McCain Flip-Flops, Supports Immediate Reversal of Roe v. Wade
McCain Flip-Flops, Supports Immediate Reversal of Roe v. Wade
In 1999, the “moderate” version of John McCain said that overturning Roe v. Wade would be dangerous for women and he would not support it, even in “the long term.” Here’s McCain in the San Francisco Chronicle:
I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.
This morning on ABC, McCain — now aggressively courting the likes of Jerry Falwell — expressed his unequivocal support for overturning Roe v. Wade. Watch it:
Transcript:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.
MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn’t advanced in the six years he’s been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn’t done?
MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’d be for that?
MCCAIN: Yes, because I’m a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
More duplicity.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:04 amStay out of my pants and stay off my deathbed, freak.
Never forget Schiavo.
If nothing else, this should start to knock some of his shiny polish of being a moderate off. People need to see him as he truly is - a right winger.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:04 amAmerica’s Least Wanted
They lie for votes and they steal elections.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:06 amToday’s FOX Democrat is John Kerry.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:08 amSomeone should tell Democrats FOX ain’t real news.
Do we really want a President that looks like the Phantom of the Opera???
November 19th, 2006 at 10:09 amMcCain ia a manipulator of the highest order prone to prevarication.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:09 amRabbit
Speaking as a woman, he enrages me. A lot of women will not forget this….believe me.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:15 amGood Morning all, here we are again another thread about mccain, watching him throw up and out any old statement to try and snag some extreme reich winged profesed fundamentalists christians. Like all the repug’s running their races now they don’t seem to get it that the public is sick and tired of their crap and not buying any of it…America and her people are weary of polaticians and turning away from the old fat white men that have messed up so badly….I think, we the people are looking for fresh faces, new ideas and steady old timers that have remained true to the constitution….Mccain like many others will not even make it out of the starting gate in 2008….Blessings all.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:15 amHe is pushing very hard to shore up the right wing of the republican party. It will be interesting to see if Rudy does the same. I hope not, but politically, McCain may be making a smart move.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:17 amNot to mention that his new “conviction” has been paid for by evangelicals.
All his “principles” are for sale.
He ought to list them on Ebay.
Rabbit
November 19th, 2006 at 10:18 amSharon Cox, Is there something wrong with sticking to the Constitution?After all, it is the first place that the Dems run when they want protection.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:20 amAnd McCain is saying to make it a state issue, not federal. what is wrong with that? Or are the Dems only effective as a national force?
November 19th, 2006 at 10:21 amHi Sharon,
regarding your post and turning away from the fat white men who have nearly ruined America:
I once saw this saying and thought it was funny,
“Screw Presidents.
Let’s Try a High Priestess for a While”
I nominate Zooey.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:23 am;)
Like mccaine some reich winged posters are to far gone to even respond to…LOL….
November 19th, 2006 at 10:25 amWhat an empty, soulless political and intellectual whore…
…how could ANYONE vote for this scum…
…or Guiliani?
November 19th, 2006 at 10:26 amI’ll be happy when John Mc Cain becomes irrelevent…
November 19th, 2006 at 10:28 amHere goes “pimping” the religious right just like W did! Guess Falwell’s advisor is already steering him in the absolute “wrong direction”…oh well….he can’t help it…once a flip-flop, always a flip-flop. The sad fact is that since McCain has sold his soul to you know who….he hasn’t a clue as to “who HE (McCain) really is these days. Maybe he’s losing it,too - old enough, that’s for sure. Senile dementia, anyone??
November 19th, 2006 at 10:28 amMcCain has become “everyone’s whore”….he whores for the highest bidder these days.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:29 amI second that nomination trueblue…Blessings
November 19th, 2006 at 10:29 amOnce again, McCain shows just what an idiot he really is. Leaving such momentous decisions such as abortion and gay rights to the states will create a severly devided, therefore weakened nation.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:32 amBut he really is good at dropping the code words to the far right wing knuckledragger base.
McCain has fallen so low, that now he is nothing but a mere George W. Bush wannabe.
How very sad: McCain’s the embodiment of everything that voters rejected this month about Republicans. Unreliable, lying, saying whatever has to be said to win votes. How very right wing “Christian.” How very George W. Bush.
What a whore. Sad, in that he used to be a hero. But after the Keating Five, and now a decade’s old overweening ambition to be president, he is the Senate equivalent of Randy Cunningham without the virtue of imprisonment for taking his Republicanism to the ultimate measure.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:32 amThis isn’t the first weasel response from McCain on abortion. He said he would sign the South Dakota abortion ban that specifically did not allow exceptions for the life of the mother and rape and incest. That was the entire point of the ban. Here’s McCain having it both ways from The Hotline:
What steps? Signing a bill makes it law.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:35 amOxyCon,
I agree with 50% of what you said in #20. Gay marriage should be a Federal issue as it has implications (legal and financial) in all 50 States.
As for abortion, I think that should be a state issue. If your state is a “No Abortion” state then you can always cross state lines. Therefore it has no hard national implications.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:38 amHe was against torture before he was for it.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:39 amEh? McCain says he’s for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, then seconds later says he’s a federalist who believes the issue should be decided by the states. A constitutional amendment would take the decision out of the hands of the states.
I don’t suppose Stephanopoulos confronted him about the obvious contradiction. What am I saying? Someone in the media confronting St. McCain? Sorry, I must have been hallucinating for a second there that we were living in a world where the media did their job.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:39 amWell he’s locking up the vote of the “10 Commandments on the Courthouse Wall” contingent.
If he is installed in the White House, we can look forward to really hard hitting questions from the press corps like the ones they gave Bush: “Mr. President, how has your deep and abiding faith helped you in these difficult times?”
November 19th, 2006 at 10:39 amOnce again, no follow-up by the “liberal” media.
Where’s the “Yes, but in 1999…”
November 19th, 2006 at 10:42 amI hope the Bush worshippers were watching C-Span this morning…
…Syrian ambassador to the U.S. Imad Moustapha was on and responded to a ? from a caller who asked…
…”President Bush and the architects of this so called war on terror have been saying that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom, our way of life. Can you explain why they hate us?”
