Forum Discussion

I think worse would be some adulterous, draft dodger that would sell out our military to China...Oh hey wait a minute!


TEEEEEJ

>you know the liberals will want to elect some
>actor to public office! Or even President?! Could
>you imagine how terrible America would be if some
>horrible uninformed actor became President?!

Reagan was an actor. And judging from his Reaganomic pretty uninformed about what a president does.
You really do not know your history.

She said horrible uninformed actor, you know, like Jimmy Carter. The cartoon mentioned Hollywood but when I think actor, Carter comes to mind. Take the funeral the other day for an example. Seems to me he knew exactly what a president does, stand your ground, mean what you say, and defeat leftism wherever it's found. Oh yeah, he also laid the groundwork for the economy clinton took credit for!

>mean what you say, and defeat leftism wherever it's found.
Why? Is it terrorism now?

Sorry, last part refers to Ronald Reagan not Carter, I missed the return key.

Also. Define leftism.

No, not because it's terrorism, because it takes from people the ability to make choices for themselves and their family. It shoves it's choices down peoples throat by nefarious means, sidestepping the law, judges making law by strreeecching the Constitution to fit the case. Leftist's use of judicial power to nix referendum. Crush individualism, cookie cutter style!

Ok so you made the statements. Now back them up please.

What I refer to as "leftism" is defined as the advocating of liberal, socialist, or communist political and social change or reform. What I would ask is for one example, where dissention was not punished and the government who took this course actually expanded the freedom and basic liberties of it's citizens. You see that has always been it's weak point, it sounds great, but you have to do something with the people who won't go with the flow. In the past it's often been a trench dug in the ground.
One of the things that they strive for first, is control of the schools. If they can take the parents ability to raise their children in the way that they see fit, away from the parents, and STANDARDIZE & MANIPULATE the doctrine that the children come to accept as a way of life, it's all they know, then they have control over the future population.

sidestepping the law: Roe v Wade
Pro life or pro choice, it does not matter. It never was a constitutional matter. It should have been legislated, let the people decide, not a court.
nix referendum:
Prop 187
Crush individualism:
By creating an environment where people can't mind their own business and expect others to reciprocate. I'm my brothers keeper, it's for the public good, we need to maintain a SAFE ____________. Whatever insert whatever you want. This is a big one, and I know what you think about the wiretapping but seriously I don't think it applies, or, mabye it does. I'm not going to pretend to understand the nuances of that case. I don't know, can a U.S. citizen be considered a foreign agent? I would say so but it's obviously a matter of law. My understanding is that thats the way it's worded.

I got to say this: You have a rather warped view of political systems. I do nto even think you are defining them correctly.
(lookup the definitions on dictionary.com)
liberalism
conservatims
socialism
communism
capitalism

Please look this up:
LIBERALISM does not equal SOCIALISM does not equal COMMUNISM
In fact those systems are miles appart from each other. (Take any Political Systems class at your local college and tehy will show it to you how and why)
In addition despite various governments claiming to be socialistic or communistic, they were/are NOT. Soviet Russia was a dictatorship, so is Cuba, China and Albania. Dictotorships are known for supressing freedoms of speech. Just because a country CLAIMED to be SOCIALISTIC/COMMUNISTIC/LIBERAL it does not it were.

More over liberalism and conservatism are not, in fact, polar opposites.
Liberalism does not advocate that children need to be taken away from their parents.

What does Prop 187 have to do with INDIVIDUALISM? Have you ever read it?

>sidestepping the law: Roe v Wade
Pro life or pro choice, it does not matter. It never was a constitutional matter. It should have been legislated, let the people decide, not a court.
Why not? Lets take any woman.. Biologically she can bear children. Does it mean she ABSOLUTELY HAS to do it just cause she got pregnant? She is not a baby making machine, she is a human being with choices. More over carrying a baby severely affects you life (biologically). If a woman is financially unable to support the child should she still have it? If the state tells her that she does, does she not have a right to argue with a state in the courts? Does nto resolving disputes is what courts do?

Prop 187 = nix referendum , nothing said about individualism
While we're on it, whats the deal with this = that. How can everything have an equal? Sound like a narrow view on things! Speaking of views, how is mine warped? I never said socialism = communism, you see? Thats your style. 65mph is closer to 60mph, than 30mph. So when you compare them you can't say that in relation to each other 30 and 60 go together! I think they give this test in the second grade. You know, which of these three things is different than the other two. This is to that, as ______ is to this.
As to taking a political systems class at a local college, I really have to hand it to you guys, you got a plan and stuck with it. Been at it since the sixties and have really been sucessful.

Yes, courts resolve disputes, but if the issue is not constitutional in nature it should admit it. Or at least use a more relavent part of the constitution. It should be an AMMENDMENT if they can't find one. It was bad law.

> Does it mean she ABSOLUTELY HAS to do it just cause she got pregnant?

More to it than that, your using oversimplified logic.
Use the legislature!

On capitalism, I get the feeling you subscribe to the school of thought that thinks it's an oppressive system. I'd like to submit to you that it's the most populist's system ever devised by mankind. Everyone has a vote - everytime someone spends a dollar they are choosing which companies they support. Everytime someone spends a dollar they are DIRECTLY AFFECTING the manner in which the business in this country is conducted. Sure it's short circuited sometimes, but as a whole we have the steering wheel because there are a whole lot more of the little guy's than big - with a whole lot more money as a whole, (here's a word you'll love) Collectivley.
So next time you want to blame America for it's plight, put the blame where it belongs, on the people not the system.

