'm pro-choice, but I mean it when I say "safe, legal and rare". When Hillary says this, she is full of it.
Her voting record proves it.
I am out of Cap'n Crunch and must address the crisis. If MMFA ever has the guts to address America's real problems, like why there are so many crunchberries in this version of Cap'n Crunch, then perhaps we'll be able to accomplish something as a species.
Til then, there are too many crunchberries in each box, the ratio per bite is way off, and no one seems to care.
Abortion? Please. Sucking the brains out of a live infant's skull after it's head is skewered with scissors is no big deal. The little thing probably asked for it, all that squirmin' around and kicking and the tiresome demands for free food without even an offer to get a job and help defray the costs...
It's nice to know you can read Hillary's mind.
Do you know the lottery number's as well?
I don't need to read her mind.
I have her voting record to know what she thinks about abortion.
You may use her comments in various speeches to determine her feelings on abortion, and that's what MMFA has done here, but it doesn't mean anything.
Her record does.
I can't imagine life in your world of black and white. Sometimes gray makes for difficult choices.
What makes me laugh is the rabid responses that many of you have regarding Hillary.
Do I like her personally? I don't know her so I can't say but from the comments you are making I guess you do. Do I like her politics? She not my cup of tea but as opposed to any and all Republican candidates? Yeah I'll vote for her.
Roger you could try Idioate's, the breakfast of madmen. Suits you.
You sure spend a lot of time posting at a place you believe to be irrelevant.
"There's a whole lot of irrelephants in the circus.'
-Chico Marx (Duck Soup)
"the media think MMFA is irrelevant... "
It's fun, so why not?
Maybe it hasn't occurred to Roger that promoting a woman's right to choose and encouraging people to have abortions are not the same thing.
speaking of 12, anybody see Guliani's 12 commitments? What a shrewd way to rev up the reich wing base, I mean, commitments, commandments, WTF?
the reich wing base
Snoop,
Your tattletale-on-the-school-playground routine was amusing enough ("you can't make fun of me for not being able to tell who's responding to whom, it's very confusing! flag!!!), but this is classic.
Your Nazi-inspired nickname for GOP'ers, while common on lefty sites, is nonetheless morally repugnant and cognitively untenable.
That it's not an embarrassment to anyone who uses such a term says a lot about them. Then again, would it really surprise anyone if it turned out that you actually don't know anything about Nazis?
Oh, you are quite arrogant, aren't you? I made a statement, you immediately start insulting me, and now here ya are trying to change the past. My last post to you - you are irrelevant.
Thank God Almighty I'm free at last!
Jeter,
You are absolutely right. Here is what happened to those other 5 commandments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CB1ruv1n8U
Gotta love Mel Brooks!
Thanks for that clip Open_Mind...it fits perfectly here!
I'm still laughing :-)
Here you go, Huntington,
Am I to understand that Media Matters defense of Hillary Clinton's (new) abortion stand is that she also wants to "reduce the number of abortions," just like Giulianni, so the Right should be just as inclined to vote for her as they are for Giulianni based on that issue? The "conservative misinformation," then, is that Hillary is triangulating the religious right just as well on the issue as Giulianni despite what Tucker Carlson says? What a joke this website has become.
Steve-Ex, I don't know that I said anything about the Right voting for HC, or about her pandering to the right, so I'm not really sure how to respond.Sorry.
You falsely assume that the Right actually wants to reduce the number of abortions. All I ever see is them bending over backward to make sure there are as many as possible, by turning women away at the pharmacy counter, keeping our kids ignorant of proper birth control, keeping the minimum wage down, etc.
Actions speak louder than words.
Though I personally believe that life begins at conception, I agree with Hillary [and Bill before her] that "safe, legal, and rare" should be "common ground" for both sides.
And seeing Hillary is emphasizing "rare", I fail to see how that differs from Giuliani wanting to "reduce abortions".
Only Tuck wouldn't be able to figure that out ;-)
Maybe tuck's bowtie is too tight. I suggest you send him some of your ointment, it may help clear it up for him!
Actually Snoop, Tuck doesn't wear bow-ties anymore, he's a big boy now and has graduated to clip-on ties ;-)
I'll get him some of my ointment...BUT you'll have to help him apply it. Hehehehe.
In that case, he's gonna die. No way I'm sucking out the poison!
I think Tucker gets all the ointment he needs from his boyfriends.....
J,
You're right, there is really little substantive difference. It goes mostly to how they frame the issue when appealing to their respective constituencies.
Hillary emphasizes the pro choice for women angle, while Rudy stresses the rare component and his abhorence to the procedure......all in all, they are pretty much on the same page.
Tommy,
Tucker, like quite of few others in the media, just simply hates Hillary. At least that's how I see it. So whether it makes sense or not they will pounce on her for just about anything.
She & Rudy are basically saying the same thing here. But Tucker in his desire to put her in a bad light is attempting to re-define what she has to say on the subject. I doubt he fooled too many people.
Hey Jeter.
I guess what it comes down to is that, though they may have similar goals and approaches to achieving those goals, some aren't happy unless they hear "I really really hate abortion!", which seems to take the focus off of solving the problem.
Maybe the same people who are more concerned with seeing criminals punished than addressing the root causes of crime.
Beach,
Most of the Conservative/Republicans I know don't focus on abortion as a wedge issue. Maybe it's because we're not in the bible belt? Most accept that Abortions are legal, and they, like myself hope they are rare.