…Moustapha gave an excellent, thoughtful and very comprehensive dissertattion into why we find ourselves at odds with Middle Eastern fighters…
to paraphrase:
…because of the U.S.’ (racist- implied my word), hegemonist, imperialist, pro-Israeli, hypocritical foreign policy…
…I hope the al Cracker inbred Bush worshipping TRAITORS understand that the soldiers dying in Iraq…
…are NOT defending America…
…they’re defending CORPORATE America…
… God is going to piss on their (Bush supporters’) heads…
…only it won’t be with the riches they envision garnering from their support of their wealthy, avaricious, corporate elitist gods…
…their Karma demands it…
November 19th, 2006 at 10:42 amrobert. you make a good point. I think the founders believed in states rights. I probably does make sense to give more power to the state and less to the federal government.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:44 ambig papa, I though tis was about McCain and abortion, not Bush and the war?
November 19th, 2006 at 10:46 am#17. you are right. W pimped the religious right and now McCain is too. But you have to admit, it’s like the left was pimped about the war prior to this last election.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:46 amSome suggested Guiliani is the answer…Guiliani will be nothing but an Israeli puppet. I can’t imagine Guiliani says ‘no’ to Israel, or listen fairly to an Arab or Moslem point of view Vs. Israeli view without being biased. Guiliani is also unknown in the South. It will be very hard for him to win any state in the south. He might win New York,but that is not enough for him..Good luck Guiliani
November 19th, 2006 at 10:48 amKeep it up John. The further you ram your head up the rear ends of the most vile right wing hate and war mongers, the more you insure you haven’t a snowball’s chance in Hades of being nominated for, much less being elected, President.
Any credibility you once had has been not merely tarnished, but blown away like the smoke it was. If you sucked up any harder to the absolutely most despicable, hate and fantasy filled elements of the right wing, your head would implode.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:49 amHow very right wing “Christian.†How very George W. Bush.
Comment by Superskepticalman — November 19, 2006 @ 10:32 am
Christianity has evolved into a cult for these people.
No where in the Bible does it condemn abortion. No where. It even says that life begins at breath - which is birth.
The need for these holier-than-thou hypocrites to control other people is sadistic and demented - at best.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:50 amI am sure he will also soon blast the Supreme Court decision on Gore vs. Bush that gave Bush the presidency, because of his deep committment to Federalism.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:52 am#31, Paul, you are correct, sir. Anyone that think that these people in DC are standing on any moral high-ground in sadly mistaken. Each is there to further their own interests. If yo uask me, they all whore to the highest bidder.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:53 amBringing a fetus to term in the past has killed women…
If doctors cannot say with 100% certainty that bringing a fetus to term will not kill you…
If a you feel that bringing the fetus to term will kill you…
What gives anyone else the RIGHT to force you to do something that you feel will kill you?
No “critical thinking” person believes government has that RIGHT!
What happens when some doctor says brining the fetus to term will not kill you, but you have a gut feeling it will?
Can you not be more in tune with your own body than what can be detected by medical instruments and the doctor’s interpertation of that data?
What happen when the government forces you to bring the fetus to term and you die?
Are not the government and the people who voted for the law, guilty of having murdered you?
Who should pay for your murder and how should they pay for it?
Will a law against abortion, actually stop abortions, or will SAFE abortions be only available to the RICH, while the POOR will go to a back alley with a hangar, just like pre Roe Vs Wade?
Will all the people who voted against abortions, now start adopting every baby from a womwn who did not want to have it?
Will all the people who voted against abortions, now start paying for the mecical care and living expenses for the mothers who are poor and cannot afford to be off from work, and who have no health insurance?
Can you not see that just like with alcohol prohibition, the effects from having the ban cause more harm than not having the ban?
Why should men be allowed to vote on this subject at all?
November 19th, 2006 at 10:54 amGay marriage should be a Federal issue as it has implications (legal and financial) in all 50 States.
But because you do not consider gay people as human as straight people, you don’t think they deserve equality in those legal and financial implications?
People like you used tothink black people were 2/3s of a person as well. Or do you give gays that much credit?
As for abortion, I think that should be a state issue. If your state is a “No Abortion†state then you can always cross state lines. Therefore it has no hard national implications.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 10:38 am
South Dakota just verified that peope want abortion to be legal - to keep it safe.
Go read up on back alley abortions and see how banning abortion does nothing to prevent it - and winds up costing more lives in the long run.
Also, for someone who cares about financial implications - it costs the tax payers far more money in the long run to force women to have children they do not want. Even if you don’t like it, it’s a fact.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:54 amGuiliani will not win in New York, we know him too well.
As for the rest of the country, right wingers will find him to be far to liberal.
That is why mccain is tracking further to the right, show he is more like “them” that Guiliani is.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:54 amMcCain is deploying the famous Nixon strategy to win the White House. Run to the right in the primary to get the nomination and move to the center to win the general election. McCain: Its the 2!st CENTURY, you moron.
McCain is embracing the Karl Rove strategy. It will be interesting if his campaign directors resort to the sleezy Rove tactics that were used against him in South Carollina.
The corporate media has sold a bag of goods to the Ameican people and it is this: That John McCain is some kind of moderate independent maverick. He’s NEVER been one.
If the Democrats would run a Edwards/Obama ticket in 2008, there will no longer be an evenly split electorate down the middle. This ticket would win in an electoral landslide no matter who the Republicans run and I HOPE it is McCain too.
The polls that show McCain as the front runner two years away are irrelevant. I remember in April of 1992, Clinton ran 3rd behind Perot and Bush. Polls 2 years out are meaningless.
Let Hillary Clinton become Majority Leader of the Senate in 2008 and run Edwards/Obama. This is the ticket for success.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:54 amWC said:
It’s okay to flip-flop if you’re a Republican…and it’s doubly okay to flip-flop if you’re Saint John McCain.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:56 amMudge, #35, But if the Supreme Court have given the win to Gore, that would have been just fine?