>I never said socialism = communism, you see?
You said: What I refer to as "leftism" is defined as the advocating of liberal, socialist, or communist political and social change or reform.
You defined leftism as that. It still bears to see why that is.
>Use the legislature!
Ok. So states had passed legistature on it. Women disagreed and disputed it. And again the disputes of such nature are solved by the courts. Was that unclear the first time.

>On capitalism
Capitalism is an economic and not a political system. Point in place is china. Political system dictatorship (yeah, I know THEY call it capitalims), but their current economic system is capitalism.

>As to taking a political systems class at a local college, I really have to hand it to you guys, you got a plan and stuck with it. Been at it since the sixties and have really been sucessful.

Err, somethign is wrong with taking college classes?

correction:
yeah, I know THEY call it capitalims = yeah, I know THEY call it communism

The only good kind of actor is the kind that is capable of shutting up and doing what the public wants them to do...ACT!!!! We want actors to act, singers to sing, dancers to dance, and the politicians to politik. If an actor wants to call out their beliefs on politics, then they should run for office, if they win, good for them, if they loose, too bad. IF they are successful (Like Reagan) then good, if they are screw ups (Like the rest) then that is bad.

>Err, somethign is wrong with taking college classes?

Don�t be coy! The cartoon explains it.
http://www.conservativecartoons.com/forum/message.php?id=846

>You said: What I refer to as "leftism" is defined as the advocating of liberal, socialist, or communist political and social change or reform.
>You defined leftism as that. It still bears to see why that is.

I�m pretty sure the word you�re having trouble with is OR! As to why that is, because the Encarta Dictionary defines it as that! Oh wait I see your point, lets see what your dictionary says, leftism: n : the ideology of the political left; belief in or support of the tenets of the political left.
Gee that�s much more clear.

>Capitalism is an economic and not a political system. Point in place is china. Political system dictatorship (yeah, I know THEY call it capitalims), but >their >current economic system is capitalism.

I never said that capitalism was a political system! What confused you was my assertion that it gave everyone a vote, which is usually associated with a political system!

>Ok. So states had passed legistature on it. Women disagreed and disputed it. And again the disputes of such nature are solved by the courts. Was that >unclear the first time.

Umm, no. not as unclear as the rest of your arguments anyway. Lets see if I can be a wee bit clearer though. It is mine, and a lot of other peoples belief that the right to an abortion, let alone a free tax payer funded abortion, is not guaranteed by the Constitution of these United States of America. The Supreme Court decided they could interpret the previously mentioned piece of paper as containing that right, somewhere in the Right to Privacy ink. Let me assure you that I understand that abortion, like electronic wiretaps, space shuttles, nuclear missles, and bananna �strawberry- pineapple juice daiquiris�, were probably pretty strange ideas� to the founding father�s. (they probably were omitted by unanimous decision). Oops, sorry getting off track again, anyway, let me sum it up really fast for yuh without talking stuff. The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, a bit more to it than that but you get the idea. Now, if it�s not in the Constitution specifically, then they have to try and decide what the authors original intent would have been, and try to apply that to the particular case. Again, a little more to it than that but you get the idea. In the case of abortion, I don�t see how it was decided as a right to privacy issue. It should be left to the individual state�s to be decided by the legislative branch of government. I know they sent it to the court but it should have been sent back. You certainly are right to expect your opinion to be heard and not dismissed as stuff, but I have the right to disagree, and I believe that my interpretation allows for a much broader amount of choice within the boundaries of our country. Something I never have heard mentioned in the debate. The Catholic hospital that is being forced to do abortions, the taxpayer who finds abortion (especially late term), conflicts with their religious belief�s, or yes, even the person with a strong pro choice belief, who fears their belief may be marginalized in a sweeping change of judicial opinion, or power! It's not right for the Court to"create" law in the Constitution. If it isn't in there it should be amended by the legislative branch, or preferably left to the States' to decide.

> The only good kind of actor is the kind that is capable of shutting up and doing what the public wants them to do...ACT!
If an actor wants to call out their beliefs on politics, then they should run for office, if they win, good for them, if they loose, too bad.
You know they are NOT JUST actors. They are human beings too.
So you can voice out your political opinions, but they can not voice out theirs? Should not you be moving to China then? They like censorship there.

>Don�t be coy! The cartoon explains it.
http://www.conservativecartoons.com/forum/message.php?id=846
It does not explain why people should not be taking college classes.

>I never said that capitalism was a political system!
You compared it with the rest as if it was the same category.

> (they probably were omitted by unanimous decision)
They were? You got some records on that? Maybe a time machine?

>I don�t see how it was decided as a right to privacy issue.
Um, privacy in this case is defined as private matter. Ones body is a private matter. Control over ones own body is a private matter. A womans body is her own matter under her control. She is not, an "politician" demand" baby making machine.

> It should be left to the individual state�s to be decided by the legislative branch of government.
I really do not think you read what I say. It was something that was decided by legistlature. LAWS regarding abortion WERE passed by legistlature. Women disagree and and disputed those laws. Courts is where you decide such disputes. So you see, the process included legislature. If you are gonna argue that its not courts job to strike down illegal laws I'd beg to reconsider. Jim Crow laws like poll tax, laws that forced blacks to sit in the back of the bus and the rest of the segregation LAWS were PASSED by STATE legistlatures. Should courts not have struck down them just because they were made by legistlature?
You seem to argue that just because legistlature made laws it means they can not be struck down in courts. That is of course not true, since the original intent of the founding fathers was to have judiciary act as a check on executive and LEGISTLATURE.