Seeing that Giuliani is ahead in the Polls among the Republican candidates, I'm gonna guess that the *abortion issue* is something the media thinks the majority of Con/Rep feel is of ultimate importance. Maybe it is to the Religious Right, but for the rest of us regular folks, well there are bigger issues out there.
Right, Jeter. I wasn't implying that the appeal was to the majority of conservatives, just that element that makes for sensational news stories.
I wasn't implying that the appeal was to the majority of conservatives, just that element that makes for sensational news stories.
Beach I wasn't suggesting you were, sorry if that's how my post came across :-/
I just get a hoot out of these media folks that seem astonished that Giuliani would be leading in the Polls because he isn't a hard line Pro-Lifer.
I honestly believe that the majority of Republican/Conservatives do not consider that issue to be as important as the media likes to portray.
Yeah, I'm having a little trouble imagining a dedicated Republican saying to him or herself "Well, Rudy and Hillary are so close on abortion, that I guess it's really a toss-up as to how I will vote between them." The image of the single-issue abortion voter, whether for or against, is something that was created in the minds of people who think they know way more than they do about politics.
I think the "conservative" label has pretty much been revealed as something of a fiction -- it just means nowadays someone who is, votes for, or flacks for Republican candidates. See how they're "principles" vanish when they're not in power or in danger of losing it?
The difference is Hillary has a D in front of her name and Guiliani has an R. The people who do abortions also supply birth control and sex ed.
Tucker Carlson has all the gravitas of a game show host.
He's like a latter day Wink Martindale.
Now, now - Wink Martindale serves a purpose, which is more than can be said about Tucker Carlson.
Do you think Tucker needs to find his "special" purpose?
The main difference between Giuliani and Clinton on the abortion issue is that Giuliani is pro-choice and Clinton is pro abortion. Giuliani supports choice in most other areas such as letting people spend their own money how they see fit, letting people have personal accounts for social security, giving out vouchers to poor people, letting business owners run their own business the way they see fit, and letting parents raise their kids the way they wish. Hillary is anti-choice in all of these areas. She only supports choice when it comes to abortion. It's pretty obvious that she's pro abortion and not pro choice at all.
Is there a commandment regarding Unoriginal Spin?
Actually, it's not spin, but rather reality. For many on the left, pro-choice stops at the abortion borders.
I'd be happy to enter the Tommy/RH reality the moment you show any record of HC endorsing forced abortions.
We've all seen the "Liberal anti-choice " list before, and I don't think it's gotten any less silly with age.
It's not about endorsing forced anything.....it's about the pro-choice mantra that is espoused by so many liberals, yet when it comes to other issues where choice is a paramount component of an issue, the same choice advocates want no part of it - regarding school vouchers, privatizing social security, etc.
It smacks of a wee bit double standard.
ah you approve of forced 'choice' to go to religious schools where they can punish kids for not being 'Christian' enough, and who will not be required to accept handicapped children so their stats go up. And of course you approve of SSI being destroyed so seniors have the 'choice' between a refrigerator box and under a bridge to live. Yes we know what you are all about tommy-boy
If you feel inclined to present an adult response up for discussion, fine, but sorry - otherwise, your post isn't worthy of a reply.
AM's post seemed (to me) to be right on point, and more logically valid than most of your dissembling or topic-avoidance. .
What is more, Mutt spoke that which I have yet to see you rebut, much less refute, in the 10 or more times this "choice" trash has sprung from you or Rino.
Then you two hopscotch around the playground together. I have no interest in wasting my time.
Thanks for playing.
The only "times" you have yet been caught unwilling to waste exorbitant amounts of time and space, have been those where you confront an argument that you recognize you cannot rebut, yet the discussion prevents you from escaping into a change of subject. Then, suddenly, you are far too busy to bother with such trivial inanities. Since updating my "Bungle Told The Truth" database is certainly not a full-time job (two entries, and a mass of end-notes regarding disqualification of nominations) perhaps I could spin off "Tommy and Rino Rebut Differentiation Of Pro-Choice Issues V. Pro-Abortion". That doesn't look too challenging, either, since there are zero entries for 11 chances.
tommy is paid to distract, dismiss and deny on these boards, fortunately for him he did not have to worry about being tested for logic or ethics, just his ability to troll.
That's a new one. How about a medical plan where people have the choice to perform surgery on themselves? I guess Rudy would be for that?
The arguments against school vouchers are based on systemic and constitutional concerns. Those are not trumped by a concern for "choice". That's a completely different kettle of fish from abortion, which is purely a personal matter.
see SICKO when it comes out, the opening sene is a guy forced to stitch himself up since he has no insurance.
Tommy, i was originally talking about RH's misguided use of "pro-abortion", which would mean favoring abortion over individual choice.
I'm sure anybody here could compile a list of perceived liberal or conservative pet issues and find an angle where each was limiting choice in some way or another.That's sort of how living in a civilization works, finding that balance between individual freedoms and social responsibility.
And while many of these issues involve some subjectivity and compromise in satisfying each sides "choice", I was just pointing out the dishonesty in framing conservatives as "pro-choice" on most issues.
Besides,as many years as its been since my stint with the Catholic Church, "Unoriginal Spin" was funny, give me that. ;0)
HBL,
Points noted.......and I will give you a thumbs up for your "Unoriginal Spin" comment, ok, it was good.
