Court Declines to Review Abortion Law
- Thread starter ginshun
- Start date
- Status
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
1) Even though I'm pro-choice, I don't think there's necessarily anything intellectually inconsistent with the pro-life position even for people who are not religious. Clearly many people who are pro-life are religious, and patriarchal and dominant, as Robert as suggested; however, some people simply see human life as beginning at gestation, and the process of abortion as murder. It's an intellectually consistent position, and many of the extreme acts, up to and including terrorism, that people take to oppose it, are as well (even if I don't happen to agree with them).
2) Many of us "liberals" are quite proud of the term, actually (as well as of other terms people use as insults, like "socialist"). You see, liberals fought for things that all of us take for granted like time off, and safe food and water and air and medicine, and the end of child labor, and the vote for women, and civil rights for everyone in America, and the end of unjust wars, and continue to struggle everyday for these sorts of things in the face of incalculable pressures.
Some people simply don't find the label accurate (like, I imagine, Robert); let that be for them to declare. Others, like so many in the Democrat party, find it inconvenient to tie themselves to a doctrine that has successfully been pigeonholed by the propaganda of the right; this is another example of how poorly led and genuinely useless the Democratic party has become.
In the end, however, people's reluctance toward the term "liberal" simply shows how other individuals throw the term around as a perjorative instead of simply debating the merits of a topic.
2) Many of us "liberals" are quite proud of the term, actually (as well as of other terms people use as insults, like "socialist"). You see, liberals fought for things that all of us take for granted like time off, and safe food and water and air and medicine, and the end of child labor, and the vote for women, and civil rights for everyone in America, and the end of unjust wars, and continue to struggle everyday for these sorts of things in the face of incalculable pressures.
Some people simply don't find the label accurate (like, I imagine, Robert); let that be for them to declare. Others, like so many in the Democrat party, find it inconvenient to tie themselves to a doctrine that has successfully been pigeonholed by the propaganda of the right; this is another example of how poorly led and genuinely useless the Democratic party has become.
In the end, however, people's reluctance toward the term "liberal" simply shows how other individuals throw the term around as a perjorative instead of simply debating the merits of a topic.
Ray
Master Black Belt
Oy. Now who can argue with that? No wait, who can believe that?PeachMonkey said:
Liberals don't fight, they make speeches about injustices while the rest of us fight.
M
MisterMike
Guest
You see, all the conservative arguing points are parrotted from Anne Coulter, Rush and Savage. All the stuff that liberals say, well, they all came up with it on their own, didn't ya know?
It was like a global "awakening" - and they all saw the truth together, somehow without the conservatives. But don' y'all go say'n they copy each otha.
It was like a global "awakening" - and they all saw the truth together, somehow without the conservatives. But don' y'all go say'n they copy each otha.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
1. Please read up on what liberals are. I recommend, say, Daniel Bell--but in any case I am not a "liberal," in any strict sense, which traces back to 19th-century England. I am "liberal,' only in the sense that I think snoopy next-door neighbors and the government have no business dictating how (in this case) sex and marriage are handled, and that I think ideas and books are a Good Thing. No doubt you disagree with all this madness.
2. If you'll espouse some ideas different from Coulter, Savage et al, I promise to start believing that your ideas come from some other sources. Yes, I'm sure that you'll respond by claiming that my ideas come from {insert names of supposed "liberals here}--alas, you are wrong. My ideas tend to come from writers like Marx, Freud, Laura Mulvey, Joanna Russ, Raymond Williams, E.P. Thompson, James Baldwin, etc., and none of these people are liberals in any strict sense.
