Like "Booger" said in Revenge of the Nerds 1...

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
21

I’ll second everything Joe_Cool said, including the statement the Dubya wasn’t his candidate of choice. For the record, I supported John McCain in the primaries, although I know that he seems even worse to some of you.

Olentzero, you are exactly the type of person my OP was intended toward. This is not an attack on you specifically, but I hear all the time people using court cases to make their point when they don’t even know what the actual ruling was. The Democratic party has and I’m sure always will run on fear tactics. They get votes by making their constituents afraid to vote for the other guy. Yes, I know some of you actually believe in the Democratic party platform, and I respect that. It’s the votes from people who vote out of ignorance and fear that scare me.

“it certainly seems to be reasonable to want to keep a federal decision in place that won’t allow states to ban abortions outright”

You have to remember that some of us are Republicans, which means we believe in more power to the states. Assuming for a moment that Row v. Wade were overturned. At that point, it would be up to states to decide. I don’t know how it works in other states, but here in Texas, it would be decided by a popular vote. Other states may decide strictly in their legisatures, but being unfamiliar with their constitutions, I shouldn’t speculate further.

I’m still curious, though. Who exactly put these thoughts into your head? I’m asking specifically about the posibility of court decision overturnings(not sure if that’s a word).

22

My guess is that it comes from mildly veiled lies and implications by the news. They quietly say that the president has the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices, then make really loud noises about popular or important Supreme Court decisions, making a tenuous connection between Bush’s election and a decision that goes mildly against one of his stated beliefs. The rest is left up to the viewer to fabricate, once they’ve been whipped into a scared frenzy.

So they don’t actually say these things, but if somebody gives you flour, water, and yeast, what can you make out of it but bread?

Aside: Journalistic integrity has gone right out the window in my lifetime, and I’m disgusted by it. Journalists used to be proud of persecution by the government, but now they fight over the scraps that fall from the president’s table.

23 
For those who want to keep abortion legal, yes. For those who think it should be illegal, overturning R v W is the first step. It depends where you land on the issue.
24

lurkernomore, count me among the former group.

Aglarond, you obviously haven’t followed any of the “who are you voting for?” threads that popped up in the month or two previous to the election. I didn’t vote out of fear or ignorance. I voted Nader.

Now I don’t know which states allowed abortions and which didn’t before 1973, but the practical result of allowing the states to decide for themselves was that women who lived in states that outlawed abortion and couldn’t afford to go to a state that allowed it were either forced to seek out potentially fatal back-alley abortions or have children they didn’t want. Since the question was one of quality of life for women across America as opposed to a certain group of women in a particular state or region, the question of states’ rights in this case should not be an item of discussion.

25

I do not seriously believe that Bush could successfully overturn Roe v. Wade, or appoint USSC justices who could. He’d face way too much opposition and he knows it.

OTOH, that shouldn’t keep anyone who wants to keep abortion legal from seeing this decision as the linchpin. If states’s rights had been enough to legalize abortion nationally we wouldn’t have needed Roe v. Wade in the first place.

26

I’m not going to add anything to this conversation in this post, but I just want to clarify.

First, I specified that my last post was not an attack on you specifically. If you voted for Nader because you legitimately believed in what he stood for, then more power to you. Same for Buchanan, Gore, and Bush. The fact remains that you didn’t know what Roe v. Wade was, but you still tried to use it in an argument. THAT is what bothered me. I’ll respect any vote placed by someone who believes in what their candidate stands for, regardless of how far away they are from my own beliefs. One of the beautiful things about this country is our abilities to do just that.

“the question of states’ rights in this case should not be an item of discussion”

Exactly the point Joe_Cool was saying. You believe in pro choice as long as you choose what you want me to choose. If you truly believe in freedom and pro choice, then why do you vote for someone who believes in more government control? By that reasoning, shouldn’t the power reside closer to the people? And that goes for both Gore and Nader. Please note that I do not agree with all tenants of Republican policy, and for the record, I’m pro choice. But, I have a list of priorities and Gore’s Democratic party and Nader’s socialistic Green Party fall way short of meeting the majority of my beliefs.

27

I didn’t. SwimmingRiddles did. I still would like to know what the difference between saying states could not outlaw abortion and legalizing abortion is.

**

Your choice is that you do not support abortion. At least that’s what I understand from your argument; please correct me if I’m wrong. Legal enforcement of the anti-abortion stance (i.e. outlawing abortion) is that it eliminates choice for the majority of American women. This was the case as long as states’ rights took precedence on the abortion issue. If it took a federal ruling to give women the freedom of choice over their bodies and their lives, then in this case (and I notice you dropped that emphasis when you quoted me :rolleyes: ) the overruling of states’ rights serves a good purpose.