Add these to your list: Conservatives want to deny terminally ill people the CHOICE to end their lives with dignity on their own terms. Conservatives want to deny people the CHOICE to smoke grass in the privacy of their own homes. Conservatives want to deny homosexuals the CHOICE to get married. Conservatives want to deny parents the CHOICE to raise their children without having other people's religious beliefs forced on them through school prayer and creationism.
But no, you guys are right, we libs are such hypocrites to respect a woman's right to choose an abortion and not support school vouchers (and if you don't see a problem with using MY tax dollar to support religious schools you need to touch up on your first amendment).
"Conservatives want to deny people the CHOICE to smoke grass in the privacy of their own homes"
So do most Democrats in Congress. I haven't seen any Dems in Congress push forward legislation legalizing weed. The reason is because most of them oppose it. Some conservatives actually support drug legalization. It's an issue that crosses party lines.
"Conservatives want to deny homosexuals the CHOICE to get married"
As do most Democrats in Congress. Very few politicians on either side of the aisle support gay marriage. Also, everybody has the choice to get married. It just has to be someone of the opposite sex. It makes sense considering that men and women are different and were designed for each other.
"Conservatives want to deny parents the CHOICE to raise their children without having other people's religious beliefs forced on them through school prayer and creationism"
Not really. We just want students to hear both sides of the evolution issue, and give them the CHOICE to pray in school if they wish. We want to give them the CHOICE of whether they believe evolution or creationism, instead of simply forcing one view on them and telling them they have to accept it.
"Conservatives want to deny terminally ill people the CHOICE to end their lives with dignity on their own terms"
Anybody can end their own life any time they wish. They don't need the government's approval for that. Conservatives simply believe that doctors are supposed to help heal people, not kill them.
"I haven't seen Democrats in Congress push forward legislation legalizing weed."
There aren't any real liberals in Congress, so I don't know what your point is. But I can tell you that California has legalized marijuana for the terminally ill, and the Conservative Justice Department under Bush has used federal laws to preempt California's CHOICE to do so. Once again, states rights take a back seat to the puritanical impulses of Conservatives.
"Very few politicians on either side of of the aisle support gay marriage."
Tell that to the homosexuals of Massachussetts and San Francisco, whose legal marriages are jeopardized by, again, Federal attempts to preempt their local goverments CHOICE of what to allow.
"We just want students to hear both sidesof the evolution issue."
No, you want to teach Theology in Science classes. Apparently, American students aren't far enough behind in science as it is, you want them dumbed down further with religion thinly disguised as science. "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, thereby failing one of the first tests of a scientific theory. And nobody has EVER stopped a child from praying in class by him or herself, but I still appreciate your use of that pathetic conservative canard.
"Conservatives simply believe that doctors are supposed to help heal people, not kill them."
Tell that to the people of Oregon, who passed a euthanasia law only to see it preempted by the actions of a Conservative Justice Department. We're talking about people who can't be "healed", they just want their pain to end. But I guess ending suffering humanely isn't part of a doctor's job to a conservative? Conservatives want to deny human beings the same decency we afford dogs when they are terminally ill.
And none of this is meant to waive my objections that you didn't respond to any of my points, since you didn't explain why Conservatives are against CHOICE in the instances of victimless drug use and gay marriage.
Can you explain how school vouchers could benefit the public education system?
I went to Catholic School for twelve years. They indeed, picked who they thought would keep their stats up. Anyone who failed at the high school level was forced out and into public school.
Many students were punished for not being "fervent" enough.
And there was a private system in place before Social Security, savings accounts. Most people were not able to contribute to their retirement due to little things like the Great Depression, The Dust Bowl, etc.
Social Security was implemented so that people would be able to have a little dignity when they retired. It's a system based on contributing to the common good. It's a pact between the worker and the government which says that after a lifetime of work, you will be able to subsist. The plan works because it's not optional.
Most people, myself included, don't have the ability to understand the intricacies of the different savings plans proposed as alternatives to SS.
The proposals I've read all include money mangers and banks taking over the work that the government now does. I'm sorry, I trust the government more than I do the banks.
The system is flawed, don't get me wrong. It does need to be fixed. But not by privatization.
We've got enough foxes in the chicken coop as it is.
"I'm sorry, I trust the government more than I do the banks."
You are a braver soul than myself. I trust neither.
Worrier,
I was not arguing the validity of each idea, they are certainly debatable....but rather the idea that choice should be extended to the other issues as well, these are just two examples.
Tommy that is a bit disengenuous. You know tha the term Por-choice in most all cases refers to the abortion issue. Flipping that into Pro-abortion is very weak and low even for neo-cons. Most pro-choice people fal into the same category as Jeter as far as wanting it to Safe, legal and "rare".
What does pro-life (anti-abortion) and Pro-choice have to do with school vouchers, privatizing social security?
I think vouchers are a good idea as long as it's handled correctly and there is a concerted effort to improve the public school system (Which in some areas is outstanding and others abismal). Social security is whack only because it has been severely mishandled, there are manyhard working Americans of retirement age that rely on SS and made lifetimes worth of payments in good faith believing the government woul run it properly. Most jobs in this country don't leave much room for much retirement savings (although responsible people should have money set aside). I'm a pro-choice person which has nothing to do with my opinons on the other two matters. has nothing to do with the others.
If you're going to include the separate (but apparently equal) subjects of school vouchers and social security under the umbrella of "pro-choice" as used in the abortion debate, then you'll have no problem including capital punishment, vigilantism, and military operations under the umbrella of "pro-life".