November 19th, 2006 at 10:56 am“As for abortion, I think that should be a state issue. If your state is a “No Abortion†state then you can always cross state lines. Therefore it has no hard national implications”
Robert,
You obviously are not following this issue as well as you might or you would know states are starting to criminalize the act of taking a woman across state lines to avoid their draconian abortion laws. These states (state A) are passing laws to make the medical provider who performs the services legally (in state B) and anyone assisting the patient get across state lines to the medical provider (from state A to state B)guilty of a felony (and subject to the jurisdiction of state A). Thus, your comment is somewhat incorrect as a hodge podge of laws will ultimately prevent women from crossing state lines as well. This is a national issue and I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice Kansas, Florida or any other state to the will of the theocrats of the Flat Earth Society.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:57 amWhy should men be allowed to vote on this subject at all?
Comment by criticalthinker — November 19, 2006 @ 10:54 am
I have no problems with men who consider women their equals to have input. It’s the ones who think women are possessions with asses and oxen - that only care about their seed being sown and not about the rights or health of women who don’t deserve a say…
November 19th, 2006 at 10:59 amWC said:
Once again, no follow-up by the “liberal†media.
Where’s the “Yes, but in 1999…â€
It’s okay to flip-flop if you’re a Republican…and it’s double-plus okay to flip-flop if you’re Saint John McCain.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:59 amBut if the Supreme Court have given the win to Gore, that would have been just fine?
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 10:56 am
No. You don’t get it. It wasn’t an either or situation. We want the votes ofteh people tohave decided. Not judges or election officials or electorates for that matter either…
November 19th, 2006 at 11:01 amBut because you do not consider gay people as human as straight people, you don’t think they deserve equality in those legal and financial implications?
My, you like to put words in my mouth. I never said they were not equal. If THE PEOPLE, not the courts decide that gay marriage should be legal, than so be it.
South Dakota just verified that peope want abortion to be legal - to keep it safe.
Go read up on back alley abortions and see how banning abortion does nothing to prevent it - and winds up costing more lives in the long run.
Also, for someone who cares about financial implications - it costs the tax payers far more money in the long run to force women to have children they do not want. Even if you don’t like it, it’s a fact.
Again, the people of that state say to keep it legal, then so be it. saout Dakota is a pro-choice state. If the people in North Dakota say to ban it, do they not have that right in their state of residence?
November 19th, 2006 at 11:02 amTas, #43m thanks for sheading some light in my dark little closet. Food for thought indead.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:03 amThis is a national issue and I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice Kansas, Florida or any other state to the will of the theocrats of the Flat Earth Society.
Comment by Tas — November 19, 2006 @ 10:57 am
Personally, I tend to prefer smaller federal government and larger local government. However, I think you’re right that, in this case, the Federal government needs to prevent local governments from usurping people’s rights.
And the fact that is it women’s rights and a right that affects both genders says a lot…
November 19th, 2006 at 11:04 amunbelievable, #46, on this we agree (surprize), but until we do away with the electoral college and all the others you named that will not happen. I would be perfectly happy if “One Vote, One Voice” really ment that an if this were a true democracy and not a democratic republic.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:08 amwhat a surprise…I wonder how people have him in their pocket?
November 19th, 2006 at 11:08 amPersonally, I tend to prefer smaller federal government and larger local government
Comment by unbelievable
That is twice I think we agree.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:10 amMy body = My responsibility
My body = My decision
You guys hear that? It’s. My. Body.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:10 am“Screw Presidents.
Let’s Try a High Priestess for a Whileâ€
I nominate Zooey.
Comment by trueblue
I second that nomination trueblue…Blessings
Comment by Sharon Cox
Oy. I don’t know if I should thank you, or ask if I’ve pissed you off.
Heh. You two are sweeties, that’s for sure.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:13 amMy, you like to put words in my mouth.
Nope. You implied it. I just pointed it out to you.
By saying that we shouldn’t allow gay people to marry due tothe implications of it means that they are not entitled. If they aren’t entitled, it is because you do not consider them as worthy as you do straight people. It’s what you said.
I never said they were not equal. If THE PEOPLE, not the courts decide that gay marriage should be legal, than so be it.
That’s not what you initially said. You’re not very good at owning what you say - or thinking it through. That’s what happens when you just acept someting in blind faith without thinking it through.
Again, the people of that state say to keep it legal, then so be it. saout Dakota is a pro-choice state. If the people in North Dakota say to ban it, do they not have that right in their state of residence?
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:02 am
Not when it denies someone their rights. Thomas Jefferson said that a democracy was where 51% of the population has the right to take away the rights of the other 49%. Hence, we live in a Republic.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:15 amThe media lets these repubs weathervane it but holds an electron microscope over every progressive
November 19th, 2006 at 11:16 amWhen the religious right were in full thrust last two presidential elections..McCain wanted to look liberal…he lost. Now McCain thought he learned his lessons..went to kiss J.Falwells #ss…but now the religious rights are in decline…and the last Congressional elections proved it…now McCain got himself trapped between the claim of being liberal few years ago, and the new ‘religious wannabee’ McCain . Good luck
November 19th, 2006 at 11:18 amBy saying that we shouldn’t allow gay people to marry due tothe implications of it means that they are not entitled. If they aren’t entitled, it is because you do not consider them as worthy as you do straight people. It’s what you said.
You misunderstand. I did not say they should not marry because of the implications. I said it should be a federal issue because of the implications.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:18 amNot when it denies someone their rights. Thomas Jefferson said that a democracy was where 51% of the population has the right to take away the rights of the other 49%. Hence, we live in a Republic.
So if 99% of the people agree, we can not make a change because of the 1% that doesn’t? These are just easy numbers I am spouting, I am not claiming them to be true. I am using them to illustrate a point.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:20 amI would be perfectly happy if “One Vote, One Voice†really ment that an if this were a true democracy and not a democratic republic.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:08 am
I have reservations about that also.
It’s only IF the public is educated. And we once were the most education nation in the world. But, no longer. We now rank 7th. Canada is 1st. And Canada is quite liberal with social issues…
I left Corporate America two years ago to become a high school teacher. I can tell you that the system is broken. And that NCLB and private school vouchers are NOT the answer.