>The Catholic hospital that is being forced to do abortions
I call BS. Its up there with pharmasists refusing to sell birth control pills. Just because he is morally opposed to it, it does not mean he should enforce his beliefs on other people. You want an analogy I bet.
Let say tomorrow a large group of pharmasists came out and said that they oppose heart medication and won't distrubute it because they believe that God gives everyone their set amount of time and mankind should not try to prolong it using drugs. Next day you run into the pharmacy for some heart medication for your child/father/mother/spouse and you are refused it. You run to a different pharmacy and get the same thing. Eventually once you find a pharmasist who gives it to you, its been 7 hours and by then your child/father/mother/spouse has been hospitalized. DO THOSE pharmasists have a right to deny medication as they see fit? Let me put it to you this way...if they can not do the job THEY SHOULD NOT BE THERE!!!

> It's not right for the Court to"create" law in the Constitution.
Nope its courts right to strike down bad ones. Using your argument means we would probably still have segregated schools.

>So you can voice out your political opinions, but they >can not voice out theirs? Should not you be moving >to China then? They like censorship there.

Speaking of censorship, I think that voicing an opinion is what Pete was doing.

>It does not explain why people should not be taking college classes.

Who was it that said anything, anything at all, about "people should not be taking college classes"?

>Liberalism does not advocate that children need to be taken away from their parents.

Come to think of it, where did I say this? Holy cow! Are you even reading what I'm writing? This is what I said verbatim.� No, not because it's terrorism, because it takes from people the ability to make choices for themselves and their family."

I then said in the next response;

"One of the things that they strive for first is control of the schools. If they can take the parents ability to raise their children in the way that they see fit, away from the parents, and STANDARDIZE & MANIPULATE the doctrine that the children come to accept as a way of life"
I'm sorry but I'm not backing away from this one!

>You compared it with the rest as if it was the same category.

Read what I said again-

"On capitalism, I get the feeling you subscribe to the school of thought that thinks it's an oppressive system. I'd like to submit to you that it's the most populist's system ever devised by mankind. Everyone has a vote - every time someone spends a dollar they are choosing which companies they support. Every time someone spends a dollar they are DIRECTLY AFFECTING the manner in which the business in this country is conducted. Sure it's short circuited sometimes, but as a whole we have the steering wheel because there are a whole lot more of the little guy's than big - with a whole lot more money as a whole, (here's a word you'll love) Collectively.
So next time you want to blame America for its plight put the blame where it belongs, on the people not the system. "

I'm not sure, but I think you may be looking at the wrong discussion when you type your responses, this may be the problem. (i hope)

>They were? You got some records on that? Maybe a time machine?

A very bad attempt at humor, I admit my guilt.

>"Um, privacy in this case is defined as private matter. "Ones body is a private matter. Control over ones own >body is a private matter. A woman�s body is her own matter under her control. She is not, an "politician" >demand" baby making machine.

Whew, one we can finally agree on, I think that I can translate your meaning from that.

A woman�s body is her own matter under her control, and control over her own body is a very private matter, yup. And aside from the usual argument of right to abortion in the case of rape or incest, which is always used- and granted right out of the gate, when did she lose control of her body? I think the question is extremely pertinent don't you? Did she lose control of her body after conception when she became pregnant? Is it like getting cancer and then removing a tumor, if you smoke and get cancer, am I saying cancer shouldn't be removed? How can a politician force a woman to be a "baby making machine"? (Your words!) Is he the sperm donor? (used to be called a father). She got pregnant when she was abducted by aliens? Again, just because she made a mistake, should she be forced to live with the consequences? In most cases stretch marks, and a hospital stay, the pain, and as many of you mothers out there can attest the physical change I won't go into detail here. This brings up so many questions, maybe the most pertinent of all is how in the hell did we get so far off topic here? You said "If you are gonna argue that its not courts job to strike down illegal laws I'd beg to reconsider.� We'll ain't nobody beggin here bud! Ain't anybody arguing with your stance that it's the Court's job to strike down illegal law either! I'm not even going to try to argue that it's the Court's job to return the case, to the States' if the Court finds that the case is not a Constitutional issue, or to congress FOR AMMENDMENT! Oh, wait that's exactly what I was arguing, sorry about that G.W.

>You seem to argue that just because legistlature >made laws it means they can not be struck down in >courts.

Absolutely miss-stating my stance, although not as bad as the next one! This is like me saying G.W. is arguing that State Law is irrelevant even if it's constitutional!

>founding fathers

Racist, greedy, rich white guys'. Sorry, but it applies to the next question!

>Jim Crow laws like poll tax, laws that forced blacks to sit in the back of the bus and the rest of the >segregation LAWS were PASSED by STATE legistlatures. Should courts not have struck down them just >because they were made by legistlature?