Double-standards for all?
I am personally opposed to capital punishment. Vigilantism is against our criminal justice system. And military operations are often a necessity, or would you say they never are?
I assume you're using yourself as the example for "pro-life". Good for you being against capital punishment. And I assume that even if vigilantism was legal, you'd be against it.
But you're willing to kill people when you feel threatened, so you are therefore "pro-death", which would create that double-standard to which you referred.
Moral consistency is important, but I think the solution here is to simplify, and focus on each issue independently. The bottom line is NOT the term "choice" or "life". It is the impact the "choice" or "life" at issue would have on society. And each issue brings it's own unique set of circumstances to the table, all of which need to be examined.
How ridiculous. To compare military preparedness and defending your country as "pro-death" is ludicrous, not to mention wacky.
But if you're prepared to stand by your assertion that all military operations are unnecessary, that is fine by me.
How ridiculous to compare abortion with school vouchers and social security. "Pro-death" is no more ludicrous than "pro-abortion". Wacky is not recognizing that military preparedness does not justify using the military against those who are no threat to the U.S.
And you included in your response to me a response to whoever it was that asserted that all military operations were unnecessary. You may want to go back and find out who that was so that you can respond to him directly.
Read your response again. "But you're willing to kill people when you feel threatened, so you are therefore "pro death".
You can parse or mince your words now all you want, but you most certainly say that military operations, where defending yourself is indeed a major part of that, is pro death.
Spin it if you want too.......it's all there.
Yep, I said when you "feel" threatened, on purpose.
Bush convinced the country to "feel" threatened in order to go into iraq, which we did despite no immediate threat from which to defend ourselves. And because a majority of Americans are supposedly "pro-life", and a majority of Americans were pro-Iraq-war, (enough to re-elect boy George), there's some overlap there. It's that overlap in which your double-standard resides.
Call it parsing if it allows you want, but there's a difference between "feeling" threatened and defending yourself.
So, one must support vouchers to be "pro choice'? How so? Everyone has the choice to go to a private school. It's just that not everyone has the money, and not everyone can get accepted (even with a voucher). Isn't that the magical free market that you guys worship?
Education opportunity to excel in an optimum environment should not be for only those that can afford it. It should be available to every person who is willing to work towards that end.
How can anyone, especially a liberal who claims to be on the side of the less fortunate, be opposed to that idea?
"Education opportunity to excel in an optimum environment should not be for only those that can afford it. It should be available to every person who is willing to work towards that end."
But doesn't that force those private institutions to take students who normally wouldn't get in. Don't vouchers restrict the private institutions ability to limit their student body. Would those vouchers go to Religious schools? Nerzog actually makes a good point. I went to a private school on scholarship through private funding, what's stopping others from doing the same?
Nothing. It happens all the time.
I agree that everyone should have access to a first class education, but I fail to see how vouchers will accomplish that...unless you're willing to force private schools to accept everyone who comes to them with a voucher. Are you?
If the government were to offer every student $1000 a year to attend private schools, every private school would raise their tuition by $1000. Don't you conservatives even remember your own rhetoric that subsidies simply raise the prices of the subsidized commodity by the amount of the subsidy?
Tommy, as a lib, I agree with you only so far as to say it is true, there is no one perfect solution to education. But the real issue for me is that vouchers, home schooling, whatever, all are subject to the same abuses that have been leveled at public schools for decades now. How about we ask our leaders to develop a quid pro quo solution where we shore up the perported holes and make it harder to abuse any solution? I'd support that approach over the "my way is better than yours" approach we get today...
I would tend to agree. There are examples of Public Schools which work, and those examples should be studied to see if their success can be duplicated elsewhere.
Vouchers may in fact be part of the solution, but they aren't a magic bullet. First of all, there aren't enough private schools to take all the students who would want in. Second, private schools can cherrypick their students; many who really need the help would be rejected. Third, the money drained from the Public Schools to fund vouchers would create an even worse Public School system than we have now.
Yes, I realize that Teachers' Unions are part of the problem, but lack of money is also a problem, and many conservatives are unwilling to give any more money for public schools. They're more interested in getting me to pay for their child to go to a Bible school.
One of those on the third slab. M. slipped, it fell, it broke. the rest is history.
In a very neat trick, the slabs was done a couple of centuries pior to written Hebrew.
I'm curious why the right doesn't put as much emphasis on the seven deadly sins as they put on homosexuality. It's pretty darn clear that gluttony, for instance, is precisely called out as a sin. But I don't hear the right condemn it with the same ferver. Of course, I do notice a lot of the anti-gay crowd is fat...
And usury is expressly forbidden.
Tucker is just parroting an old Rush Limbaugh lie, probably without even being aware of it. Rush has said, quite often, that Feminism's goal was as many abortions as possible. It's bullsh*t, of course, like most of what Rush says, but it has wormed its way into the Reptilian Brain Stems of the Republican base.
Does one think that Hillary would nominate to the Supreme Court a jurist who is an originalist or would she make abortion rights a litmus test for nomination?
I think that answers the question regarding the difference between the two candidates on this subject.
If Rudy is pro-choice, what's to say it wouldn't be a "litmus test" that he would use? I'm curious what you're using to draw this distinction, exactly.
