BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: LilyFestre
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 08:39 PM

John, you just don't get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 07:12 PM

"It takes a heck of a LOT more to raise a child than just money."

Indeed, and I can't begin to tell you how much I admire my mother for having pulled it off as a single woman.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 06:55 PM

"Further, until the time that a man can carry and give birth to a child, he should have NO SAY in the matter."

Until such time that a man can be born a Jew, he should have NO SAY on the issue of anti-semitism.

Until such time that a man has been forced to work for another as a slave, he should have NO SAY on the issue of slavery.

Until such time that a man has been robbed, he should have NO SAY on the issue of robbery.

Until such time that a man has been killed, he should have NO SAY on the issue of murder.

Obviously, the making of laws doesn't work that way. How could it?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 06:04 PM

No chimp has yet been nominated. I guess you know what that means...

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: LilyFestre
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 06:00 PM

John,

You said, "I've said that he should pay equally (supposing that sex was mutually consented) for any expenses incurred in the raising of the child. I'm not sure how much more I should be expected to want."


It takes a heck of a LOT more to raise a child than just money.

I like HarpGirl's line of thought, very much.

Further, until the time that a man can carry and give birth to a child, he should have NO SAY in the matter.

My body, my choice.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 05:45 PM

y'know, if there was any (had to slip in one of those tricky underlines) other case where one was admittedly unsure as to when or if something they wanted to exterminate was a living being, would they not be expected not err to the side of assuming "alive" until proven otherwise, instead of assuming "expendable" unless proven otherwise?

By all human goodness, isn't the burden of proof on the wrong side?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 05:02 PM

"EVERY ova has the potential of becoming a human."

No they don't.

Oh...

....you mean like in the case of Jesus and Mary? ....well, see, I was trying to leave religion out of this. *BG*

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 04:54 PM

BB, in this case I tend to agree with what you say, including both expressions, "pro-life" and "pro-choice," being an attempt to put the best possible faces on the two opposing viewpoints. But you will note that I did not use the term "pro-choice."

Until I am officially declared Omniscient, I reserve judgment on when a fetus becomes a viable human being, because I (and you, and John, and John Roberts) am not qualified, medically or philosopically, to determine that. Until such time, I favor leaving Roe v. Wade as it is. Question:   will John Roberts do that if he is confirmed? That, after all, is what this thread seems to be all about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:57 PM

Don Firth,

And Pro- choice means that the fetus has some choice? You are on weak ground: BOTH sides have chosn labels that sound "good"

I happen to be in favor of allowing abortions. I do not think thay are good, and would rather that they were not needed. But in the real world, they are sometimes the best action.

The major point, that both sides ignore, is the definition of WHEN the fetus becomes a human being with rights. IMO, that is when it is capable of life outside the mother.

For those who would argue that conception is the key point, let me point out that EVERY ova has the potential of becoming a human: Are you willing to insist that ALL women have sex every month to avoid the "loss" of all those potential lives? Starting at what, 12 or 13 years old? If not, any talk of "potential" human life is hypocritical.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:28 PM

So, if they are neither representative of the "Pro-life" movement, nor of Christianity, why exactly did you bring them up? More rust? *BG*

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:16 PM

Will you allow us to televise these Hardly - Firth debates on MSNBC ?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:09 PM

John, "pro-life" is a misnomer. "Anti-abortion" is what it really amounts to. If they were really pro-life, they would be much more concerned about the welfare and well-being of the mother and the child after the child is born, and I've seen no evidence of this. In fact, many of the same people rage and storm against what they call "welfare mothers" and tell apocryphal stories about women on welfare who deliberately pop out babies for the purpose of increasing their welfare payments. This, of course, is ridiculous.

It has to do with that "collateral damage" that I mentioned.

No. "Pro-life" in this context is nothing more meaningful than a nice sounding buzz-word.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:34 PM

oh....and before I'm completely side-tracked....

I still don't think abortion will be made illegal, even if Roe v Wade is ever overturned.