3. The liberals you are decrying there, M&M, often actually have ideas. They got them from hard work studying, from reading, from research, from real life, from looking at facts. Please, tell us ALL ABOUT Savage, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc., and their extensive scholarly work. Oh my, yes, their scholarly use of research and fact, their remarkable (I think that's fair--it's certainly remarkable) and careful investigations of reality! C'est bon!! Oh wait---actually, all these people are entertainers, with very little training in the disciplines they claim to know so much about (one would think martial artists would have a little respect at least for how hard it is to actually acquire genuine knowledge, but wotthell), with virtually no facts to support them, and with teams of hired flunkies to do their study (such as it is) for them. Or perhaps you should go read intellectual luminaries like Edward Teller (Star Wars works!), or Geo. Gilder (whites are comitting Sexual Suicide! feminists are responsible for the takeover of America by Colored People!!), or Dinesh d'Souza (what could be funnier than running a photo and article commemorating Hitler in the "Dartmouth Review," on King's Birthday?) Fer crissake, at least go read Buckley or go back to Jackson Bate and Gertrude Himmelfarb! At least they had actual educations!!
3. Kids, the reason those pesky liberals and unions keep getting brought up on this thread--they're the ones who fought for reproductive rights, for decent medical care and pensions and work-weeks for families, for the kinds of basic rights that folks today take for granted.
2. If you'll espouse some ideas different from Coulter, Savage et al, I promise to start believing that your ideas come from some other sources. Yes, I'm sure that you'll respond by claiming that my ideas come from {insert names of supposed "liberals here}--alas, you are wrong. My ideas tend to come from writers like Marx, Freud, Laura Mulvey, Joanna Russ, Raymond Williams, E.P. Thompson, James Baldwin, etc., and none of these people are liberals in any strict sense.
3. The liberals you are decrying there, M&M, often actually have ideas. They got them from hard work studying, from reading, from research, from real life, from looking at facts. Please, tell us ALL ABOUT Savage, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc., and their extensive scholarly work. Oh my, yes, their scholarly use of research and fact, their remarkable (I think that's fair--it's certainly remarkable) and careful investigations of reality! C'est bon!! Oh wait---actually, all these people are entertainers, with very little training in the disciplines they claim to know so much about (one would think martial artists would have a little respect at least for how hard it is to actually acquire genuine knowledge, but wotthell), with virtually no facts to support them, and with teams of hired flunkies to do their study (such as it is) for them. Or perhaps you should go read intellectual luminaries like Edward Teller (Star Wars works!), or Geo. Gilder (whites are comitting Sexual Suicide! feminists are responsible for the takeover of America by Colored People!!), or Dinesh d'Souza (what could be funnier than running a photo and article commemorating Hitler in the "Dartmouth Review," on King's Birthday?) Fer crissake, at least go read Buckley or go back to Jackson Bate and Gertrude Himmelfarb! At least they had actual educations!!
3. Kids, the reason those pesky liberals and unions keep getting brought up on this thread--they're the ones who fought for reproductive rights, for decent medical care and pensions and work-weeks for families, for the kinds of basic rights that folks today take for granted.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
1. Didn't you tell us that you never paid any attention to them?
2. It isn't a point or two of agreement. It's the almost-verbatim repetition of their claims, and the refusal to look at the other sides--of which there are several.
3. Knowldege is democratic. You only have to read.
2. It isn't a point or two of agreement. It's the almost-verbatim repetition of their claims, and the refusal to look at the other sides--of which there are several.
3. Knowldege is democratic. You only have to read.
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
While I have seen a few "Rushlike" statements from a few posters around here, by and large most of the more "conservative" posters here seem fairly tolerant and reasonable. It just seems like "some" people enjoy lumping any opposing views into the "right" side of the aisle..but I digress.
Sorry for the thread gank.
Sorry for the thread gank.
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
1. Well as I have only listened to Rush a handful of times and never really listened to the rest. (I dont have cable). I guess I dont. Apparently I do share some of their viewpoints as you always seem to point it out.rmcrobertson said:
2. Hmmm thats seems to be a two-way street......
3. I do but apparently nothing you like.....
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
ginshun said:
Check my posts ... I gladly and proudly admin to being a liberal.
Liberal = We're all in this together.