Giuliani has said that he'll nominate Supreme Court justices like Scalia and Thomas. He wants to nominate an originalist to the Supreme Court who will interpret the Constitution and not create new constitutional rights. Giuliani believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, even though he supports abortion rights. He believes that the people should have the right to vote on the issue.
If Giuliani gets the nomination, all his opponent needs to do is put out an ad with his statement that he will nominate a justice like Scalia or Thomas. They are two of the worst jsutices in the history of the court, and the longer they are on the bench, the more people realize it.
"If Giuliani gets the nomination, all his opponent needs to do is put out an ad with his statement that he will nominate a justice like Scalia or Thomas"
I hope that he or she does that, because Justice Thomas has the highest favorability rating of any Supreme Court justice.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/major_political_figures
Clarence Thomas is an idiot and if you don't see that, you're not far behind. The whole idea of the oral argument is for the Justices to GRILL the advocates. It took old Clarence YEARS before he asked A SINGLE QUESTION, and then he only did it on the issue of racism. Try reading one of his opinions and tell me that the guy is anything but a hack. At least Scalia can reason. Thomas is an intellectual lightweight who never belonged on the Supreme Court, regardless of his views on anything.
From Wikipedia:
"Thomas is well-known for listening rather than actively asking questions during oral arguments of the Court. He has offered several reasons for this, the most strongly supported of which is that he developed a habit of listening as a young man. Thomas comes from the Gullah/Geechee cultural region of coastal Georgia and is a member of this distinct African American ethnic group; he grew up speaking the Gullah language, which is a hybrid of English and various West African languages. Later in life, Thomas began to acquire an enthusiasm for his heritage, writing about it in the December 14, 2000 issue of The New York Times:
"When I was 16, I was sitting as the only black kid in my class, and I had grown up speaking a kind of a dialect. It's called Geechee. Some people call it Gullah now, and people praise it now. But they used to make fun of us back then. It's not standard English. When I transferred to an all-white school at your age, I was self-conscious, like we all are... So I...just started developing the habit of listening""An originalist".
I love that term. It promotes a benevolent conservative aura while maintaining complete ambiguity.
"Originalist": one who is so right-wing-nuts that they cannot read the clear text of the Constitution stating that every right imaginable now or in any possible circumstances, is reserved to the people unless it is specifically given to the State or the Federal Government. Hmmm . . . a true originalist is, in other words, an entity dedicated to denying the undeniable, one such as Bungle himself.
Brab,
I do believe Rudy has said if elected and had the opportunity he'd nominate originalists.
See, what bothers me about this is that Clinton is always accused of being "calculating". The suggestion is always that she doesn't mean what she says, as in this item for instance. She says she wants to reduce abortions, but she doesn't really mean it. Democrats just offer hollow soundbites to appease the base, so you can't believe what they say, right?
It seems to me that being "pro-choice" and against roe v. wade is a somewhat strange position. If one really believes a woman has a right to that decision, they shouldn't support it being up to the states, where they can deny that right. The position is basically "Women should have the right to choose, but it won't bother me if they lose it", from what I see. That doesn't seem as much nuanced as it does contradictory.
Now, clearly, being pro-choice upsets a lot of core conservatives. He can't lose that base and have a shot at the nomination. So why is it that his word about originalists is taken at face value, when it's both an assurance to a bloc of voters he desperately needs and at the same time contradictory to the values he's expressed? Shouldn't conservatives sort of figure that he doesn't really mean it, by the standards they hold Dems to?
Brab,
You make a great point and one that Giuliani will find difficult to answer.
My own guess is that it is like those who profess to be against abortions personally but feel it is some other woman's decisions whether to abort her unborn baby. It looks to me to be similar logic.
It seems to me whether a President is pro-abortion, pro-choice, or pro-life is only consequential at this point with regards to nominees to the Supreme Court. Correct me if I am wrong but most 'originalists' think the matter ought to be handled by the 'people' through the legislature.
"My own guess is that it is like those who profess to be against abortions personally but feel it is some other woman's decisions whether to abort her unborn baby. It looks to me to be similar logic."
No, not at all. A person who does that still believes in the right to do so, just writes it off as a possibility for themselves personally. The pro-life movement wants the decision to be in the hands of the states because they know many states will eliminate that right, or at least they think there's a great chance of it. That's the same for the originalist comment, that's a favorable scenario for pro-lifers. Guiliani supporting those efforts is clearly at odds with supporting a woman's right to choose, since he's working for the elimination of those rights in many parts of the country.
Thanks for the comment, and indeed it's something Guiliani should be pressed on. How exactly does he reconcile his position in his own mind? I'd like to know.
Brab,
I understand the difference but it still seems to me to be similar logic where one holds on view for oneself, but thinks others have the right to do the exact opposite.
I don't see how that's a reasonable comparison. It's understandable to say "I would never have an abortion, but you should have the right to it", but it's not the same to say "I think women have the right to abortion, but I'm going to take action to give others the ability to take it away". The first is a purely individual stand, the second has the potential to restrict the actions of thousands of women.
"I understand the difference but it still seems to me to be similar logic where one holds on view for oneself, but thinks others have the right to do the exact opposite. "
That's just part of being human. It's no different from saying someone is at perfect liberty to eat peanuts, but *I* can't because I'm allergic to them.
The difference is that someone who would not have an abortion (me for instance) but who DOES uphold the right of women to choose is exercising THEIR *RIGHT TO CHOOSE*
That's not at *all* the same thing as someone else who would say that because THEY do not believe in abortion then *NO ONE* should be allowed to have one.