I do not want a Democracy of ignorant people.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:20 amMcCain is a guaranteed win for the Democratic Party in 2008. McCain is a flip flopper on every issue including the fact that he kissed up to Dubya after a thorough ass raping in 1999. Not enough balls to be President. Kissing up to the hypcritical Reichwingnuts is not going to help.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:22 amYou guys hear that? It’s. My. Body.
Comment by Zooey — November 19, 2006 @ 11:10 am
I second that.
No one will force me to have a child that I do not want. Period.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:22 am#60, We agree again. But people also have a DUTY to educate themselves. Government education has proven to be a joke. You know that by your occupation. I do not fault you, so please do not take it a a personal attack. Our system is broken.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:24 amrobert #30
…”thinking” is definitely NOT your strong suit…
…when people like YOU “think”…
…people die, and/or get snookered…
…the “war” (as you call it) and Bush are much more important than…
…a flip-flopping political whore…
November 19th, 2006 at 11:24 am[…] We might wanna start by connecting it to another of the most important fights over the next few years: protecting reproductive freedoms. This morning, McCain performed a complete flip-flop on Roe V Wade. He’s now calling for it to be overturned and admitted he expects it to happen. […]
November 19th, 2006 at 11:25 am“Mumbles” McCain is such a liar…when he said he would “commit suicide” if Democrats win the Senate…and now I see him on Meet the Press this morning. Very disappointed in him.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:29 am#64, so, because I do not think the same as you, I am wrong? Try sticking to the issue at hand. If you want to discuss Iraq or Bush, there is anothe r blog for that.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:29 ami commented yesterday on another weblog that i believe mccain is slowly but surely marginalizing himself, and will soon cease to be a potent factor in today’s important issues, much less a viable 2008 presidential candidate…
mccain is working hard to position himself as the heir apparent to the fundamentalist christian base, but he’s discounting two important things… a big one is that the leaders of that base are being exposed as power and money-hungry hypocrites, willing to sell their flocks to the highest bidder, and the flocks are no longer going to follow these so-called “shepherds” quite so willingly… the second thing, also big, is that the individual members of the churches and religious groups are awakening to the fact that the republicans have shamelessly used and manipulated them to further a decidedly un-christian agenda…
you go right ahead, john, and keep sucking up to that base… just don’t be surprised to find that it’s built on sand…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
November 19th, 2006 at 11:30 amYou misunderstand. I did not say they should not marry because of the implications. I said it should be a federal issue because of the implications.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:18 am
I know what you said. I didn’t misunderstand. You just didn’t consider the ramifications of your statement. I pointed them out to you so now you can consider them.
So if 99% of the people agree, we can not make a change because of the 1% that doesn’t? These are just easy numbers I am spouting, I am not claiming them to be true. I am using them to illustrate a point.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:20 am
The absolutism through which you view the world is not rational. Your point is not realistic and your example is not logically valid - because no one said it should be all or nothing. The founding fathers intention was not that at all. Because they understood that people might not make educated choices, there needed to be an opportunity for another body of people to be a balance to potential mob rule… Much likethe checks and balances we have at the top. If they didn’t trust the President to always make wise decisions, how could they trust others? They didn’t. Hence, a Democratic Republic.
I think the people should vote for the President now, because we live in a world of instant information and no longer have to worry that someone voting may not know where the candidates stand on the issues. And, in generally, most people who vote try to be educated about it.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:32 amOnce again an old rich white guy is deciding that the HEALTH of women doesn’t matter and isn’t even worth addressing. Shameful.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:35 amI agree with 50% of what you said in #20. Gay marriage should be a Federal issue as it has implications (legal and financial) in all 50 States.
Where does this say that gays should not be allowed to marry because of financial or legal implications?
It says that the federal government should decide on gay marriage in order to have it recognized in all 50 states. Otherwise Texas does not have to recognize Utah and allow the same benifits it would to a hetro couple.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:40 amBut people also have a DUTY to educate themselves.
Robert, clearlyyou hav no idea what it is like to be anything but a white heterosexual male both to people who wanted and loved him enough to provide him the home environment that allows him to move about Maslow’s first level of human needs.
Not everyone is like you or had the same good fortune.
Government education has proven to be a joke.
It’s not a joke, it’s just not in touch with reality because so many people who are running the system are not in touch with reality themselves. And, well, the general public elects the BOE. I think teachers should have a much bigger say… After all they are the people who are educated on the system and know where and why it is broken. In Georgia, we are not even allowed to have unions…
You know that by your occupation. I do not fault you, so please do not take it a a personal attack. Our system is broken.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:24 am
I don’t take it personally. I just joined - mostly because it was broken and I wanted to see if I could help.
And mostly what is broken in middle and high schools is that we treat teenagers like 5 year olds. Seriously.
I work for a brand new public Charter school. We have given our students a lot more responsibility and respect than they get otherwise. We run our programs like a business would run. And you know what? It’s working. They are staying in school, doing better in their core classes, and working toward their futures.
It’s actually about controlling them less, allowing them in the comfort of the classroom to make mistakes (it’s how we learn), and giving them hands on experiences. It works. I see it because I live it.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:43 amComment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:02 am
Looks like Robert drew the short straw for today.
So, Robert, let’s project your philosophy forward a few years. People of Hispanic descent have become a slight majority in the United States, and, using their majority status, pass a law preventing white people from getting married, thus ensuring that the white race will gradually decline and that Hispanics will continue to grow in majority status.
The People will have spoken. The People will have passed an unconstitutional law. And, according to you, there should be no recourse to the courts.
Without the courts, minorities will cease to have rights. Constitutional protections will become meaningless. When minorities can no longer count on the rule of law to protect their rights, the usual recourse is violence.
Your attitude, Robert, is why people resort to terrorism as a tactic to achieve political change. As long as there are people such as yourself, there will be a “war on terror” because you create the very monster you portend to fight.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:43 amIf THE PEOPLE, not the courts decide that gay marriage should be legal, than so be it.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:02 am
Hey numbskull - what you are describing is mob rule… the reason we have courts in the first place is to make sure that the rights and liberties of those not in the majority are protected.
If you made law by taking a vote at a local level (state or county), you would end up with many laws that would fly in the face of the individual rights provided by our national constitution… slavery would be legal in many states, homosexuality and abortion illegal, and some states or counties might even decide that members of one political party or another can be imprisoned simply for opposing the majority party.