BAIT n' SWITCH!!
I already addressed this when I wrote the previous argument, but I excluded it, hoping you wouldn't use this lame routine. I call it routine because it's been used to death. What it is, is jumping to a conclusion that is barely similar to the real subject, but has just enough in common to make the comparison seem reasonable! It invokes the sentiment and emotion of the civil rights' fight, human rights for every individual that are guaranteed by the constitution, to everyone. This argument, my friend would be better applied to the gay rights' issue instead because it overlooks a few key points when applied this way.
There were Supreme Court decisions made against previous Supreme Court decisions ruling them unconstitutional. Not only does this pertain to your distraction but it proves that it can happen! See Brown vs. Board of Education �separate but equal" first stated in Plessy vs. Ferguson violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Where do you think the Fourteenth Amendment came from? The judiciary? You mentioned that the job of the court was to keep the other two branches in check, how about keeping the lower courts in check, sure, but that doesn�t mean that cases sent to them are always issues that should be decided by The SUPREME court. Look you�re comparing apples and oranges, the rights of black Americans were always a very constitutional issue, the debate was long and bloody but when it comes down to brass tacks they�re PEOPLE! Constitution says men it means women too, constitution says people it means blacks too. You�re saying people don�t like State law, they take it to court, court says no, they appeal, next say�s no, appeal again. All the way to the Supreme Court. Court say�s yep, we�ll fix this. This is true in some cases but where did the amendments come from? Congress! The amendments are part of the Constitution that the Court follows. Minority civil rights are a constitutional matter as are all civil rights. Women who get pregnant and then decide they don�t want to give birth are in that situation the same as people who are born with a different skin color? Not really. Women who were pregnant were treated like blacks before civil rights were won, back before abortion was legal. Your kidding right, look, the Court took it upon itself to rule on something that was not in the constitution. Thus usurping power from the people, through their elected representatives.

> Just because he is morally opposed to it, it does not mean he should enforce his beliefs on other people.

Your enforcing your oppressive beliefs on privately owned businesses. Your enforcer of choice, the Federal government of course! This is where socialism begins.

>Let say tomorrow a large group of pharmasists came out and said that they oppose heart medication and won't distrubute it because they believe that >God gives everyone their set amount of time and mankind should not try to prolong it using drugs.

Your right on the money here, this has been a real concern of mine for a long time, religious zealots refusing to sell people heart medicine. Maybe we can get an amendment through Congress to save us in the event this actually plays out. It�s a blatant attempt to control business that doesn�t need control and violates peoples ability to conduct business in a way that conforms to their religious beliefs. Private business, hey G.W. the government doesn�t own this business some guy does. Or in the case of a corporation, stockholders. Don�t think for a minute they�ll stop there, they want to control YOU! And please don�t jump to E.P.A. laws on this one.

>if they can not do the job THEY SHOULD NOT BE THERE!!!

They should not be there anyway, everyone knows you should get goods and services from the government. But until then lets have another analogy, say there is a market that does not have a pharmacy, the big store up the road does. There are people who don�t drive and live much closer to the market. They need medicine really bad, some of them cannot walk far enough to get to the big store with the pharmacy, but they can walk far enough to get to the market. They call ACLU and tell them about their situation. ACLU sues market, market hires pharmacist and drugs and gets license and pays fees etc. etc. The only people that come to market to buy drugs are the people who can�t drive. Market can�t afford gasoline taxes anymore and cannot afford to sell gas and drugs too. Market goes bankrupt. Moral of this story is that if they couldn�t do the job they should not be there!

> Nope its courts right to strike down bad ones. Using your argument means we would probably still have segregated schools.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with Congress or amending the Constitution. Again, the rights ALL AMERICANS enjoy are in the constitution, and people did not interpret it correctly. Using my argument, the soldiers in Iraq would be shooting flintlocks, blah blah, blah,.

China?! Hey, thats communist!! And as Good Will seems to constantly forget, Republican's are NOT communists. I don't know where you got mixed up.

>Republican's are NOT communists
If it quacks like and duck and thinks that WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING is good.....its a....
(A) Communist (actual one)
(B) Dictator (but who pretends to be a communist)
(C) Republican
(D) All of the Above
(E) Write which answers apply ________

Some people might complain I excluded Democrats, liberals and others. Tell me who else thinks warrantless wiretapping is good. :)

As I've noted in detail before, it's not wiretapping American citizens talking to each other, it's wiretapping terrorists calling to or from foreign countries. Like Jack Kemp said, if we can drop cruise missiles on these terrorists, why can't we listen to their phone calls?

Even though the NSA is not listening to our phone calls, you continue to insist it is. Based on everything I have read from you in this forum, your only evidence is that you don't like Bush. That's all... Just villify, villify, villify. But, I repeat myself.

P.S. Other than an interesting snapshot in time, I don't hold public opinion polls in high regard. But to answer your question, About half the public thinks that this wiretapping was good (47%, according Gallup)

>it's not wiretapping American citizens talking to each other, it's wiretapping terrorists calling to or from foreign countries.

Say you and the bush administration. But since there is no evidence for that, people simply do not believe you. There is NO OVERSIGHT on this, so I err on the side teh Bush is lying. And he has lied before.

Where is this gallop poll?
And wait...is not 47% a minority?

I've got to catch a bus, so I'll respond to *most* of this later. For now I just want to say, my father is a market researcher (guy who writes and processes surveys and polls) and I can tell you 47% is *not* a minority in about 99% of cases. The reason is that there's usually *at least* 3% who either don't answer or say "DK/NA" (Don't Know/Not Applicable), or say "Not Sure" or some option like that. Therefore, if 47% said it's OK, then I'd guess the margin of people who said it wasn't is a bit less than half as well. However, *even if* it is 50% who disapprove, since when is a minority by only 3% a significant statistic in the American public (outside of elections)?

Well lets see the poll and the actual poll question. Then we can talk about it. Can not talk about things I do not know about.

Ben:
Missed ya post before. here is a reply.

>Speaking of censorship, I think that voicing an opinion is what Pete was doing.
And who was censoring him?

>Come to think of it, where did I say this? Holy cow! Are you even reading what I'm writing? This is what I said verbatim.� No, not because it's terrorism, because it takes from people the ability to make choices for themselves and their family."

Um, I think you misunderstood. In liberal societies noone takes those children away from parents, they are free to make choices for themselves and their children.