AA, how does your first question "answer" your second question?
AA, there is no difference between HC and Rudy. They both support a woman's right to choose. And they both would like to limit the amount of abortions. Many on the pro-life side like to pretend that pro-choice means you have no conscience.
What I think is funny is the way Tucker calls HC pro-abortion and takes $$ from abortion lobby (never heard of them) while Rudy is pro-choice.
Hypocrisy at it's best. Now Tucker has created a new word code word, pro-abortion which has evil connotations and pro-choice for Rudy which is meant to sound better.
If the Republicans nominate Rudy it will prove to me that they will do anything to stay in power.
I think that's a fairly easy call on Hillary AA. At least half your litimus test would be failed by quite a few , including you.
Why so?
I believe you faulted H. for a possible litmus test on abortion. You appear too also hold a litmus test here.
I see the point you are trying to make. However I was referring to each candidate's position on Supreme Court nominations.
My view is the same as Guiliani's. If I were king of the forrrrrest, I'd nominate originalists. but luckily for all of us, I am not.
If that is a litmus test, so be it.
mmfa's article would have made more sense if they had published the amount of campaign contributions that both Giuliani and Clinton receive from abortion-rights groups.
Andrew Ironside takes the thread into a campaign speech for Clinton with the bold headline about a "false contrast"...when all he has to hang is hat on is that "Carlson suggested" something else...in the opinion of mmfa.
In actuality, Carlson suggested that Giuliani receives no contributions from abortion-rights activists.
How 'bout it Ironside...care to update this thread with all the info?
"If you're morally opposed to abortion, you've never supported a pro-choice candidate, but it is a choice between a pro-choice candidate, Giuliani, who says he will work to reduce abortions, and Hillary Clinton, who takes money from people who commit them, what do you do?"
Clearly the distinction Carlson is making here is that Clinton doesn't want to reduce abortions, because of campaign contibutions. How would you disagree with that analysis, exactly?
Well, you're within 17 feet of the question.
Politicians accept contributions for a reason...when you or mmfa can provide the amount of money Giuliani receives from abortion-rights groups vs. Clinton...we can evaluate Ironside's mind reading skills.
Until then...I'll be busy working on that ark.
Your predictable jackassery aside, why can't you answer the question? How would you dispute that "Carlson suggested" exactly what is described here?
And as has pointed out by your own brethren, Guiliani says he will appoint people like Scalia and Thomas to the court. Why would any abortion-rights group give money to him after that?
- Why would any abortion-rights group give money to him after that? - brabantio
Congratulations. I think you're on to something.
I'll be interested to see the results of your research detailing the financial support of Giuliani and Clinton by abortion-rights groups.
Until then...I'm really busy with that ark.
You're excluding the obvious possibility that nobody in the race wants the same level or higher of abortions, and yet abortion rights groups are still going to give money to the candidate they think best supports them. Where's the evidence that abortion-rights activists don't want to reduce the number of abortions anyway? I don't know of anyone who is against sex education and contraception but supports abortion.
That does make what Carlson said a false contrast, and it's clearly what he was suggesting.
I believe it was you who talked about making your argument and letting it stand for itself, so it was wrong to call people trolls. Your repeated digs over one incident seem to violate the spirit of your comment. Make your argument instead of continually showing yourself to be so immature, please. You're only making yourself look bad, and clearly it's not going to stop me from calling you out on your future disingenuousness.
Does your ark have room for dinosaurs? According to the creationist museum the last one did...
I for one can't wait to see that museum.
I wish one of our creationist posters would answer the question I've been asking for a few weeks now.
On the Ark, who sat next to the T-Rex?
Mrs. Rex?
Well done, AA, well done.
Thanks for making me smile.
I think Mr. T. was in the stall between the unicorn and the jabberwocky.
I bet he didn't last long, whoever it was...
Say, rex. Can you pass me th...
You guys are forgetting that all dinosaurs, including T-Rex, were herbivores until Man's fall.
Ye gods...from abortion to creationism...too hot to handle.
I'll just say that my ark will be equal opportunity...all are welcome as long as they come two by two.
two lesbians, two gays?
Two Islamofascists.
Touche...I'll have to take that question under advisement.
Uh-oh...I hear a knock at the door. I hope it's not OSHA or the ADA...this ark building thing is getting complicated.
Tell me you pulled the requisite building permit? Did you notify USA of any potential excavation? Do you have all of your MSDS on site?
Screwed up, didn't you? You can't argue against illegal immigration as you use illegal immigrants to build your ark! It's like Newt bloviating about Clinton's affair while he was having an affair...
Brab,
C'mon my friend, Lighten up. Not all responses have to be deadly serious nor call for insults in reply.
C'mon yourself. I ask a valid question in pursuit of a civil conversation, and the response I get is the 20th rehashing of a reading error I made months ago? Then it's unfair for me to call that behavior "jackassery"?
Tell me you're not seriously saying that, please.
Okay. Looks like you guys have a 'history'. Obviously he is pushing your button to get a rise out of you. Peace bro.
Conservatives are like Pavlov dogs. They are so well trained to respond to a bell. The bell in this case is dumbed down buzzwords. Say the words Hillary and Liberal and the Conservatives will immediately go into a behaviour that one will swear they need and exorcists.