What you are suggesting is no less than the destruction of our free and democratic nation… why Robert do you hate America?
November 19th, 2006 at 11:46 am[…] Who you gonna believe, your lying eyes and ears, or the TV? Usually, it’s the TV. Watch for yourself at Think Progress. […]
November 19th, 2006 at 11:48 amWOW, giving power to the people is a scary thing, ain’t it. But I though that was what you all want.
Using the ETHNIC angle is a different tactic. To bad we are talking about LIFESTYLES not RACES. Last I checked there was no nation of Homolia.
unbelievable-
If you must really know my background, I am white and was raised most of my life by a divorced mother of 5. Myself and my brother and sisters spent about 4 years in foster care because my mother was working two jobs and still not able to take care of us. this was in the early 70s when there were not as many programs to help as there are now.
And government education is a joke because too much money is going to the fat-cat administrators and not to the teachers. Schools do not have enough text books for the students, and not enough computers. You are right, teachers do not have enough say, but at the same time, some teachers abuse that right by spouting their own political ideas and agendias (from both sides, mind you).
November 19th, 2006 at 11:54 amSurprise, surprise,…not! No Republican can become president without wooing the religious right, and McCain knows that just as Bush knew it.
We warned about this before the 2004 elections. This can only get worse. Bush, McCain, and the entire group of lemmings in the GOP have waged an assault on women, here and worldwide, that will reverberate for decades.
Title of this article, which seems to be blocked by an ad (ignore it)…is George Bush’s Assault on Women. Scary stuff.
HERE
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/assault_on_women.html
November 19th, 2006 at 11:55 amWhere does this say that gays should not be allowed to marry because of financial or legal implications?
Let’s try this again…
You said that the Federal Governemt should decide because of financial and legal implications… meaning that you think they should decide the issue based on money and legalities. That’s not how they judge straight marriage.
Therefore, holding gay marriage to a different, more stringent standard means that gays are not give equal status to straights. You’re playing a double standard that makes one group of people unequal to another. And in inequality - there is one who is ‘lesser’ to the other.
Get it yet?
It says that the federal government should decide on gay marriage in order to have it recognized in all 50 states. Otherwise Texas does not have to recognize Utah and allow the same benifits it would to a hetro couple.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:40 am
If that’s truly what you mean, then that is what you should say. Otherwise, you givethe impression that money and legalities are a reason for denying gay marriage.
Robert, I think you’re one of those people who is on the verge of seeing the world that exists rather than the one that you were told should exist. I used to be like you. Came from a conservative Reublican military Christian family. One day, it started to unravel, and the more of reality I discovered, the more it began to fall apart for me until I eventually found something much better.
I would suggest you get out in the world and meet people who are different from you… I met a homeless man, a Catholic man from Belfast who had been tortured by the British military even though he had no connections to the IRA, and many others like them who had lived lives far different from mine. It was a better education than the 6 years I went to college combined.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:56 amYour attitude, Robert, is why people resort to terrorism as a tactic to achieve political change. As long as there are people such as yourself, there will be a “war on terror†because you create the very monster you portend to fight.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — November 19, 2006 @ 11:43 am
Did I see that you passed the bar? Not surprised : )Congrats!
November 19th, 2006 at 11:59 amG.W.SuperChrist
A governmet for the people and by the people is not a hatred of a country I love dearly.
I do not think that we should allow 9 people in DC to decide what is right for all of us.
What is wrong with protecting the rights of the minority within the laws of the majority?
What if the courts decide gay marriage should be Illegal?
You can not have it both ways. You can not say that the court has to vote this way because the people want it.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:00 pmI’m looking forward to seeing Wes Clark obliterate McCain the phoney in 2008
November 19th, 2006 at 12:02 pmWOW, giving power to the people is a scary thing, ain’t it. But I though that was what you all want.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:54 am
You are not suggesting giving “power to the people”… what you have suggested is that some people should be given the power to render other people powerless… simple majorities should be given all the power, while everyone else should have none.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:05 pmUsing the ETHNIC angle is a different tactic. To bad we are talking about LIFESTYLES not RACES. Last I checked there was no nation of Homolia.
Comment by robert
That’s a very revealing statement, Robert. Try taking the word “lifestyle” out of the equation, and inserting the word “human.” It’s none of our business who people sleep with, as long as they are consenting adults. We are all human, and should treat one another as such.
The ethnic angle Briseadh na Faire used was not the main point. The main point is that we have the courts to protect those who may not be able to protect themselves. It’s a constitutional protection.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:07 pm#78,
I think now you understand my point. You and I seem to cone from different ends of the spectrum. I was raised in a very liberal-democrat family, that was military like yours. And after being out in the world, I came to the views I have.
It says that the federal government should decide on gay marriage in order to have it recognized in all 50 states. Otherwise Texas does not have to recognize Utah and allow the same benifits it would to a hetro couple.
Comment by robert
I assumed this would be understood by my original post. It is an issue of making sure that they are afforded the SAME, not less, not more, rights under the law.
The world I was told should exist is one where everyone is equal and tollerance is valued. All people are valid and everyones voice counts. I have experianced that not to be true. And both side are to blame.
I take part and offer myself for sacrifice in forums like this in order to understand the other side. I do not want to be just talking points and no understanding.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:10 pmIf I ever saw this hack on the campaign trail I would spit at his feet and turn my back to him. What a piece of Sh!t.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:10 pmIf you must really know my background, I am white and was raised most of my life by a divorced mother of 5. .
How many friends do you have who are not white? Not straight? Not Christian? Not like you?
And government education is a joke because too much money is going to the fat-cat administrators and not to the teachers.
I’d rather the money go to the kids.
Schools do not have enough text books for the students, and not enough computers.
I don’t use textbooks. In my field, they are obsolete by the time they are printed. And we onlyare allowed to get new ones once every seven years.
Computers - we do need more of those. But as tools for learning…
You are right, teachers do not have enough say, but at the same time, some teachers abuse that right by spouting their own political ideas and agendias (from both sides, mind you).