28

You slightly misread me. I hate abortion. I don’t think it’s right and I could never be a part of carrying an abortion out. But, I don’t feel that I have the right to make the decision for anyone else. I do not support the reversal of Roe v Wade, but if it happens, I will vote in my state according to my beliefs. My belief is that the governement should stay out of people’s personal business as much as possible, even if it doesn’t necessarily meet all of my beliefs.

Those rolleyes were COMPLETELY unnecesary in your last post. I didn’t drop the emphasis, I didn’t even see it. If you’ll notice, I did not hit the quote button to place that, I simply did a cut and paste from one window to another.

And again, I’ll state, the fact remains that you supposedly want people to have choices and to be free, yet you voted for a man who wants to do things such as:

  1. Nationalizing health care(government control)
  2. Placing salary caps on the general public(government control)
  3. National standards for what companies can charge their customers(government control)
  4. Even more say over corporate mergers(government control)

Just to name a few. I want the power given back to the people, as I said, even if it doesn’t always work in my favor.

29

That was supposed to say “I do support the reversal of Roe v Wade, and if it happens”. I got ahead of myself.

30

Then you shouldn’t vote to outlaw abortion. Declaring someone’s rights as a woman to be illegal is making that decision for them.

There’s a difference between regulation of one’s personal affairs and defending the rights of citizens. Where states’ rights fail to meet that challenge, the government should be made to step in.

**

Perhaps a little more attention would do the trick. The “Quote” button is fairly easy to use, as is hand-typing the UBB codes for quotes.

**

In other words, placing a limit on the role of private enterprise in health care, and doing something to ensure that the priority is providing decent health care to everyone instead of making profits off denial of care.

**

Not sure what you mean here, as I’d certainly oppose salary caps for most working people. Public officials should definitely have a salary cap and corporations and businesses should be more heavily taxed.

**

In other words, doing something to ensure that most necessary goods remain affordable to people living on hourly wages.

**

When it comes to choosing corporate interests over the rights of members of society in general, I hold no shame in saying that in my book, corporate interests should give way every time.

Given the present circumstances, any opportunity to push the federal government to step in and defend people’s rights is an opportunity that should be taken advantage of. Doesn’t mean I think that’s a complete answer to the problem, but it does teach valuable lessons in how to get things done and sparks a couple ideas about what might need to be done.

31

Hey, stop debating in my forum!

Sheesh, what’s wrong with you people? Do you think that all that election crap gives you the right to post unmundane and point, ehm, full stuff in here? HUH?

Don’t make me bring on the whip :wink:

32

You even come near me with that whip, Coldfire, and I’ll make sure the Dutch markets are monopolized by Anheuser-Busch and Coors.

Don’t think I won’t.

33

Well, I for one am disgusted by the turn this thread has taken. Somehow we get from “Bush is prez” to “The Democratic Party relies of fear tactics to garner support.” Hmm I’ve heard that turn before, and it’s still off-key.

I can’t think of anything more insulting than to suggest that someone’s political belief is incorrect because they are too ignorant to know the difference between fact and propaganda. I don’t think Bush will overturn Roe vs. Wade, which is the first step in the illegalization of abortion. I don’t think Bush will loosen gun controls, although I do believe (and rightly so) that he will not institute measures to increase gun control, which disturbs me greatly.

Don’t you dare assume that I (or any other Democrat) voted for Al Gore because I do not know the difference between fear and propaganda. I based my vote on my personal experiance with gun violence. I based my vote on my knowledge of each candidate’s views and opinions. I based my vote on what I believe to be best for the country. I based my vote on who I believed was best qualified to run the damn country. I voted out of my disgust for George W. Bush’s blatant ignorance, out of my dislike of Nader’s proposed governmental controls, and due to my respect for Gore’s (and the Democratic Party’s) platform.

No, Aglarond, you did not say that I personally voted out of fear. But you did say:

And the Republican Party has always run on the belief that the rich must get richer, the poor must be poorer, and the federal government should be centralized to the point that it does not exist.

No, none of these are true, but they are stupid stereotypes that exist out of ignorance.

Saying that the entire Democratic platform is based on ignorance and fear mongering is rude, stereotypical and above all, ignorant to all those who believe in it.

I am not a Republican, but I will never make the sweeping generalizations about Republicans that you made about Democrats. I think Bush is a stupid little man, but I would never assume the same of all Republicans. Please have the same respect for Democrats.

Joe_Cool, I will not reiterate all the countless arguments for gun control, because unles syou live under a bed, you’ve heard them all. But rest assured that many people do disagree with your opinion, myself included.

What is so bad about not “raping” the Bill of Rights is that people are dying because of your beloved guns every day. Not just drug dealers, not just crackheads and whores, but innocent people. This reality, IMHO, far negates your right to own a gun.

The only reasonable excuse for owning a gun that I will ever accept is hunting, and guess what? You can buy meat in grocery stores now.