Ironically, as long as it is legal, there will be little effort put into making men more responsible for the children that they produce that escape abortion.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:27 PM

So, Don, you're saying that, though they (your anecdotal fundies) are not representative Christians, they are representative of the pro-life movement? (after all, that is why you used them as an example, is it not?)

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:22 PM

I've tried to make it clear that I am for any measure that makes the male more responsible. I'm not sure what else I can say.

I've said that he should pay equally (supposing that sex was mutually consented) for any expenses incurred in the raising of the child. I'm not sure how much more I should be expected to want.

I've said that if the father is a minor, the boy's parents should be similarly charged with the financial obligation. I'm not sure how that is a dodge.

It would be incredibly patronizing if I were to suggest that the woman had no say in (were the "victims" of) consentual sex (and therefore would not have to bear at least half the burden). The women in my life are at least as powerful, at least as responsible, at least as capable of decision-making as any men I know. I was raised by a single mother.

And if the sex was not consentual in the first place, well, I'm not sure how much more I could say than that I think a rapist should be put to death (unless there were some way to make him financially indentured to the mother and child).

Just because all of these measures are not in place, though, does not give the moral green light to killing children -- the children who are the result of an act participated in fully volitionally. If one wishes to rectify the situation, I merely suggest that they put their energies toward more moral solutions -- not accepting abortion as birth control.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:11 PM

John, they are certainly not representative of most of the Christians I know, but then I go to a fairly liberal Lutheran church (and no, that's not an oxymoron).

One of the two fundamentalist Christians I had that discussion with used to live in the same building where I live. He belongs to one of several nearby churches who share the same beliefs. They proudly say that they believe that the Bible is the literal word of God (the definition of "fundamentalist," whether the book referred to is the Bible or the Koran), and they tend to take verses out of context and string them together to make them mean what they want them to mean. Now, I call that interpreting, which they insist one is not supposed to do.

The vast majority of Christian fundamentalists that I have met seem to be focused on matters of personal salvation, sin, and punishment for sin, along with a heavy emphasis on The Book of Revelation and the "End Times." Other than Revelation, the Old Testament seems to play more of a role in forming their beliefs than the New Testament, apart from selections from Paul's Epistles (oddly enough, especially neglecting the Gospels). Any quotations of Jesus are highly selective, and I never hear them quoting the Beatitudes (". . . Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. . . .") or verses such as Matthew 25:31-35 (". . . For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me. . . ."). Lots about separating the sheep from the goats, but not that part. They often become involved in legal and political action in an attempt to force their beliefs on the community as a whole. For verification of this, see national politics. Also, my wife works at the Seattle Public Library, and they often have to deal with challenges from these groups to remove certain books from the shelves. Number 1 on the current "hate parade" is the Harry Potter series.

This is not a case of "All Indians walk in single file. At least the one I saw did." In my fairly long life, I've met and had discussions with a substantial number of these folks, and I've had plenty of opportunity to observe them in action. The two people I mention above seem to me to be pretty representative of—not Christians—but Christian fundamentalists.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 01:46 PM

John - Harpgirl has a very good point.

If abortions are illegal and the woman is forced to give birth to an unwanted child, why is it that she has to endure the additional burden of taking him to court to insure child support? Not only is she struggling, financially, to support the child but she has the additional court costs. Even if she can afford a good lawyer (and this is certainly not available to everyone) the courts very rarely consider the cost of education.

Besides the financial cost, there is the day to day responsibility of child care. Who pays for that? I don't think any unwed father has ever been made to pay the mother for her absence from the work force or her day to day job of raising that child.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:43 PM

No rhetorical point.

To you, it appears, that your anecdotal Christians are representative. I'm saying they are not. I'm sure they are real -- I'm sure you're not making them up -- I'm just as equally sure that the thousands of people with whom I am familiar (in teh pro-life "movement") are not as you describe....