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:54 am
I am so sick of that line. It’s simply NOT true. Just like the few teachers who are pedophiles do not mean that most of us are sleeping with our students…
The reality is that children look to their parents as role models… Unless their parents aren’t there (another huge issue we have in our society), and then they seek others - who are usually those that we’ve culturally taught them to value - Hollywood and sports stars.
The fact that I am a liberal Atheist vegan has zero impact upon my students or what they believe. It’s their parents who have that impact.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:11 pmZooey, so the people have no say an dthe courts decide it all? Then why haev a vote?
November 19th, 2006 at 12:12 pmRobert, I know your comment was directed to GWSC, but here’s my take:
A governmet for the people and by the people is not a hatred of a country I love dearly.
We have common ground in dearly loving this country.
I do not think that we should allow 9 people in DC to decide what is right for all of us.
The Supreme Court is part of the checks and balances set up by our Constitution. Kick that leg off the stool, and our whole system collapses.
What is wrong with protecting the rights of the minority within the laws of the majority?
Tell that to the minorities in this country before the civil rights movement.
What if the courts decide gay marriage should be Illegal?
They certainly could decide that. There remains the right of appeal.
You can not have it both ways. You can not say that the court has to vote this way because the people want it.
Comment by robert
You’re right, Robert, but you can’t say that either.
Peace.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:16 pmZooey, so the people have no say an dthe courts decide it all? Then why haev a vote?
Comment by robert
The people have the right of appeal.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:17 pmThe world I was told should exist is one where everyone is equal and tollerance is valued.
I think it’s more complicated than that, but I need to get going…
All people are valid and everyones voice counts. I have experianced that not to be true. And both side are to blame.
I’ll agree with that. I just think the Right is more to blame than the left.
I take part and offer myself for sacrifice in forums like this in order to understand the other side. I do not want to be just talking points and no understanding.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
Until you value yourself and your opinions, no one else will either. Calling yourself a sacrifice is self-degrading. Stop it. You have a right to your views. Just don’t expect us to respect them if you don’t…
I have to run… But I am sure I’ll run into you later.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:17 pm[…] Think Progress reports that in 1999 he was adamantly opposed to reversing Roe vs. Wade: I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations. […]
November 19th, 2006 at 12:18 pmhttp://www.catalyst-chicago.org/ news/ index.php?item=2083&cat=24&tr=y&auid=2163085
“An estimated 1 in 10 children nationwide has a parent in the criminal justice system. In Chicago, schools have no way to identify such children—and few resources to support them.”
November 19th, 2006 at 12:18 pm#86, I never said most teachers do this, just a few.
My best friend, Edward Buggs is black. He and his wife were there for the birth of 2 of my 3 children. He is not my only black friend.
Or Eric Gonzalez, another good friend and democrat.
A long time friend of mine, Heath Lovett, is Jewish. Paul is athiest libritarian.
Sorry, we all like meat. Nothing agains vegans, just dont have any friends.
Because of my vocation, I do not see a lot of openly gay people. One I can point out is Dawn Conrad. She decided to out herself while we were stationed together and they spent 2 weeks trying to prove she was not a lesbian. Her and I drank many a beer together.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:21 pmWhat is wrong with protecting the rights of the minority within the laws of the majority?
Tell that to the minorities in this country before the civil rights movement.
During the civil rights movement their right were not being protected.
I do not think that we should allow 9 people in DC to decide what is right for all of us.
The Supreme Court is part of the checks and balances set up by our Constitution. Kick that leg off the stool, and our whole system collapses.
You are right, 100%. It can not be the ONLY leg in the stool is my point.
You can not have it both ways. You can not say that the court has to vote this way because the people want it.
Comment by robert
You’re right, Robert, but you can’t say that either.
I wouldn’t want it that way.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:26 pmRobert,
Please be careful revealing your friends’ names online.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:28 pmI do not think that we should allow 9 people in DC to decide what is right for all of us. What is wrong with protecting the rights of the minority within the laws of the majority? What if the courts decide gay marriage should be Illegal? You can not have it both ways. You can not say that the court has to vote this way because the people want it.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
I don’t think you understand how this whole law thing works… judges do not get to willy nilly decide cases based on their temperaments that day… they are bound to uphold the constitution.
The constitution does not allow some citizens to take away the right of other citizens to form social contracts (marriage). The courts will not decide that gay marriage is illegal because the constitution forbids them from arriving at this conclusion. Public opinion is irrelevant.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:28 pmWhosoever supports false christians does not get my vote. What happened to the Senator’s backbone. He used to have one. I guess he lost it carrying all that water for the Bushies.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:28 pm#90I take part and offer myself for sacrifice in forums like this in order to understand the other side. I do not want to be just talking points and no understanding.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
Until you value yourself and your opinions, no one else will either. Calling yourself a sacrifice is self-degrading. Stop it. You have a right to your views. Just don’t expect us to respect them if you don’t…
I do value my opinion. I just realize they are unpopular in this forum. It seems that many will launch a personal attack because I differ. Doesn’t that counter what this is all about?
November 19th, 2006 at 12:29 pmMcCain could not possibly violate his own convictions because he has note. He is the definition of situational ethics.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:32 pmRobert,
You are right, 100%. It can not be the ONLY leg in the stool is my point.
The point is that this administration has made the Executive the strongest leg of the stool, and is actively trying to kick out the Judicial leg, and to a certain extent the Legislative leg.
Very dangerous! The system only works the way it was supposed to if there is balance. The balance is gone, and our country is wobbling dangerously.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:33 pmJohn McCain is far too old to be Prez. He needs to put this idea of running, out of his mind. He’s losing it, slipping, failing! The critical signs of senility are showing. He hasn’t been on his game in a few years now. We are finally going to get rid of our “retarded, incompetent, and criminal” Prez, and God knows we don’t need another one to set us back another century! McCain, get a hobby, and go away!
November 19th, 2006 at 12:35 pmI do value my opinion. I just realize they are unpopular in this forum. It seems that many will launch a personal attack because I differ. Doesn’t that counter what this is all about?