The only thing worse than Bush as president is the possibility of that twit being a senator.

34

at the risk of actually having a point…

Yup. Figured that one out.

You realize, of course, that the converse could be put forth by those opposed to abortion: they say it is murder, so it should be outlawed in all states, as it is opposed to the best interests of all fetuses/babies nationally?

uh, Ag - “tenants” of the Rep platform? I think it’s “tenets”

Easy. If Roe v Wade stands, a state cannot change it’s mind and outlaw abortion. If all 50 states had made abortion legal, and there was no Roe v. Wade, there would be no legal barrier to one state deciding to outlaw it. The door previously could swing either way. Roe locked the door open.

Ag, if you are for repeal, and against abortion, but do not feel you should restrict others, may I assume your opposal of RvW is a states’ rights issue, and not about abortion at all?

No offense, Coldy, but I prefer women. You Euros…

35

“Ag, if you are for repeal, and against abortion, but do not feel you should restrict others, may I assume your opposal of RvW is a states’ rights issue, and not about abortion at all?”

Yes. If R v W were repealed and it came up to a vote, I would vote to keep abortions legal, despite the fact that I don’t condone them. It’s not about abortion, it’s about the principle of states’ rights.

Nacho4Sara, again, I did not mean that to be a sweeping generalization of Democrats in general. I have many, many Democrat friends who voted for Gore because they truly believed in what he stood for. That doesn’t make them wrong, it makes them willing to stand up for their principles. To those of you who voted for any of the candidates because you were informed about the issues, I applaude you. Nacho, I’m familiar with your political beliefs, and so Gore was a good candidate for you. I’m not saying you’re wrong, because in this case, there is no right or wrong, only opinion. Just because somebody’s opinion’s don’t match yours or don’t match mine doesn’t make them stupid or uniformed.

I made those statements due to comments I’ve heard around me in this election season. I’m not saying everybody who voted Republican was necessarily totally informed, but most of the Bush supporters I’ve talked to have all said why they think Bush would make a good president. Most of the Gore supporters I’ve talked to, with exceptions, I add, have not talked about why Gore is good, but rather why Bush is bad. The Democrats going around to black churches saying that their civil rights were in jeaopardy if Bush got into office. The Democrats hiring telemarketing firms to call seniors in Florida and tell them that Bush really intended to take away their Social Security. The Democrats calling various gay organizations saying they’d lose their civil rights if Bush had his way. The only way I know this last one is because I have some gay friends in some group(can’t remember the name) and they had a man from the Gore campaign come and speak to them. The facts speak for themselves. While there were many, many people who voted for Gore because he would uphold their values, there were so many people out there who voted for Gore out of fear.

As for gun control, I’m completely against it. I don’t personally own a handgun, because, quite frankly, I don’t have a use for one. But, I still see it as somebody’s right to own one and I’ll support them if that right is threatened. I hunt, and I intend to keep hunting. I don’t care if meat can be bought in the stores. I enjoy the hunt. I’m not a trophy hunter. None of it goes to waste. But I still enjoy it, and I refuse to have that taken away from me. It’s my personal belief, and it may not be true, that if you take the guns away from people like me who obey the laws, guns will only end up in the hands of criminals. At least this way I have a chance to defend myself. People killed people long before guns, long before bows, long before knives. Taking away one of those items is not going to stop the problem.

36

OK, I guess you’d been arguing that all along and I misread you. I still maintain that states’ rights aren’t enough to guarantee that abortion would remain legal in all 50 states, like I believe it should. When it comes to a woman’s right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, the door should remain “locked open”, as lurkernomore described it.

Yeah, I got threatened with that stick a lot once people found out I was going the third-party route. To me it’s a greater indicator that Gore wasn’t much of a choice in the first place and there wasn’t much to differentiate him from Bush as far as policies and attitudes were concerned.

37

Let me just say this: There are a lot of party-line parrots on both sides. I respect someone who knows the issues and disagrees with me a lot more than someone who agrees with me because “X says so, and I’m a member of his party.”

38

Ah, I love the smell of politics in the morning. I’m posting my response to you here to avoid getting a wooden shoe in the ass for debating in MPSIMS. Please, come join me in Great Debates.

39

No, states’ rights is not enough to ensure that all the local people agree with you, Oh Great Enlightened One.

Local rule lets local people make their own rules and not be dictated to by someone not in that area.

If it offends you that a state votes to ban something, move to that state and vote there. Convince the locals to change, don’t dictate to them from Washington.

40

Abortion isn’t a local issue and shouldn’t be decided locally. It affects women across the country.

:rolleyes: If Mrs. O and I didn’t have to worry about finding a place to live and getting jobs that paid enough to feed and clothe the two of us and the Tzeroling, I might think your plan made some sense.