....gotta load of clay -- maybe more later.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:37 PM

And by the way, abortion is not quite the same thing as "killing her child." Or were you trying to make a rhetorical point?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:07 PM

John, let's put this right where it really is:   the people I had this discussion with were also opposed to birth control of any kind (and no, they were not Catholic). That's where the discussion started, and then it moved on to abortion. Sex out of wedlock, they maintained, is sin. And if a person commits a sin (or at least what they regarded as sin), then that person must be punished for it.

I found their whole outlook disgustingly mean-spirited and focused strongly on sin and punishment. Damned little regard for the welfare of people, and devoid of the sort of love and forgiveness that Jesus spoke about often and at length. Not what I have been taught is a Christian viewpoint.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 11:52 AM

Back to the judge nominee.

Why is Bush (Jr) not allowing the release of any writing of John Roberts Supreme Court arguments during the time he was working for Bush (Sr.) ?

Its like saying do not look here! Hmm, what's there?

I do not know but there must be a can of worms or Iran contra connection or somthing dark.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: harpgirl
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 11:37 AM

For starters John, this is wrong:At the point of pregnancy there is a third person -- a child. At the point of pregnancy you have a blastocyst. Nothing more.

And I could not be MORE for making men responsible in any way possible -- for both the act of sex and for any consequntial child produced.

So what are you doing to make this a reality? Anything at all?


In fact, I would be for making rape a capital offence (with the added benefit of short-cutting through the BS of what to do with pedophiles -- rape would cover any sexual assault). The only exception I might make would be if there was any possibility of leaving it up to a raped woman if she would rather have a rapist as an indentured servant, having his wages apportioned to her for life.


This ia a start, John.


You start to lose me at this point, John:

I would be for confiscation of HIS parent's wages to support the pregnancy and child. That just might make boys behave more responsibly if there was no escape from the financial responsibility.

Like, this is going to make a teenage boy keep his johnson in his pants.


How about paternity tests for all children as requested by the mother, and mandatory support of the MOTHER AND THE CHILD for eighteen years? Kind of makes ya squirm huh, John? To have all that responsibility. But we women have it without any guaranteed support for parenting. That's so fair.

You still strike me as a man who will not step up to the plate and offer a solution that makes men and women equally responsible for the children they bring into the world.

But keep trying. I can see your are thinking more about this important issue.

On a more personal note:

My son's father is a stock broker. Because I went to court at my own expense, I got 150 dollars a month to raise my son for the first ten years. When I returned to court at my own expense, I got $270 a month until the day he graduated from high school. Since that time I received nothing at all. I'm not bitter, just very, very good at and focused on giving my son what he deserves from two parents in this world. I have made sacrifices to provide him with a college education and help him negotiate the world. Someone had to. I would have been a better parent though, if his father had done his fair share.

Until men are made to carry their fair share, abortion should be legal, free, and on demand.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 10:10 AM

John you would sound much more intelligent if you spoke about what you think men should be made to do with regard to the unwanted children they produce.

I fail to see any relation between sounding intelligent in posts here and also addressing the male part of the problem.

John could address also the male part and still sound not intelligent, he also could sound intelligent and not mention the male part (and two more possibilities). I disagree with John's opinion here but I admit sometimes grinning in appreciation about his way to argue (I liked the 'rusty' observation for instance).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 08:04 AM

Harpgirl, what could I possibly say that would sound "intelligent" to you, short of agreeing with you? *BG*

The issue of male responsibility is an important issue, and one I addressed tangentially when I expressed the view that men WANT abortions. One of the many reasons men WANT abortions is that, as I said, they want sex without responsibility. That means they want sex without fear of paternity suit.

A couple hundred dollars for an abortion (wherein the woman suffers the trauma of the procedure, as well as the intimate knowledge of the totality of the horror of the act) is a preferrable "out" to that kind of man -- a man who would rather pay a few hundred early than pay child support for 20 years.

Doesn't say much about men. But there you have it. Men WANT abortion to remain legal. Men don't want to "control" women by keeping them pregnant -- it costs too much.

Honestly, of the people you know, is it really the men who can't wait to have babies? Really?