Conservatives are jokes when they claim they champion freedom. When they say deregulation what they really mean is profit a the public's peril and demise and workers are owned even if they are not on the clock or on their property example Random drug testing. If you go to Amsterdam on weeks vacation and smoke a joint where it is legal and you come back after your weeks vacation and two months later you are up for a Random Drug test and test positive they can fire you. You are owned even if you are not on their dime or on their property.
Conservatives controlls your life you. If you're gay you can't get married. If you are raped you can't abort the child.
Conservatives brand of freedom is there is nothing left that you can do that can be called free only if you are a slum lord, run a sweat shop. cheat your employees cheat the public cheat anyone for a dime and turn God's House into a marketplace.
The Conservatives claim to honor the ten commandments but if you read the rest of the story you will have found out the Conservatives ran toward the Golden Calf. God was standing by himself.
Harle,
A small point. If you are gay you can get married just like anyone else.
Not true. Anyone else can get married to someone of the sex that they're attracted to.
HBL,
A small point. I think subtlety is lost on some.
A small, but ultimately meaningless point by AA, which every body understood. Straight adults can legally marry people they're attracted to, and want to marry. Gay adults cannot.
C'mon, AA, you're not THAT obtuse.
I am not, but I have my doubts about some others.
Harle never mentioned the qualifier you tossed in.
He said, "If you're gay you can't get married."
That generalized statement is patently false. I simply demonstrated it.
More lunacy from our friend, "If you are raped you can't abort the child."
Uh. No.
I think you should direct your comments about being obtuse to Harle, HBL, and perhaps a little introspection is also in order?
It's an overgeneralization, but some conservatives do indeed believe that rape is no cause for abortion. I think it was Brownback who said so recently.
Regarding the marriage part, when someone says that gay people can't get married, the obvious meaning of that is to each other, not to members of the opposite sex. You can surely admit that, can't you? Did you really think that anyone would take that to mean a gay person couldn't marry someone they had no physical attraction to?
Well Gays can marry here in Massachusetts. I think they can marry in several [or at least a few] other states too.
So making a generalized statement that Gays Can't Marry is technically incorrect.
Just my 2 cents.
It was an assertion of the sentiments of all conservatives, not a statement of fact, from how I read it. But it was an overgeneralization either way, and that's valid criticism enough.
Brab, seems to me that I read about people all the time getting divorced from their spouses because they declare their homosexuality. So obviously there are gay people who do marry and procreate with opposite sex partners.
You could have saved the time typing about Brownback, etc. My point is that Harle made a bunch of of oversimplified, generalized, and silly comments, which he does regularly in my opinion.
I merely pointed it out.
Lets move on shall we?
"a bunch of of oversimplified, generalized, and silly comments"
Like a list of unfounded "anti-choice" positions supposedly held by liberals perhaps?
I'm not disputing the criticism about the overgeneralization, especially regarding the abortion part. That's perfectly valid. I think it's well-known that conservatives in general (not all, but the vast majority) disapprove of gay marriage, however. Pointing out that gay people can marry those of the opposite sex is simply not a meaningful response to that, especially considering your stated mindset that it ends up in divorce (or an unhappy marriage, almost surely, right?).
Why is it that I can't simply point that out?
Since I am not very literal minded, I take the larger points Harlequan was making. The post made sense to me as is. You don't have to anaylize every point by point to get the larger context. But then I am a generalist due to my INTJ personality type.
"just like anyone else." was the qualifier that AA added, just so it's clear why his statement was untrue.
I'm sure this is in the playbook, as Rinohunter has posted the same feigned* ignorance about the difference between marrying somebody you want to marry, and somebody that isn't even the same sex you want to marry.
Black people used to be able to ride the bus, just like everybody else. Just in the back.
* I'm being generous here.
Harlequin,
Just a small, yet important problem I have with your post here...
How about instead of simply writing : Conservatives this & Conservatives that---that you use the word SOME in front of those assumptions/charges.
SOME Conservatives.
Not only is it less offensive, it's a lot more factual.
Thanks in advance.
I like to just say neo-cons (the bastardized version of a reasonable conservative) when speaking of that segment of folks.
- Neoconservatism "originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ("Scoop") Jackson - Michael Lind
Factually true Wes, but not how the term is used these days.
Agreed...but it's street use has morphed into inaccuracy...just wanted to be clear who falls into the "bastardized version" category.
If you truly want an example of what my version of a neocon is head over to the hannity boards.
I like to just say neo-cons (the bastardized version of a reasonable conservative) when speaking of that segment of folks.
Well Monk that's cause you're a reasonable, good guy.
I agree, Neo-Con is a better term to describe the Far-Right. Like Leftists is ok for the Far-Left.
Of course we also have 2 terms I like even better.
Wing-Nuts for the Far-Right
Moonbats for the Far-Left.
;-)
but when I say Neo-con, the neo-con in question won't realize I'm insulting them. They wear the label as a badge of honor.
Jeter2,
I was born and raised in one of the most Conservative states in the Union. They are a mean spririted, pro slavery aka pro business, hypocritical people you ever want to know.
I have had my fair share of arguments with them and I can tell you that when they lose an arguments they just the debate with this statement: Let me have my Anglo Saxon ways.
That is it in a nutshell. Me Mine and no More. Bill-O just the other day lied nothing new there lied when he said liberals are the me mine a no more crowd. Nothing could be more false.
