The Nancy Kerriganization of America

[LowerCaseRepublican]

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldn...e/j26common.htm

 

Enjoy.

[AddisonStSox]

Well done, Neil.

 

Great read.

[FlaSoxxJim]

 

If I start telling people to "get debauched" you know who is to blame.

Edited August 26, 2005 by FlaSoxxJim

[Texsox]

Commie. Why do you hate America?

 

Very good op-ed piece.

[Spiff]

Good idea, good language, but you gotta get deeper. And the last line bugs me, it's like you're stooping to your opponents' level.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Good idea, good language, but you gotta get deeper.  And the last line bugs me, it's like you're stooping to your opponents' level.

It was more of a last minute column that I had to write for this deadline. With moving from one apartment to another and my other job, my time was limited. I didn't get to put in as much time as I would have liked on it.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Useless & subversive.

 

Complete & utter ignorance:

Overturning Roe vs. Wade will not stop the act of abortion. If overturned, it would merely change "pro-life" to "pro-coathanger".

 

If Roe v Wade were to be overturned then the partial birth abortion ban law would once again go before the court & be upheld. This act of Congress includes legislation not only defining a right to an abortion but regulation on procedures.

 

On the flag burning, try this on:

We allow babies to be murdered even during partial birth because it could affect the emotional or mental health of the mother. So if your need to burn the flag could affect the emotional or mental health of someone it should be banned.

 

The most sensical thing you wrote pertains to the Patriot Act. But then again it says nothing about the important issue of profiling. Should the government have the right to unfettered search & seizure of FOREIGN persons fitting the profile of a typical terrorist BASED ON THE INFORMATION COLLECTED TO DATE (not some fantasy hypothetical crap)?

 

But like most writings that lean left you offer nothing as a compromise hence my first statement.

Edited August 26, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Steff]

Something should be banned... you got that much right.

[Spiff]

Useless & subversive. 

 

Complete & utter ignorance:

Overturning Roe vs. Wade will not stop the act of abortion. If overturned, it would merely change "pro-life" to "pro-coathanger".

 

If Roe v Wade were to be overturned then the partial birth abortion ban law would once again go before the court & be upheld.  This act of Congress includes legislation not only defining a right to an abortion but regulation on procedures.

 

 

I'm pretty sure you missed the point of what he was saying.

[AddisonStSox]

I'm pretty sure you missed the point of what he was saying.

 

Absolutely missed it.

[Steff]

I'm pretty sure you missed the point of what he was saying.

 

 

 

Pretty sure...

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Useless & subversive. 

 

Complete & utter ignorance:

Overturning Roe vs. Wade will not stop the act of abortion. If overturned, it would merely change "pro-life" to "pro-coathanger".

 

If Roe v Wade were to be overturned then the partial birth abortion ban law would once again go before the court & be upheld.  This act of Congress includes legislation not only defining a right to an abortion but regulation on procedures.

 

On the flag burning, try this on:

We allow babies to be murdered even during partial birth because it could affect the emotional or mental health of the mother.  So if your need to burn the flag could affect the emotional or mental health of someone it should be banned.

 

The most sensical thing you wrote pertains to the Patriot Act.  But then again it says nothing about the important issue of profiling.  Should the government have the right to unfettered search & seizure of FOREIGN persons fitting the profile of a typical terrorist BASED ON THE INFORMATION COLLECTED TO DATE (not some fantasy hypothetical crap)?

 

But like most writings that lean left you offer nothing as a compromise hence my first statement.

Useless and subversive -- Pot. Kettle. Black. And I forgot, all the writings that lean right are often inclusive and ready for compromise.

 

Overturning Roe vs Wade would do little in and of itself to stop the action of women getting abortions. Perhaps you didn't know, but plenty of women were still getting them when abortion was illegal except that it was much less safe. Merely making it illegal will not make abortion disappear, it will just make it much more unsafe for women to get them.

 

If you're serious about a culture of life then promote honest comprehensive sexual education in schools instead of lying and only abstinence. Teenagers are going to engage in sexual activity then and for the rest of their lives. It is important for us to give people the knowledge to protect themselves in sexual activities.

 

And you as a person who is promoting a war effort that has killed 100,000+ people and also support capital punishment, you of all people should not be wearing the tag of "pro-life". You're just pro-life when it suits you to be a political hack. If you're serious about life then it is ALL life, you don't get to f***ing choose like it is some buffet on a salad bar.

