Very well. Thank you.
Mighty cold out there, isn’t it? Wind is blowing my hair all over my face. Wish I had put it up.
Actually, I didn’t win. I didn’t even run.
My point to your OP was that, whoever won this election, about half the people in this country would be “completely, utterly, against” the winner. Concerning the issue of a divided country, it really made no difference which candidate won. It was clear that the EC winner would have a small margin of victory - if not a tie. At best the EC winner would carry only a slight majority of the popular vote, and quite possibly lose the popular election.
Bush wins, country divided. Kerry wins, country divided. Hence my question “how does it make a difference on a national level?”
In reality, I only posted this response to prove that you and I, in successive posts, could get the “quote” coding right.
Seeing as I work in a highly politicized environment, and used to manage the political operations division of a major state association, I think I can honestly say that I understand both sides of the race fairly well. Also, the vast majority of my friends and loved ones cast votes yesterday in opposition to my own beliefs. Trust me, I’ve heard all sides of every issue.
Yes, you are judging me. To say otherwise would be dishonest and immature.
You can make any and all assumptions about me that you wish, but don’t speak for me and don’t tell me what and how I come to my beliefs and views.
Congratulations. Now you know how conservatives felt during the Clinton administration.
The Republic survived 8 years of Clinton. It will survive 8 years of Bush.
I still doubt it, and I still don’t doubt you believe it.
OK, I’m judging you. Shrug.
Alright, you got me. I failed to take into account the views of the ‘Viking Nazis for Bush’ and the ‘Midget gophers for Kerry’ contingents. A thousand pardons, oh mighty one. Surely you can enlighten me as to just what I failed to consider, seeing as you’ve already got better insight to my own life and mind than I do apparently. :rolleyes:
Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq Raid, Abu Ghraib (sp?), and other such things are probably just a matter of opinion as well…
If I would have voted for Bush under such a premise, I probably wouldn’t feel guilty afterwards either.
For MPSIMS? No.
For Pit? Yes.
You know why people who voted for Kerry are so upset? It’s because we have lost more. We may lose the right to abortion. We’ve lost the right to gay marriage. We may lose the right to live in a secular state.
If Bush lost, what would his supporters lose? Oh, they’d have to pay more taxes. And put up with abortions. And put up with gay marriage. And have to deal with the fact that they’re living in a secular state.
The people who supported Kerry have lost rights. The people who supported Bush only would have lost the ability to live in a world that mirrors their belief system.
And you wonder why we’re so upset that Kerry lost? The stakes were higher for us. We had more to lose.
My gosh, you’re blind.
To me, abortion is the murder of a living human being. You may lose the right to terminate an inconvenient pregnancy. I may lose the opportunity to live in a world without the state-sanctioned murder of hundreds of babies every day.
So who had more to lose looking at it that way?
See what I mean?
The difference is that I understand that you feel abortion is NOT murder. So when you favor abortion, I think you’re wrong, but I understand the reasonable assumptions that give rise to your view.
You don’t understand my view at all.
That is why your side lost. You’ve surrounded yourself with others who agree with you, and are stunned when the majority of America doesn’t. READ WHAT I’M TELLING YOU.
I wish you guys were as concerned with the state-sanctioned murder of hundreds of fully formed and independent human beings that’s currently going on in Iraq. Or as concerned with actually providing for the health, welfare, and education of these fetuses once they come to term. Or does your concern with the sanctity of life end when the umbilical cord is cut?
Abortions are going to happen no matter what. But I guess if a woman has to have one, she deserves to have it done in some back alley and die with a bloody coat hanger driven up her cunt. Serves her right.
You call yourself pro-life? Before Roe v. Wade, 5000 women a year died from abortion. Doesn’t sound very pro-life to me. Then again I guess when we’re talking about “pwecious baybiezzz” the dynamic changes.
I read what you told me. I think it’s wrong. I think anti-abortion rhetoric sucks. Conservatives don’t want to provide for free birth control. They want to eliminate all sexual education from schools (oh, except for “abstinence”… now come on since when have you heard of a teenage boy being able to keep his dick in his pants?). And then they wonder why women feel forced to have abortions? Maybe if they tried to change the world around them to better accommodate single motherhood and assured women their children wouldn’t be thrown into the a cycle of poverty and neglect, women wouldn’t feel the need to have abortions. But no, it’s much easier to villify the people who get abortions, instead of the society that makes it such an “attractive” option.
Name one of your rights that are being infringed?
My concern for the sanctity of life extends from conception to the moment of natural death. But that doesn’t mean I believe we must abdicate personal responsibility along the way to “providing” for health, education, and welfare. I certainly oppose the death penalty, however.
Other types of murders are going to happen no matter what. Armed robbery will happen no matter what. Sexual abuse will happen no matter what. But we still recognize the need to forbid them with criminal law.
Look, we can debate the specific issue to no end. My point is: I am capable of seeing your point. You are incapable of seeing mine. So I call you a reasonable person with whom I disagree. You call me a fascist.
Guess which approach the undecided middle responds to better?
(Hint: see headlines today).
I understand your view. I just think it’s grossly ill-informed. You use transparently inflammatory language like “state-sanctioned murder of hundreds of babies” as if abortion - or even the majority of abortions - are performed on fully-formed “babies” rather than first-trimester blobs of protoplasm lacking even central nervous systems. I’ve had a girlfriend who had an abortion after a few weeks of pregnancy - as soon as she suspected she might be pregnant - and by your definition she murdered her own child. Now, if you believe that blob was a baby, I can’t argue with your conclusion. But as someone who does not rely on a magical book written by a supernatural fairy in the sky to provide me with my belief structure, I admit I can’t fathom what logic or scientific evidence you use to arrive at such a conclusion.
And, as continuity eror already stated, there seems to be a serious flaw in your rationale that unformed, potential life is worth more than fully-formed, actual life (which we can expect will be lost as a result of illegal/unskilled abortion procedures, if history is any indication) which will be the result of your idealized pro-life society.
Such a legal stickler. Of course you mean “killing.” 
Thus the entire point of this thread. We understand your view as well, and think likewise.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Was anyone running on the idea of making abortion or same sex marriage compulsory?
Er…really? I didn’t mean it to go there, and I really didn’t mean for all this mudslinging to go on. Especially not the abortion battle.
Eew.
It isn’t hard to understand your view. It’s hard to understand why you would hold that view with all the scientific evidence that contradicts it. But I guess there’s no arguing with the reasoning of the Almighty Lord.
Clinton didn’t endanger our civil rights or the health of our children.