I know men want sex. Lots of it. As much as they can get. But babies? Really?

And I could not be MORE for making men responsible in any way possible -- for both the act of sex and for any consequntial child produced.

In fact, I would be for making rape a capital offence (with the added benefit of short-cutting through the BS of what to do with pedophiles -- rape would cover any sexual assault). The only exception I might make would be if there was any possibility of leaving it up to a raped woman if she would rather have a rapist as an indentured servant, having his wages apportioned to her for life.

And when it's not rape, but rather, consentual sex, I believe in pateral support. In fact, if the father is a minor, I would be for confiscation of HIS parent's wages to support the pregnancy and child. That just might make boys behave more responsibly if there was no escape from the financial responsibility.

I am not "soft" on male responsibility. I merely face the reality -- a reality imposed by nature, not by man -- that it will forever be the woman who bears the burden of childbirth.

But it isn't about a woman's choice about what to "do with her body". That ship sailed when she participated, willingly, in the act that nature dictated creates the possibility of a child. Sex is great fun but it is not guaranteed to be without consequence. When there is a consequence -- pregnancy -- it is no longer the woman's body alone. At the point of pregnancy there is a third person -- a child.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: harpgirl
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 07:32 AM

John you would sound much more intelligent if you spoke about what you think men should be made to do with regard to the unwanted children they produce.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 07:28 AM

So, "sin" or no "sin", she should be able to kill her child for messing up her plans (like going to college, for instance)? Was she raped?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: DougR
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:56 AM

Jeeze, what a disappointment. I was just sure GWB would appoint a Liberal candidate to the court! What a disappointment.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 09:12 PM

once someone gets the notion that there IS such a thing as **SIN** that can be defined and easily recognized by a specific religious denomination, shrugging about punishment, no matter how punitive, comes easily.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:57 PM

The "rusty" was to stress the point, John. I didn't, however, mention the all too often questionable sanitary practices of the back-street abortionist. Sorry if you found the emphasis objectionable.

Regarding pregnancy as a punishment for sin:   in a rather heated discussion some time ago, I was informed by a couple of people of the fundamentalist Christian right persuasion that if a woman (we were speaking of teen-agers at the moment) got pregnant by messing around in the back seat of her boy friend's Chevy, and for whateve reason had to go ahead and have the baby, then whatever social disgrace she faced, or however this messed up her life plans (preventing her from going to college, say), that was no more than she deserved for committing the sin of having sex without the sanction of the church. Their equation of having a child as punishment for sin was clear. When I argued that the child may very well suffer as a result, one of them made some remark about the sins of the father (or mother) being visited upon the child.

Like I said, they didn't give a damn about "collateral damage."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 12:20 PM

"Why shouldn't women have the right to do with their bodies what they want ?"

They should. They should have the absolute right to have or say no to sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 11:52 AM

Why shouldn't women have the right to do with their bodies what they want ? We men have had that right all along. It's time to share the "wealth".

I would love to see the "study" you are quoting guest. Can you provide a link ?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST,G
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:45 AM

Michelle;
Sorry but I am not ashamed. It would accomplish the puroose, wouldn't it? We are being hammered by the Feminists pleas a for a womans right to "do with her body as she pleases".
Incest and rape are one catagory, gender selection? Rather callous, I think, and the clinics report the majority of abortions are for that purpose.

I think "Guest" is ok for anyone that so desires. In this case, it means the same as Michelle, John, Azizi,and Joe from where I am sitting.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:05 AM

....Oh, and Don,

...why a "rusty" coathanger?

Couldn't the rhetorical point be made as strong without the rust? How did the rust get in the cliche'? Did the rust strengthen the logic of your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 07:58 AM

But I doubt that it will be made illegal. And it especially will never be illegal for the rape victim. And it will especially never be illegal when the health of the mother is concerned.

Even if all of the above was at one time illegal, the country has more than moved on.   

I'm not saying that there isn't a vocal minority that will push to make abortion illegal again. They just won't win.