When I was young I had a girlfriend who wouldn't believe what I said about Conservatives. I took her back to my state told her to pick any church she wants to go to. We went to church and sure enough the minister said: and God loves even the working man.
She was shocked by the above comment. I took here around various cities and towns just to prove my point that this isn't an isolated incident. She almost got lynched when she suggested before a group of grumpy Conservative women that as a parent one should raise happy children.
I understand your saying some Conservatives. But I saw a documentary and the ones that tossed the election in favor of a spoiled frat boy were the Christian Conservatives in this nation. Do you know what they said? They said we know Bush is hurting our fellow citizens but he is a man of God and that's more important to us.
Again me mine and no more. In spite of the fact that they knew re-electing Bush will hurt their fellow citizens they elected him because he conned them by wearing God on his sleeve and by prostituting them with waving a dollar bill in their face aka tax cuts like whores the conservatives took it; even though it is really borrowed money that future generations will have to pay off.
Conservatives ran toward the golden calf. God is all alone.
Harle,
Where is the falsehood in the statement, " and God loves even the working man"?
I fail to see your point. What I come away with is that you consistently throw in vitriolic comments , generalizations, aspersions, and sillyness, (i.e., Pro slavery), that make little or no sense.
oops. sillyness should be silliness.
AnotherAmerican,
The falsehood in the statement, "God loves even the working man" is in the word "even".
"Even" is implying that a worker isn't really worthy of God's love; that God's love is limited to only the master.
God shouldn't be separating his children into catagories like slave and master; especially in this day and age. But to a Conservative God does seperate his children using stupid labels like slave and master.
I disagree. I've heard many times the phrase, "God loves even you!"
It simply shows that you or I or "the working man" is a part of God's wonderful love.
One could also say, "God loves even the rich". That is also true.
It is my understanding God doesn't segregate.
Where does slave and master come into play here? I think I've decided you've fallen into one of those categories Jeter defined earlier. ;-)
Once again Harlequin you are lumping ALL Conservatives into one group.
The Conservatives you are describing sound like the Far-Right, or Neo-Cons & Religious Right.
I don't group ALL Liberals into one package. For instance, the Far-Left Moonbat type does not describe most of the Liberal posters here.
I am a Conservative, albeit a Moderate version of one.
And I take great umbrage at your insistence of lumping every one of us into some nefarious band of evil doers.
P.S. I live in one of the most, if not the most Liberal state in this country --Massachusetts. So believe me when I tell you I know Liberals & Moonbats. I also know the difference between the two.
Jeter, I think just "conservatives" is fine. If you aren't what he/she is describing, then you souldn't be offended. It seems that there are some here who wield the "liberal" stick pretty, well liberally, and even though I'm convinced they don't have the foggiest of what a liberal really is, I don't get offended or call them on it. That's because they are not describing me. But you can get very offended by that run on sentence.
Julia,
When I first began posting here, I wrote 'Liberals blah blah blah' and got creamed by disgruntled Liberals for generalizing and for not using "SOME" to clarify that I didn't mean "ALL".
So if I harp on this point it is simply because I believe what's good for the goose...
Jeter, seeing the forest for the trees was my point, your personal experience on this board aside.
Well said and legitimate.
Above coment was for Harl.
For AA: I didn't see it as an attack on Christians, perhaps an injuction at the people H. had exposure and experience with. I didn't meet this kind of person growing up, I was lucky.
I don't know what is wrong with this website but there are occasions when I click on the SHOW I get a page not found even though I know there are comments to be shown.
At any rate this is the Jeter2,
Jeter2,
I posted earlier that I am aware of your complaint about me generalizing Conservatives. Let me put it this way. Some of the wealthiest blowharts that are guilty of generalization such as Rush, Hannity, Bill-O, Coulter, Savage are made wealthy because of Conservative viewers. I haven't heard a single complaint by Conservatives that these wealthy blowharts are generalizing to a point of going overboard.
In fact the Conservative think tanks are all based on generalizing and attacking and destroying at all cause Liberals and they don't care if they throw the baby out with the bath water.
My generalization is nothing more than giving the Conservatives a taste of their own medicine. Just the other day I posted a list of Conservative commentators that have blantenly lied about Plame and I'm not talking about one or two I'm talking about a whole list.
Conservatives fought with the fire and you don't want me to fight fire with fire. I get it.
{Hysterical laughing}-Oh, that's funny. Oh. Oh.-I can't breathe. I can't breathe.
Wow. I see the conservatives who post here are as pathetic as ever. Now I remember why I quit wasting my time.
Ta.
Come back to us Rusty!
Hey, Shackleford ! Waste a little time here. There's brand new wingnuts all the time, good for some laughs..
Hey, welcome back Rusty.
We really missed you.
Geez Rusty if I can put up with pathetic Liberals, you can put up with pathetic Conservatives...
;-)
That's enough of your Hate-Speech, Jeter !
Write, if you get work.
One would think that, rather than paying off candidates, the greedy "abortion lobby" would find it more financially rewarding close their abortion clinics and open up plastic surgery outlets. It's a growing market, you can charge much more per procedure, and you don't have a bunch of fundies constantly trying to regulate you out of business.
You've had some good posts today Sagra, Double barrelled irony, as you've nicely done, can tend to fly over the heads of some. I swear I think some people believe irony is a dietary supliment.
Kinda Late to the scene, but could the "pro-life" or as I call them "pro anti-choice" posters weigh in on these two simple words...
DEATH PENALTY.