Comment by robert
Robert, you and I do not agree on many things, but if I have attacked you personally, it was not my intention. Please accept my apologies.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:35 pm#95,
I have to use facts because otherwise I am called a liar. You should know that by now. Look at Wayne from last night.
You do, however seem to be the lone exception.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:36 pmYou’re right, Robert, but you can’t say that either.
I wouldn’t want it that way.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
Robert agrees with Robert… hmmmmm.
Robert - did you forget to switch your name over to Paul before agreeing with yourself again?
November 19th, 2006 at 12:36 pmYou’re right, Robert, but you can’t say that either
This was a quote from Zooey that I was agreeing with.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:37 pmBush was visiting Vietnam to get the secret Manchurian Candidate codes that he must punch in to the control panel on back of McCains’ neck so that McCain can enact the Red Chinese takeover strategy.
When you see McCain playing solitaire, head for the hills.
-GSD
November 19th, 2006 at 12:39 pm#104, please refer to post #88
November 19th, 2006 at 12:40 pm[…] Think Progress has the relevant portion of the transcript, which I am copying here in full: […]
November 19th, 2006 at 12:42 pm#104 G.W, I think you can call that a ‘Gottcha moment”..LOL…Blessings
November 19th, 2006 at 12:47 pmBefore Roe vs. Wade, women were denied a medical treatment to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
I was one of them. I had to go to Mexico City, be taken to a secret location to have a procedure that I determined was the best for me.
At least half of the other women there were married and didn’t want more children for economic reasons, or that they were not in good relationships with the father, or they had plans to attend school or other career aspirations and having more children was not right for them.
I was 19 years old.
Fortunately, my procedure was performed safely and without harm to my body. Others have not been so fortunate.
The procedure was done in what you would recognize as an out-patient surgery center. That is the facility in which this procedure needs to be performed to assure safety to the woman.
This center did not perform abortions on women whose pregnancy was more than 6 weeks.
My procedure clearly was not covered by my medical insurance. It was lots of cash upfront, no guarantees. I didn’t even know the name of the doctor or where I was in Mexico City.
Why tell you this story, because no one talks about what it is like to have an illegal abortion when they talk about the moral issue side of this procedure.
Abortion is a medical procedure that has consequence, involves accessing the inside of a woman’s body, and carries health risks.
Only the woman can decide if this pregnancy is right for her. Yes, better to have used contraceptives to avoid the pregnancy, but in the absence of that what is the moral issue here?
November 19th, 2006 at 12:48 pm#104 G.W, I think you can call that a ‘Gottcha momentâ€..LOL…Blessings
Comment by Sharon Cox
No Sharon, Robert was responding to me. The italics got messed up. Robert is not a troll!
When are you sending me some snow?
November 19th, 2006 at 12:51 pmNancy K, thank you for sharing.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:51 pm#109, please refer to # 88 where I was responding to someone else before patting yourself too hard. FACT CHECK TIME
November 19th, 2006 at 12:53 pmThank you for sharing your story, Nancy K. I’m glad you came through it safely.
If anyone doubts the necessity of safe and legal abortion, just Google the words “abortion wards.” You will find the true horror of desperation there.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:54 pmI was for reproductive rights before I was against them.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:03 pmI have to use facts because otherwise I am called a liar. You should know that by now. Look at Wayne from last night.
I’m concerned because a truly prsistent sicko could possibly find these people — you’ve posted your email and website information.
You do, however seem to be the lone exception.
Comment by robert
Thank you. I don’t call people liars, and don’t generally attack people. Well, I will attack Exley, but he’s such a prick it brings out the worst in me.
I hope you continue to comment on Think Progress.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:03 pmFor arguments sake lets say that abortion was repealed.
[which I think is a womans choice]
How many orphans would that create a year?
How many adoptions are there in a year?
Who would suport all these orphans?
Would you want to be raised as an orphan?
November 19th, 2006 at 1:03 pmThat credibility gap is growing larger every time he speaks. How can he possibly be trusted to keep his word on anything he may promise voters?
November 19th, 2006 at 1:04 pmjohn mcCAVE… once again, caving in…
November 19th, 2006 at 1:06 pm.
Sorry Robert… the reference within a reference within a reference confused me.
You are not a self aggrandizing schizophrenic… but you are still wrong in just about everything you say.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:07 pmThat credibility gap is growing larger every time he speaks. How can he possibly be trusted to keep his word on anything he may promise voters?
Comment by Marie
I’m certain it has never occurred to McCain.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:10 pm#8, Sharon,
November 19th, 2006 at 1:11 pmAs our eloquent and articulate president moron said this week, “History has a long march to it.”
Throughout history, fat, rich, white guys have been running things with poor results. I agree that we should try a government with as many fresh faces with fresh ideas and new approaches as possible - I don’t see that it could get much worse than what we have endured in recent history.
McCain is from the old guard, and his pandering and politicking of today is so transparent that most voters will see through it. Note, I said “most” because we always have to allow for the willfully ignorant.
When are the media going to get their tongues out of John McCain’s ass?
November 19th, 2006 at 1:13 pm#25 KCinDC
November 19th, 2006 at 1:14 pmExcellent point - your ears are quick to pick up the contradiction, that slipped past some of us.
#116, Zooey, thanks for the concern. The e-mail address I posted is for that site and basically a dumping ground.
#120, Thanks for checking that and the retraction. It is very much appreciated, even if you do think I am wrong.
that is the beauty of the U.S., Differing views working in harmony (kind of)
November 19th, 2006 at 1:19 pmMcCain flip flops on everything, so call him Flipper the name of a dolphin > lol.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:20 pm[…] Pimping for the religious right is so over, Senator. […]
November 19th, 2006 at 1:44 pmAnd you wanna run for WHAT, Mc Cain? For the sake of your country, seek professional counseling immediately…
This is the freak willing (just like his own abusive father) sacrifice his own son for his own political gain, by enlisting him in the military.
Good for you McCain-all that proves is you don’t value anyones life-unless they aren’t born yet!
November 19th, 2006 at 1:53 pmSuch is the vote of a lynch mob.
Using the ETHNIC angle is a different tactic. To bad we are talking about LIFESTYLES not RACES.