And there are extremists who would push for illegality even in rape and health-of-the-mother cases. They especially won't win -- and they will (as ever) be one of the reasons that more moderate limitations on abortion won't be passed (it will be demogogued, and the moderate will be too easily tied to the extremist's cement shoes and thrown in the river, as always).

We have lived with the convenience of abortion for too long to go back. There is no collective will to go back.

The cliche', Don, that it is a punishment for the sin of extramarital sex, in my intimate knowledge of a huge number in the pro-life movement (my mother was, and sister is active in the movement, supporting and volunteering in crisis pregnancy centers -- financially supporting anyone who wishes to carry an "unwanted" child to term), has NEVER been the issue. Nobody that I know considers pregnancy a punishment for sin.

There is a huge and meaningful difference between "punishment for sin" and acknowledgement that there are consequences for actions. There need be no "religious" element in trying to get society to accept that there are NATURAL consequences to actions. Education to accept natural consequences is often the first, best step toward improving a situation. We currently operate under the mistaken notion that consequences can be removed without further consequences. It isn't God, or religion, or judgemental people that cause consequences. It's nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: LilyFestre
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 06:50 AM

If I wrote something as disturbing as "including jumping from the 5th floor of a parking garage if the 'baby' is not wanted. That should "get rid" of it." I'd post as Guest too. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST,G
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 11:01 PM

Is anyone aware of what percentage of abortions are due to "gender selection"? I have never considered sex out of wedlock a sin, even though I may have a tough time explaining that to 'lord' knows who.

With regard to a womans right to do with her body as she deems necessary, ok with me - including jumping from the 5th floor of a parking garage if the 'baby' is not wanted. That should "get rid" of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: LilyFestre
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:25 PM

Here's Your As....er...Conservative Old White Man

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:59 PM

Well, here are a few more cliches (but just remember, one of the troublesome things about cliches is that they generally become cliches because they're true).

Those for whom aborting an unwanted child is a matter of "maintaining a lifestyle" generally have the bucks necessary to travel to another state or another country to get the job done. Or to find a doctor who is willing to do a little backroom procedure without putting it on the books if he's paid enough. For the rape victim or the pregnant teen-ager, the only recourse they will have is the sleazy back-street butcher or the time-honored rusty coat hanger.

Making abortion illegal won't stop it. It'll just wind up killing and maiming a lot of women and girls. But then, the whole point, as far as the far right or the fundies is concerned is that if someone "commits a sin" (has sex out of wedlock), they must suffer for it. Suffer:   be forced into having a child that they don't want or are simply unable to raise in a decent environment.

Great for the child. Not to mention eventual crime statistics.

But as long as the sinner suffers for her sin, fundies and right-wingers don't much care about "collateral damage."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: harpgirl
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 06:24 PM

"If Roe v. Wade is overturned abortion won't go away. Each state can and has legistlated on the issue. It does mean that some states will be more difficult (like it was ever easy?) to obtain safe and legal abortions. Amazing how those who oppose abortion think that if it's made illegal it will go away. They have no regard for the young women of America (chattle, apparently) who have the least amount of power in this entire transaction (when compared to the conservative white males who would force this situation upon them) and who will once again start turning up as bodies dumped in discreet places after they die from botched abortions."



Calling these remarks "arguing from cliche" is just a sneaky, patronizing way of dismissing them, John.

SRS is correct in everything she says. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, many states will make abortion illegal and women will still seek abortions.

Wealthy women will still have abortions and poor women will have children they don't want or can't take care of but would have aborted if they had the opportunity. And many will die from operations which are done on the sly and without proper medical support.

White males or males at all, for that matter should not be able to legislate this choice. It is a women's problem and should be a women's right.

l,h

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 06:17 PM

That's not the cliche' to which I referred. The cliche' to which I refer is the notion that white males want to keep young women pregnant. All one has to do is look around their own experience and their own circle of aquaintances to realize that it is rarely the men that do not want abortions, It is rarely the (unmarried) men who want children.   