Conservative = Hurray for me, and to hell with everyone else.
Michael Edward AtkinsonConservative = Hurray for me, and to hell with everyone else.
huz-ZAH!PeachMonkey said:
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Liberal = We're all in this together. As long as you belive like us. Othewise you are a stupid uneducated parrot, and we know whats best for you because we are better.
Conservative = Hurray for me, and to hell with everyone else, unless you are also a Conservative in wich case you must support our ideas and opinions anyhow, so Hooray for me and those of you who think like me.
Left/Right... its all the same ****, just a different side, and a belief that you are better because of the side you are on.
You are all damning this country, because you are more interested in making others think like you, than working together to make decisions that make sense and will be a genuine benefit.
And before the Liberals jump in with "But thats what we are doing" It seems that you are so blinded by the cause for the "downtroden" that you dont care about whats right, only how you can spin it so a "minority" becomes championed against the evils of white Middleclass christian males... such as the topic of this thread. "But she's a woman, your a man, your opinion isnt valid" "But only a christian wouldnt want an abortion" *Wah wah.*
Both sides make me wanna puke my coco puffs right up.
And damn I am fuming now.
Conservative = Hurray for me, and to hell with everyone else, unless you are also a Conservative in wich case you must support our ideas and opinions anyhow, so Hooray for me and those of you who think like me.
Left/Right... its all the same ****, just a different side, and a belief that you are better because of the side you are on.
You are all damning this country, because you are more interested in making others think like you, than working together to make decisions that make sense and will be a genuine benefit.
And before the Liberals jump in with "But thats what we are doing" It seems that you are so blinded by the cause for the "downtroden" that you dont care about whats right, only how you can spin it so a "minority" becomes championed against the evils of white Middleclass christian males... such as the topic of this thread. "But she's a woman, your a man, your opinion isnt valid" "But only a christian wouldnt want an abortion" *Wah wah.*
Both sides make me wanna puke my coco puffs right up.
And damn I am fuming now.
Wow.
Well, I think both "sides" would say that each *does* care what is right - they are just addressing different issues - sometimes legal, sometimes moral or ethical.
No-one has to be "all one way or the other". Most folks aren't all one way or the other.
Well, I think both "sides" would say that each *does* care what is right - they are just addressing different issues - sometimes legal, sometimes moral or ethical.
No-one has to be "all one way or the other". Most folks aren't all one way or the other.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
1. Please illustrate points at which your ideas are significantly different from Limbaugh, Coulter, et al--who, by the way, are the opposite of intellectuals.
2. There are only two sides to politics, with the truly decent and reasonable man in the middle? Well, that's nonsense. But it is a traditional position from which to deny one's own ideology.
3. Listen up: NOT A LIBERAL, except in the very general sense that I think government is there to help out, to police, and to leave the hell alone. Am something resembling a social democratic lesbian feminist green who likes Gary Snyder, Adrienne Rich, Ted Hughes/Adrienne Rich, Billy what's-'is-name and Milton as poets, E.P. Thompson and T.J. Clarke and Greil Marcus and Mary Ann Doane and Barbara Johnson as critics.
4. Good luck shoehorning THAT hodge-podge into the "liberal," thermos, as much as Rush and Savage and Coulter insist that anybody who reads books, has a brain, says Afghanistan necessary/Iraq frickin' stupid, doesn't think that this country would look best with a strip mall, a Taco Bell and an oil derrick every five feet, believes that money and capitalism are NOT the proper study of man, and is pretty damn sure that men oughta stay the hell out of women's right to choose, must be a liberal.
2. There are only two sides to politics, with the truly decent and reasonable man in the middle? Well, that's nonsense. But it is a traditional position from which to deny one's own ideology.
3. Listen up: NOT A LIBERAL, except in the very general sense that I think government is there to help out, to police, and to leave the hell alone. Am something resembling a social democratic lesbian feminist green who likes Gary Snyder, Adrienne Rich, Ted Hughes/Adrienne Rich, Billy what's-'is-name and Milton as poets, E.P. Thompson and T.J. Clarke and Greil Marcus and Mary Ann Doane and Barbara Johnson as critics.