>If they can take the parents ability to raise their children in the way that they see fit, away from the parents, and STANDARDIZE & MANIPULATE the doctrine that the children come to accept as a way of life"
I believe you can have people opt their children out of a number of classes in school (sex ed comes to mind, a parent can request to have teh child not attend it).

>"On capitalism, I get the feeling you subscribe to the school of thought that thinks it's an oppressive system.
You speak of it as it is a political system. In larger sense we arguing semantics. All I said is: that while the other three are considered to be mostly political system, capitalism is considered to be economical. But there is of course some leeway in that. It is really a much larger argument.

>A very bad attempt at humor, I admit my guilt.
:-P

>A woman�s body is her own matter under her control, and control over her own body is a very private matter, yup
So its her choice to decide if she is going to put her body thru pregnancy. Pregancy is a lot more complicated and affects a woman much more they you have stated. Its nto just stretch marks.

>I'm not even going to try to argue that it's the Court's job to return the case, to the States' if the Court finds that the case is not a Constitutional issue, or to congress FOR AMMENDMENT! Oh, wait that's exactly what I was arguing, sorry about that G.W.

What makes you think a right to ones own body is not a constitutional issue? More over if you look at a lot of abortion laws taht they had before they were struck down, they did not even have provisions for rape, incest and etc...

>BAIT n' SWITCH!!
> already addressed this when I wrote the previous argument, but I excluded it, hoping you wouldn't use this lame routine.

Actually all I was doing was drawing an analogy. All I mean to say is that laws passed by legistlature can eb unjust, unconstitution and deliberately restrictive for bad reason. I happen to think that anti-abortion laws were that. The courts agreed and striked it down. Thats all.

>Your enforcing your oppressive beliefs on privately owned businesses. Your enforcer of choice, the Federal government of course! This is where socialism begins.

>Your right on the money here, this has been a real concern of mine for a long time, religious zealots refusing to sell people heart medicine.
Ok again...analogy!!! Can you understand that? next time before I draw one I'll announce it.

All I am saying is that its the pharmacist's job to distribute medicine. If he can not do it, why be a pharmacist?

>Private business, hey G.W. the government doesn�t own this business some guy does. Or in the case of a corporation, stockholders. Don�t think for a minute they�ll stop there, they want to control YOU! And please don�t jump to E.P.A. laws on this one.

Ok how about FDA laws? Meat that you eat also comes from private business, does not mean they can do anything they want with it, before they sell it :)

>Ok how about FDA laws? Meat that you eat also >comes from private business, does not mean they can >do anything they want with it, before they sell it :)

It doesn't appy because what your saying is that the laws are there to protect people from food poisoning and illegal substances in the meat, not who has to sell it. If a guy want to sell nothing but ground pork, because thats what most people in the neigborhood eat, he can. In a business sense, what your saying is he should sell ground beef too because it makes it more conveniant to people who want it. Regardless of how much he has to buy and throw away in order to keep it on the shelves. What you were reffering to was Wal Mart not wanting to sell the day after pill, they also don't sell a lot of other medicines because Wal Mart is a low price outlet. In a lot of cases you have to ask your doctor to specify that the prescription is not to be substituted with a generic if you want the name brand drug when you go there too. They do this for the same reason that they buy so much crap from China, to keep prices low. It's a business that is trying to make money, I don't see anyone upset over the other drugs you can't seem to get from Wal Mart. I know you guy's hate Wal Mart and to tell you the truth I'm pretty turned off by all the chinese junk they sell. But do ya know what, if we didn't buy it they wouldn't sell it. And more people would have jobs in countries that were friendlier to the USA. I also don't think people realize how hard it is to run a business today and the government just keeps making it worse. You look at a huge company like Wal Mart and say screw them and then pass a law that affects a much smaller business. Who do you think is affected more by the law, Wal Mart or the little guy? Another thing is that your analogy was way out there, looking at business growth in this country over the past thirty years do you honestly think that people are going to have what could even remotley be considered a hard time finding a drug store that would sell you this drug, if they can make money doing so? If not I'll tell you what do do, open a drug store. That's how it works in this country. And I don't know about where you live, but around here you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a damn drugstore.

>All I am saying is that its the pharmacist's job to >distribute medicine. If he can not do it, why be a >pharmacist?

Thats not all you are saying, what you are saying is a huge central government should tell some guy trying to make a buck, and by the way employ some folks, what he can and CANNOT put on his shelves!

>Actually all I was doing was drawing an analogy. All >I mean to say is that laws passed by legistlature can >eb unjust, unconstitution and deliberately >restrictive for bad reason. I happen to think that >anti-abortion laws were that. The courts agreed and >striked it down. Thats all.

Yeah but I still say that it was a state issue, that it made it to the Supreme Court is great, but they should have handed it back down, their job was to decide whether it was constitutional or not, not make an ammendment to the constitution from the bench. That is the job of the peoples representatives in Congress.

>Ok again...analogy!!! Can you understand that? next >time before I draw one I'll announce it.

I understand, I'm just gettin a little testy.

>Um, I think you misunderstood. In liberal societies >noone takes those children away from parents, they >are free to make choices for themselves and their >children..