If anything, more abortions are performed at the behest of the man, not the woman. Men WANT abortions. Men WANT sex without commitment or consequence. Men don't want their daughter's lives "ruined". Rich Republican men want abortion on demand so their taxes aren't increased to pay for more welfare children, plus they ignore their wives. Democrat men want abortion because the the envision those poor children being born in poverty (whether or not they are), plus they listen to their wives *BG*.

Men want abortion on demand at least as much as women do. Maybe more. And women are just as active, maybe more active, in the "pro-life" movement.

I do think that, in answer to your worry, abortions will be legal for the duration. We just won't have to torture the Constitution to make it so. There will, no doubt, be battles over laws -- some even vehement in some states -- but illegal abortion? No way.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: van lingle
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:42 PM

Now that you brought it up JH I don't know where SRS was going with that but if Roe v Wade is overturned that will just be the beginning for the very determined anti abortion movement. They'll be hammering it in every state and while that middle class woman in California will have the option who's gonna buy that poor girl in Alabama a bus ticket?vl

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:18 AM

"Millions were spent, many counts were made and the result was the same."

well, that is not the main point....it is certainly possible that Bush won Florida by 500 or so votes by counting all those officially approved ballots.....but there were ballots that were NOT 'officially approved' ...by hard line Republican officials....and many, many more people that were denied the right to VOTE by intimidatation or making it difficult for them to register, etc. THIS IS DOCUMENTED, even if hard to build a sold court case over.

An election can be influenced by more than just blatant, outright fraud and ballot box stuffing like Mayor Daley used to do!

Get over it? Have those who lost under Daley's machine gotten over it?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST,G
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 08:57 AM

This has been a very interesting, even intellectual thread but for two exceptions.

CBS news, the New York Times, CNN et.al., did a long range recount of the 2000 Florida ballots. This is not your average "right wing" group and their results closely matched the final State tally.
Millions were spent, many counts were made and the result was the same. Besides, that was 5 years ago and it is time to get over it!

Secondly, I must be a lot slower than I thought. There was no way in whatever that I could obtained enough information to develope an informed opinion on the nominee as was done by "21 July 05 - 10:12"
in this thread. Gee Whiz, that was about an hour after the announcement!

I did, however, notice the marked resemblance of the 3 people to the left of the President; Jackie, Johnboy and his sister?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: snarky
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 03:16 PM

Would crying make you go away? If so, I think she should do it!

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST,Your Pal
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 12:08 PM

Typical response from a pig-headed feminist, harpgirl.

Does crying help you get your way if nothing else works?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 11:39 AM

Anything but an insult, harpgirl. I rarely, if ever, see SRS arguing from cliche'. I would have expected her to be more like Bill D. in this instance -- disappointed, but well-reasoned.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: harpgirl
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:48 AM

Another insult to women from John Hardly. Keep it up, pal!

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:44 AM

"If Roe v. Wade is overturned abortion won't go away. Each state can and has legistlated on the issue. It does mean that some states will be more difficult (like it was ever easy?) to obtain safe and legal abortions. Amazing how those who oppose abortion think that if it's made illegal it will go away. They have no regard for the young women of America (chattle, apparently) who have the least amount of power in this entire transaction (when compared to the conservative white males who would force this situation upon them) and who will once again start turning up as bodies dumped in discreet places after they die from botched abortions."

SRS,

Your mind is SO much better than this. I'm really surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 02:15 AM

FYI

Second down. (Will he pass?)

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 11:50 PM

Yeah, if the corrupt Bushites hadn't hyjacked the Election, as well as America, in2000, we wouldn't be a a point where we would be settling for the least reactionary of the the reactionaries....

Yeah, we'd be thinkin' about a judge who would rather accept current law (and precedences thast go with it) and move *forward*...

I'm not too sure that there will be anything but *retreat* under this court, especially since Bush will more that likely appoint a real reactionary firebrand when Renquist resigns or dies....

Bobert