Comment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 11:54 am
We’re talking about the principle of majority rule without regard to the rights of the minority. This principle applies whether the underlying issue is “lifestyle” or “ethnicity” or “religion.” Even giving “power to the people” must have its system of checks and balances, otherwise a majority will always have ablsolute power over the minority. Thus we have a Constitution, guaranteeing certain rights to ALL people, and providing for a judicial system to uphold those rights.
Then you would overturn the principle of judicial review. Congress could then change the Constitution merely by passing laws that would otherwise be unconstitutiona.
It doesn’t work. If it did, the Supreme Court would never have stricken any law as unconstitutional.
The courts do not decide whether or not gay marriage should be legal or illegal. All the courts can decide is whether or not a law is Constitutional or unconstitutional. A law banning gay marriage is discriminatory on its face. What is the government’s interest in discriminating against one group of people, simply based on their gender? How does banning gay marriage further the government’s interests? When some religions recognize gay marriage and others don’t what government purpose elevates the marriage status from some religions while refusing to do so from others?
November 19th, 2006 at 1:58 pm79 -
Comment by unbelievable — November 19, 2006 @ 11:59 am
Yes, I did, and thank you. Woo Hoo!
:-D
November 19th, 2006 at 2:01 pmonce again, McCain proves that republicans love to pander, to whomever can give the votes, no matter how bad their policies are for real Americans.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:04 pmComment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
It’s not that your opinions are unpopular, it’s that they are uninformed. You demonstrate a superficial knowledge of human nature, our political and governmental system, U.S. history, natural law and Constitutional law. If you’re here to learn, welcome. Hopefully you are open minded enough to read, research and re-think your opinions. Many of us have had our opinions changed over time, as new knowledge challenges old assumptions.
I encourage you to give some reflective thought and do some serious reading. Follow the links provided by the various posters. Be willing to abandon long-held dogma. If you can do this, it will be interesting to watch you grow over the next few months.
Peace and Blessings.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:09 pmBriseadh na Faire, #129, I haev not said to make it one way or the other. I said to make it a federal issue, not state as it has federal implications.
I am not a lawyer and I do not take Constitutional Law until next year, but I do not remember the Constitution saying either way.
If a ban is passed and the Court can PROVE that is is un-constitutional then they can override or”veto” it. But the court should base that on the facts, and the constitution, not party lines and the wishes of the people that appointed them.
I m a firm believer in judicial review. But they can not be the ONLY say. They do not have ultimate authority. That is why we have 3 branches of government. Checks and balances.
You want to use my 99%-1% arguement against me then reverse the numbers. If 99% of people think that gay marriage should be allowed and 1% disagree, what should we do?
November 19th, 2006 at 2:18 pmComment by Nancy K. — November 19, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
The moral issue is that some people have decided that a fertilized egg has a soul. As such, destroying that fertilized egg is tantamount to murder.
The challenge is, that determination is based on belief, not scientific fact. Fact: all the DNA is present to create a human being, however sometimes the process malfunctions and a human being is not created.
Unfortunately, the people who believe a life is created at conception wish to codify that belief into law and criminalize the activities of those who do not share their belief.
The Supreme Court has set the line at viability and created a balancing test between the needs of the mother and the needs of the potential human being. The needs of the mother are given greater weight prior to viability, the needs of the potential human being are given greater weight after viability.
My concern is that we are talking about federal and/or state laws dictating medical decisions between a doctor and a patient. All one has to do is recall the Frist diagnosis of Terry Schiavo to grasp the folly of Congress’s forrays into medical decision-making.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:21 pm[…] That was then. And now? Go see. […]
November 19th, 2006 at 2:21 pmZooey and unbelievable. I know you believe that the pregnancy is happening in your body and so it is your right to abort it. But let me ask you this. Suppose we decide to get together to talk politics. After a few glasses of wine, the two of you talk me into a threesome and the result is that both of you become pregnant. Although the pregnancies are in your bodies, the infants would have my genes. As the father, do I have no rights? The idea that it is only your decision, with no consideration for the unborn fetus or the father is a little simplistic.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:21 pmBriseadh na Faire #132,
I am here to learn what the other side thinks. I think I have mentioned that before.
I have never said that my way of thinking is the one that should be followed and everyone else wrong. But if you disagree with anyone here you are called everything from uninformed to a racist, biggot, murder. for many here, a free honest exchange of ideas is not welcome. They just want to pat each other on the back.
You are right that Knowledge can change long held opinions. But first, people need to be willing to accept that knowledge regardless of the source.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:24 pmpaul,
The idea that unbelievable or I would agree to have sex with you in any form is not only simplistic, it’s insane.
Having said that, if for some reason I am pregnant, by any man, it would not be my “belief” that the pregnancy is happening my body, it would be a fact.
My body = My decision.
If you have a problem with that, paul, I suggest you take responsibility for your own birth control. I would expect the woman to do the same. You do believe in birth control, don’t you, paul?
November 19th, 2006 at 2:32 pm#128, Why do peopel here hate the military so much? What is wrong with someone enlisting in the military?
November 19th, 2006 at 2:34 pmJay Randal:
St. “Flipper” McCain?
I like it!
November 19th, 2006 at 2:35 pm#138,
On that same note. How come in many states if a man wants to have a vasectomy, and he is married, he needs the consent of his wife. After all, it is his body.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:36 pmComment by robert — November 19, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
I wasn’t using your argument against you, I was pointing out the falacy of the argument.
At one point, a majority felt interracial marriages should be outlawed, and many States had laws banning interracial marriages. The courts ruled with the minority in striking those laws as unconstitutional.
“If 99% of people think that gay marriage should be allowed and 1% disagree, what should we do?” This argument is still falacious, because it presupposes a course of action is right or wrong depending on how many people agree or disagree. Regardless of the percentages, I feel we should not discriminate based upon gender when it comes to legislating whom one can or cannot love.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:42 pm#2 If nothing else, this should start to knock some of his shiny polish of being a moderate off. People need to see him as he truly is - a right winger.
McCain is an empty suit, an unsophisticated political hack and a loser and oh yes also a right winger when its convenient. Wonderful leadership qualities ?????
November 19th, 2006 at 2:44 pm