I think I just heard about a bunch of concerned libs that wanted Brittany Spear's kid taken away because she didn't have it in a car seat? But again, and again? Thats not what I was talking about, I was talking about brain washing kids in schools, you guy's have an agenda, mabye I'm just old fashioned, but I grew up around a bunch of old guy's that would drop dead of a heart attack if they saw the crap being pushed into our kids curriculum. No, not sex ed, although that may be connected, I don't know. I'm talking about surrendering individuality to the greater good here, socialist principals! When Bush said we need to push math and science I turned the radio and what do I hear, OH NO, whats to become of the social sciences, and the arts? Art I readily admit has a place in the curriculim, but to my way of thinking social arts classes being taught to seventh graders who are reading on what used to be considered a fourth grade level is appalling! Analytical thought is guided and shaped, and history is being re-written! Any parental values that people try to instill in their children have to be acceptable to the program being taught, or else it's distruptive. Some schools are better than others but some are out and out disgusting!

>I believe you can have people opt their children out >of a number of classes in school (sex ed comes to >mind, a parent can request to have teh child >not .attend it).

Not anymore!

>So its her choice to decide if she is going to put her >body thru pregnancy. Pregancy is a lot more >complicated and affects a woman much more they >>you have stated. Its nto just stretch marks.

Yeah, but what about how she got preagnant? Aliens? Is it like wrecking a car and the taking it to the body shop? Look you and I both know that this is duff to the argument anyway because the subject was about the law not whether it's right or wrong!

"because the subject was about the law "

Actually, not to pick on you Ben, but the subject of this cartoon is about whiny celebrities being ignored, and since Good Will is SO strict about staying on topic, I'd say if the celebrities are so unhappy with the way their opinions are "vilified" they should emulate Ronald, Arnold, and Sonny Bono, and go run for office. If the majority of the people agree with the celebrity, they will vote for that celebrity...

...Except maybe that's why they just spout off and never run for office, because they have a sneaking suspicion that they will LOSE...because the majority DOESN'T agree with them.

Al Franken's talking about running this year; maybe we'll see if he puts his money where his big fat whiny mouth is.

.What makes you think a right to ones own body is not >a constitutional issue? More over if you look at a lot >of abortion laws taht they had before they were >struck down, they did not even have provisions for>>>rape, incest and etc...

Again, puhleeeze. WEAK ARGUEMENT! We're not talking about the issue itself but if you want to go there fine! It's not the 70's. Rape and incest aren't the argument either! You guy's would have enough of a majority on this issue it would dissapear in the rearview mirror if you were'nt so damn radical about it! The pro abortion crowd in this country and the rest of the world for that matter, is so far removed from the way normal people think it's not funny. They're obsessed! No restrictions at all, if the babies born I have little doubt they would advocate a grace period where the mother can decide if she wants it or not. "We'll, I don't know, it's kind of ugly". And to recap, you know that rape incest doesn't apply, nowdays that is just used as an excuse to make your argument! Just like "it's only the size of a pencil eraser" is used to justify late term abortion!

Sorry, I have a bad habit of getting side tracked, and letting subjects run together. FRANKEN! HA!

> Sorry, I have a bad habit of getting side tracked, and letting subjects run together. FRANKEN! HA!
Hehehe, the post for both of us are getting longer.

>Thats not all you are saying, what you are saying is a huge central government should tell some guy trying to make a buck, and by the way employ some folks, what he can and CANNOT put on his shelves!

No. I am saying its his job to distribute the medicine and not arbitary decide what is good for the person getting the medicine and what is not. I believe my hear medicine analogy explains it. I am sorry you do not understand it. Hopefully you do.

>I think I just heard about a bunch of concerned libs that wanted Brittany Spear's kid taken away because she didn't have it in a car seat?
Have not heard and I do not know why you think they were concerned libs. More over, a child need a car sit in a car. There is no way those seat belts would help somethign as small as a child. I've driven a child around before and I know.

> Analytical thought is guided and shaped, and history is being re-written!
I do not know what your point is in that post. I happen to think its lousy that Arts gets less and less funding. I do nto liek that the reading skills for our kids are falling and etc. Also you said brainwashed. How are they brainwashed? What should tehy be taught otherwise? When I went to school, they taught me a lot of useful stuff. Personally I think one class was missing was a class on personal finances in nowaday America. I saw tons of kids run up credit card debt when they turned 18 and got a credit card. You'd hae to elebarote on your point, maybe in a more organized manner :)

Also Ben explain to me how who controls ones body in physiological term is not a constitutional issue? I shoudl be in charge of what pills I take that AFFECT MY OWN BODY. I should be in charge of when I (no offense) pee, eat, and if I am woman of whether a human being should be growing in my body. If a government insist on telling what I do with it and I dispute it, its very much a constitutional issue. I mean how much closer can you to it being constitutional if the government wants to control what I do with and within my OWN body.

Also you have to make the case why teh courts shoudl not get involved. Just because you pronouced it to be a non constitutional issue it does nto meant it is. Why can not a person go into a dispute between herself and a legistlature on this issue? Solving diputes is what they do.
>Yeah, but what about how she got preagnant? Aliens? Is it like wrecking a car and the taking it to the body shop? Look you and I both know that this is duff to the argument anyway because the subject was about the law not whether it's right or wrong!
And
>Again, puhleeeze. WEAK ARGUEMENT!
Only if learned from our history.
Read this; http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2801
--snip--
Feb. 13 [2006] � Lawmakers in South Dakota overwhelmingly approved legislation Thursday that would prohibit almost all abortions in the state. House Bill 1215 passed 47-22, after representatives voted against inserting amendments that would exempt women impregnated as the result of rape or incest. The bill, which now goes to the state Senate, makes an exception if the women�s life is in danger.
-- snip --
You think thats good?

>>>I believe you can have people opt their children out >of a number of classes in school (sex ed comes to >mind, a parent can request to have teh child >not .attend it).
>Not anymore!

telling ya you can totally opt your children out. At least around where I live. In fact I would support a measure that allows that.

