Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"But, I'll give you the point that the child might have died later. So, if I murder my lawyer friend next door I'll say to the judge that he might have died someday anyway! Think that would work?" -- heru-ur
No, I don't think so.
I DO think...
...it's interesting that you decline to answer the question about saving a kid vs. a tray of blastocysts from a burning building.
...it's confusing that I've read all your arguments, and it's still not quite clear to me whether you're just making an impassioned personal argument about your beliefs, or whether you're suggesting that our nation's laws governing a specific right of women should be changed on the basis of your arguments.
...it's troubling that in several of your more passionate posts, I was left with a very strong impression of misogyny and anger at women for being pregnant. (This is just a personal impression. I'm perfectly prepared to concede that I may be a judgmental asshole on this issue.)
My view is that some people arguing with you are making a distinction that you do not make. They distinguish between the destruction of a zygote/embryo/fetus inside a woman's uterus and the destruction of a child post-birth.
Your unwillingness to address that distinction directly puzzles me a bit.
ondelette (October 5, 2008 08:18 AM ):
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. (William Jefferson)
The conflict between the economics of the libertarian Jefferson and those of the authoritarian Hamilton is still playing itself out in American history, most recently and visibly as Wall Street's extortion of a 700 billion dollar balloon payment from Main Street.
As Thomas DiLorenzo, author of Hamiton's Curse, puts it in his essay "What Hamilton Has Wrought",
"The great debate between Hamilton and Jefferson over the purpose of government, which animates American politics to this day, was very much about economic policy. Hamilton was a compulsive statist who wanted to bring the corrupt British mercantilist system – the very system the American Revolution was fought to escape from – to America. He fought fiercely for his program of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, public debt, pervasive taxation, and a central bank run by politicians and their appointees out of the nation’s capital."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo151.html
[Glenn, from the post]: What's happening in this country, and in this election, is rather simple and easy to see: (1) the country is in total shambles -- possibly far worse than what people even realize; (2) we have lived for the last eight years under virtually absolute GOP rule; (3) the public knows this; (4) the Republican President and his party are therefore intensely -- historically -- unpopular; and (5) the voting public doesn't want to continue living under the rule of the same faction and same political party that has driven the country into the ground.
Wiley Miller takes this on. See today's Non Sequitur:
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2008/10/06
(or click sig for link)
Cheers,
The only question is whether we're dealing with a human life, as opposed to something that would become human life at some point, if allowed to develop normally. While there is certainly room for debate as to when this happens, if you are actually contending that a just fertilized egg, a 3 day blastocyst, or a 2 week embryo, is a human life, then we clearly occupy 2 parallel realities, one that is based on actual reality, the other on a wished-for reality.
Do you also believe that dinosaurs and men walked together 4000 years ago, just 1800 years after some invisible bearded dude up in the sky wove the universe out of nothingness?
We are all allowed to believe in our own realities. We are not allowed to impose them on others, except as consistent with hard evidence, solid logic, and in this case the will of the law.
You have none of these on your side, only personal belief based solely on faith.
This is the 21st century, not the 11th. Time to catch up.
The Supreme Court has two Democratic appointments and seven Republican ones, and has been that way for decades.
That it's "divided" at all just goes to show the rightward shift of American politics (and the extremism of the current Rethuglican party) in this era.
Cheers,
As soon as Obama is inaugurated, everything that happens from that moment will be the Democrats fault. But amazingly, everything that happens from that fateful day will be just fine, and of no consequence....
Are you willing to take full responsibility on behalf of the Republicans for the sum total of the debacles of the last eight years, then?
Cheers,
I "come from" the heart of the midwest, flyover country, and Miss "You betcha, I'm so folksy!" isn't fooling anyone, least of all women like me who went to school with her type, the vacuous, yet vicious cheerleader who would 'wink' at you while you faced her, then stab you in the back as soon as you turned.
She reminds me of Reese Witherspoon's character in "Election"....
Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo (October 6, 2008 12:22 PM):
She[Sarah Palin]reminds me of Reese Witherspoon's character in "Election"....
I'd watched "Election" too long ago to make this connection, but looked up a trailer to refresh my memory, and Lordy, what a similarity: ruthless ambition as compensation for low self-esteem, or what?
Your observation has made me reserve the local library's copy of the movie, so I can watch it again.
Thanks.
Thanks Jim for stating what I have felt myself since discovering Bill T. and LWM stopped posting here. I'm only up to page 27 so others may have already stated it but if not, well, there it is.
Personally I see a real strain of Ron Paulists and Libertarians - you know, the only ones who know and understand how to fix our government and society in general - coming in to this section of Salon.com. And I think it is great! With Bucky going to the big Libertarian seating section in the sky we need some fresh blood for the endless battles between the realists (Bill & LWM) and the loony toon brigade (Libertarians and Ron Paulists)
You can tell where I stand!
One thing that always puzzled me: How it is that Bill T. got such a bad rap around here! As you mentioned, a finer gentleman and wonderful writer one would be hard pressed to find.
LWM, well, he always did play up his Harlan Ellison side - ie didn't suffer fools and assholes easily. BUT his posts were very often funny and full of really interesting and cool links. And as always, if you didn't like his posts, scroll over them for god sakes!
Sometimes I think many, many people don't have a clue what discussions were like on the 'net prior to the advent of the web, back when UseNet was the place to be. They should visit Google groups or the way back machine and peruse some of those.
They might learn something and not be so damn sensitive.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