4. Good luck shoehorning THAT hodge-podge into the "liberal," thermos, as much as Rush and Savage and Coulter insist that anybody who reads books, has a brain, says Afghanistan necessary/Iraq frickin' stupid, doesn't think that this country would look best with a strip mall, a Taco Bell and an oil derrick every five feet, believes that money and capitalism are NOT the proper study of man, and is pretty damn sure that men oughta stay the hell out of women's right to choose, must be a liberal.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Technopunk said:
Not exactly, Mr. Punk sir, Not Exactly.
I have no doubt that there are good people from the 'Conservative' point of view who take principled stands on many issues. But many from the Conservative point of view want to push their beliefs on me ... see the "What's wrong with the 10 commandments" thread.
I am not trying to convert anyone to an athiest, but many are trying to make me follow their 10 Commandments (often, apparently, without even being aware of what the actual commandments are).
I am not trying to make anyone who is opposed to abortion have one. Yet, many opposed to abortion are trying to prevent those with dissimilar beliefs from the proceedure.
I am trying to ensure that all members of the community have an opportunity to share in the benefits that community can bring. Others seem to want to structure society so the deck is stacked in their favor, whether through tax policies, education policies or the current social security discussion (there is nothing 'secure' in a 'social' contract based on the stock market).
Look at this thread ... and position it against the 'Conservative' point of view concerning 'courts', 'trial lawyers', and 'activist judges'. Much as on the Shiavo thread, the courts, the judges, and the law, follow what appear to be the 'Conservative' point of view ... and yet the 'Conservatives' seem to be railing against those actions. Measure this against the 'Academic Freedom' thread, where uneducated students are supposed to be protected from the view points of their educated teachers. It is not hyperbolic to describe these actions as beyond hypocritical.
Maybe, when liberals were in the majority, they too acted contrary to their own opinions. But what has gone on over the past two or three months has been true 'Entertainment'; about to upstage Ringling Brothers as the greatest show on earth.
If I wasn't crying so much, I would be laughing my *** off.
Michael
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
There ya go again "Squak Squak, Parroting Rush, Squak Squak, Parroting Anne... They are all stupid"rmcrobertson said:
Your Pseudo intelectuall claptrap is getting old... Do you evre have a point???
yay you can name authors and poets... you amaze us all Robert. OOH Robert read a book!
Now if only you could stop trying to impress everyone with your name dropping maybe you could express a coherant idea that isnt "You should read "blah blah" Rush is an idiot and so are you" maybe I could take you seriously... nah... I dont think thats possible... you are, and will continue to be the biggest joke on the board, Frasier Crane.
Shaolinwind
2nd Black Belt
Parents can be psychotic, hardcore christian ones doubly so.. There would be parents forcing their children to give birth just to punish them (such cases do exest IRL). Another child born without a father and into a family that embraces hate is not what the world needs.ginshun said:
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
If this is the case, thats what judicial bypass and social services are for.
Setting policy because some parents "may be psychotic hardcore christians" isnt the way we do things. Where else do we not tell parents what their children are doing because they MAY get abused? I have to notify parents of what their children do all the time. Maybe doing so resulted in their being beaten/abused at home, I dont know, but thats doesn't change my duty to tell them, unless I have evidence that that is indeed going to happen...if thats so then the parents should be reported and charged. Thats the way the system is.
Setting policy because some parents "may be psychotic hardcore christians" isnt the way we do things. Where else do we not tell parents what their children are doing because they MAY get abused? I have to notify parents of what their children do all the time. Maybe doing so resulted in their being beaten/abused at home, I dont know, but thats doesn't change my duty to tell them, unless I have evidence that that is indeed going to happen...if thats so then the parents should be reported and charged. Thats the way the system is.
- Status