Unless the celebrities spouting off their opinions are running for office, their opinions don't deserve anymore credence than your typical guy on the street. But then you rarely see the lefty celebs running for office, probably because even they don't believe their own bullsh*t, and the ones that do so come to display their insanity so publically that their constituents turn their backs on them.

//>A woman�s body is her own matter under her control, and control over her own body is a very private matter, yup
So its her choice to decide if she is going to put her body thru pregnancy. Pregancy is a lot more complicated and affects a woman much more they you have stated. Its nto just stretch marks.//

So, why is it that this "choice" must be allowed only *after* the fact, but anyone who tries to tell a teenage girl "If you're too young for a kid, you're too young to have sex," is decried as "repressive" of her "sexual freedom"? I fully support a woman's right to choose - in the sense that there should never be any law that restricts a woman's control over when she decides to spread her legs. And yes, this does mean I would support a rape/incest exception on an abortion ban (actually, only a rape exception... if it's incest *but not* rape, then it was still the girl/woman's choice, and the chances of a birth defect in 1 generation of inbreeding are incredibly low).

//I should be in charge of... ...if I am woman of whether a *human being* should be growing in my body.//

You said the magic words! If it's a "human being" (*your words*) then there is no "choice" involved. There is never a "right to choose" when it comes to the *life* of an innocent and defenseless human being. If it is a human being, then abortion is *no different* than infanticide, except that the cord has been cut... or, since that leaves it open to the "but it's *connected* to her body!" objection... let's say it's not infanticide... it's like killing your Siamese twin.

As for brainwashing in schools... I'm in sophomore year of college, and I can say that it's pretty true. I took a course on Islam last semester, and the professor took it for granted that we had no right to criticize Saudi Arabia's or Iran's fundamentalist regimes, because doing so would be something to the effect of "not trying to understand and be sensitive to their religion". And yes, I got points off of my essay for arguing against this. In my course this semester on Japanese Literature, we're reading "The Tale of Genji", which was written by a woman named Murasaki in ancient Japan... all well and good. The problem is that two of our key texts are books written by *modern feminists* about interpreting the works of *modern* female authors in the context of feminist theory. One of our essay topics is to explain how "Genji" shows the author's views on the cultural repression of women... even though the author lived centuries before the first feminist, and therefore wouldn't even know what "cultural repression" means... Those are just *some* examples.

Thank you Anthony for pointing out the true victim in the whole abortion argument. If anyone should have a say in the matter it is the one being murdered and not the one being inconvenienced.
I do, however, have a certain amount of disagreement with your distinction between rape and incest. I do not necessarily believe that a number of the victims of incest are able to make a proper choice due to maturity or circumstances but the act itself may not rise to the definition of rape. With that being said, I still do not think abortion should be allowed for any circumstance because murder is murder.

> in the sense that there should never be any law that >restricts a woman's control over when she decides >to spread her legs.

Well, yeah, but what about alien abduction? No, just kidding, that's what I was getting at, but wanted to stay close to the fact that it's stretching the constitution in order to realize a goal, prohibiting the state's from regulating it.

//I do, however, have a certain amount of disagreement with your distinction between rape and incest. I do not necessarily believe that a number of the victims of incest are able to make a proper choice due to maturity or circumstances but the act itself may not rise to the definition of rape.//

When I said "rape" I meant to include statutory, as well as any form of rape that relies on non-violent coercion. Of course, I have a few bones to pick with statutory rape law too (e.g. if two underage kids have sex, and they're the same age, how is it a crime? Theoretically they're both *equally* unable to make an informed decision about it.), but that's another issue. I certainly do think that incest *is* rape if it's involving an underage child or if it's the result of a coercive situation. I just meant that incest alone is not an excuse for an abortion if it's between consenting adult siblings for instance (it's still twisted, but not grounds for an abortion).

As for the "not for any reason" argument, I can very much respect that. I merely have a personal stance that's a bit looser when it comes to rape or *serious* danger to the mother (because I don't think you can *force* a mother to die for her child, even though I think it's the right thing for the mother to do).

Anthony:
>You said the magic words! If it's a "human being" (*your words*) then there is no "choice" involved. There is never a "right to choose" when it comes to the *life* of an innocent and defenseless human being. If it is a human being, then abortion is *no different* than infanticide, except that the cord has been cut... or, since that leaves it open to the "but it's *connected* to her body!" objection... let's say it's not infanticide... it's like killing your Siamese twin.

I guess I should have put more of an emphasis on GROWING.
Mainly because I put that distinction on it myself, but I should have highighted it and not assume you would emphasize that by default either.

I am gonna copy and past an example I used in the different discussion, because here it applies as part of the discussion:

I have heard the debate that "right to abortion" is not in the constitution.
Well "fetus right to life" is also not in the constitution. Now for it to apply, a fetus needs to be defined as a person. Is one cell a person? How about two cells? Just because it has a potential to become a person it does not mean it is one. Because by that logic ever sperm and egg cell would be one, the both have potential (maybe not the same as fertilized egg, but sitll). So since the "fetus right to live is not a constitution" we would first need an Ammendment to say that a fetus is a person. If you ask why, I'd have to point that we needed an Ammendment to recognize that a person can voting can be based on gender. And we needed same for "skin color/race". Do we need it for the fetus, in order to really solve teh debate (at least legally) on when life trully begins?

Look, I understand what a FETUS is. I just happen to think that up to a certain point its not really a human being. Its a potential human being.

Ben:
>Well, yeah, but what about alien abduction?
But but but....I got need someting to decorate my cakes with :-P
And you earthlies are so stunning...


>Of course, I have a few bones to pick with statutory rape law too (e.g. if two underage kids have sex, and they're the same age, how is it a crime?
It hilarious and obscene at the same time.
Hilarious because if they are both underage they both commiter rape, hence crime, hence both should go to jail.
Obscene, because its pretty much assumed that its the guy who is at fault.

>As for brainwashing in schools... I'm in sophomore year of college, and I can say that it's pretty true. I took a course on Islam last semester, and the professor took it for granted that we had no right to criticize Saudi Arabia's or Iran's fundamentalist regimes, because doing so would be something to the effect of "not trying to understand and be sensitive to their religion".

I got into an argument with a "women's studies" teacher who told me that a woman would never ever lie about beign raped. And then she tried to turn the whole class against me. Suffice it to say I dropped it and complained. I mean how rude was that. I attribute taht to female chauvenism. but to me its still speaks thats a personal charaterisc of a dumbass person. Cause my History teacher, who is also a feminist, was the best one ever. Basically, one is a dumbass no matter what color, name, proffession (and etc) one might have.

//Hilarious because if they are both underage they both commiter rape, hence crime, hence both should go to jail.
Obscene, because its pretty much assumed that its the guy who is at fault.//
Those are exactly the issues I meant... Except I assume in the first case you don't actually *think* they should both be jailed, but rather that neither should.

//I got into an argument with a "women's studies" teacher who told me that a woman would never ever lie about beign raped. And then she tried to turn the whole class against me.//
Which is particularly amusing because the woman from Roe (can't remember her real name) later admitted that she *had* lied about being raped to get the sympathy of the Court... and is now an avid pro-lifer.

I agree that a prof being liberal doesn't automatically make them biased (one of my *best* high school teachers was ultra-liberal, but he *loved* debating the issues with me and any liberal in the class who wanted to play Devil's Advocate - I was the only Republican). I'm merely saying that there definitely is a large amount of liberal bias in education (even that high school teacher... he allowed conservatives to voice their views, but he himself never presented any viewpoints except those of the left) and this will tend to have a "brainwashing" effect on students who aren't as self-assured as I was.

As for the abortion argument you pasted... I answered it in the thread you originally put it in ;-)

> Except I assume in the first case you don't actually *think* they should both be jailed, but rather that neither should.
Yeah...I am...cause then its just teh law for jailing underage peopel for having sex.

>I'm merely saying that there definitely is a large amount of liberal bias in education (even that high school teacher... he allowed conservatives to voice their views, but he himself never presented any viewpoints except those of the left) and this will tend to have a "brainwashing" effect on students who aren't as self-assured as I was.

I think the problem with conservatism in education is that people tend to be well...conservative....thats is set to traditions and the current ways. Where is in education (and especially research), you got to be daring and new, breakign established notions. Maybe its the personality trait that kinda helps teh liberals to be in education.
Now this purely speculation, I am just reflecting on the term conservative.

//Yeah...I am...cause then its just teh law for jailing underage peopel for having sex.//

Still not sure which position you're taking... it's not really clear. Either way, I think the law needs some clarificational revision (and the anti-guy bias in its implementation definitely needs to go). Don't get me wrong though... I *fully* believe in the *principle* of the law - that an older, more experienced person taking advantage of the inescapable naivete of an underage child *is* rape even if the child never says "no".

//I think the problem with conservatism in education is that people tend to be well...conservative....thats is set to traditions and the current ways. Where is in education (and especially research), you got to be daring and new, breakign established notions. Maybe its the personality trait that kinda helps teh liberals to be in education.
Now this purely speculation, I am just reflecting on the term conservative.//

Your point is well taken. As a matter of general tendencies, conservatives tend to like tradition, while liberals like change. However, I still think it is essential that when a politically charged issue is discussed in class, it is presented in a balanced manner - preferably discussion format to allow the *students* to form opinions on it completely independent of the teacher's views (in fact, the teacher should not *give* his/her views until a) s/he is asked, or b) the students have had ample time to form their own).

Anthony.
>Still not sure which position you're taking... it's not really clea
I am being sarcastic. I just find it hilarious. I totaly agree with your position on this one.

>However, I still think it is essential that when a politically charged issue is discussed in class, it is presented in a balanced manner - preferably discussion format to allow the *students* to form opinions on it completely independent of the teacher's views (in fact, the teacher should not *give* his/her views until a) s/he is asked, or b) the students have had ample time to form their own).

Well good teachers do. Of course I doubt you can teach beign neutral in politics. They only thing you could teach in politics is critical analisys techniques and honesty. Of course people are people (and not really driven by logic but emotion).

So I guess it just comes down to having good teachers.

OK, this has hit another (our second or third I think :-O) point where we are in 100% agreement. I've had both types of teachers (both of whom, incidentally were liberal). One let the class discuss the issues and air out every side, then pick their own, and he'd debate right along with us. He was the best teacher I've ever had (*and* was a liberal, so no, I'm not inherently against liberal teachers). The other shoved her views at us... didn't force us to accept them (she wasn't *that* bad), but didn't give any class time to present the opposite side. She was mediocre at best.

Congratulations to both of us on another patch of common ground ;-)

Alright, after a week of thought, I have a QUESTION FOR YOU :)
I am warnig that is a conandrum.

If a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you can only save a petri dish with FIVE blastulae or a two-year old child, which do you save?

P.S.
blastulae - An early embryonic form produced by cleavage of a fertilized ovum and consisting of a spherical layer of cells surrounding a fluid-filled cavity.