 

There is no "Thou Shalt Not Kill...amend Section A". This culture is so hypocritical that is amazing. Until there are efforts to make adequate funding for social programs to help citizens, better our schools along with the sexual education discussion I noted above, there is no love of "life" here. Pro-lifers simply want these people to be born and then it becomes a "f*** 'em! They're not my problem!" when they get there by slashing these social programs. If pro-lifers really want children, then why is there 1 orphan in the world right now?

 

As with flag burning -- your argument is so devoid of any intellectual knowledge that it boggles my mind. There is a fundamental difference between abortion and flag burning. I'd love for you to be the one to tell a victim of rape or incest that she has to carry her baby to term because you want to "support life". If a person doesn't like an American burning a flag (of which there was ONE case of in the US during the past year) then they can simply walk away. Being forced to deal not only with the medical bills of a delivery but also the psychological toll of giving birth and having to care for the child is entirely different. For you to equate the two further shows the fact that you're simply engaging in political hackery.

 

And as for the Patriot Act, take a look at thecase of Brandon Mayfield. (link here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5092810/site/newsweek/) And as I mentioned before, profiling doesn't do much. There have been and are plenty of non-Muslim domestic terrorists so being myopic makes little sense. http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/facts.html Plenty of information on abuses of the Patriot Act. So, it is not hypothetical.

[Spiff]

Pretty sure...

 

Well I had to use that as a disclaimer because I read what he said about 10 times, and I still thought maybe I was the one who was missing something.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Why is that liberals always have to resort to a personal angle to prove a point? Because they don't have a leg to stand on in a general argument.

 

Enough said as a rebuttal to your latest lib-speak.

 

I notice how you ignored the partial birth abortion law fact altogether.

If you don't like that one there's another law explicitly defining the right to an abortion:Violence Against Mother's Act.

 

So what we have is the example of a child who refuses to accept facts because it weakens their argument :rolly

 

By your logic, it's ok to kill innocent babies that are partially born, & it's ok to burn the American flag regardless of the emotional & mental consequences that act will have on other Americans but it's a definite NO NO to kill terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 & threaten our way of life.

 

And please spare me the lib-speak on what does Iraq have to do with 9/11. If you honestly believe the people we are fighting in Iraq don't share the same cause as the people who attacked us on 9/11 then your ignorance is fueled by your bias.

 

The war in Iraq is an ideological war. On one side is capitalism, women's rights, & free-market systems. On the other side is barterism, male domination, & closed-market systems. Those are the extremes. Most of the terrorists & the allies fall somewhere in between.

Edited August 26, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Steff]

So what we have is the example of a child who refuses to accept facts because it weakens their argument :rolly

 

 

 

If that aint the pot calling the kettle black.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Steff I was told to put you on ignore by the mods. They told me that they have told you to do the same thing. I see you are defying the mods again.

 

No I have not read your post. I'm just pointing out more hypocrisy here.

[Steff]

Steff I was told to put you on ignore by the mods.  They told me that they have told you to do the same thing.  I see you are defying the mods again.

 

No I have not read your post.  I'm just pointing out more hypocrisy here.

 

 

 

LMAO...

 

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Why is that liberals always have to resort to a personal angle to prove a point?  Because they don't have a leg to stand on in a general argument.

 

Enough said as a rebuttal to your latest lib-speak.

 

I notice how you ignored the partial birth abortion law fact altogether.

If you don't like that one there's another law explicitly defining the right to an abortion:Violence Against Mother's Act. 

 

So what we have is the example of a child who refuses to accept facts because it weakens their argument :rolly

 

By your logic, it's ok to kill innocent babies that are partially born, & it's ok to burn the American flag regardless of the emotional & mental consequences that act will have on other Americans but it's a definite NO NO to kill terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 & threaten our way of life.

 

And please spare me the lib-speak on what does Iraq have to do with 9/11.  If you honestly believe the people we are fighting in Iraq don't share the same cause as the people who attacked us on 9/11 then your ignorance is fueled by your bias. 

 

The war in Iraq is an ideological war.  On one side is capitalism, women's rights, & free-market systems.  On the other side is barterism, male domination, & closed-market systems.  Those are the extremes.  Most of the terrorists & the allies fall somewhere in between.

My resorting to a personal angle was simply to show everybody that you're so full of s*** that the whites of your eyes are brown and perhaps knock you off the little pedestal that you've put yourself on as some font of knowledge.

 

I never said that I was for or against abortion -- I was merely commenting on the fact that there is no such thing as an entirely "pro-life" movement in American society. If you really want to know, I don't like that abortions are performed but I see the unfortunate need for the procedure to be around. I do believe that it has become (and unfortunately so) a method of birth control due to ignorance that we've instilled in people by not giving them the means to learn adequate contraceptive methods (since Puritanical fundamentalists won't dare touch the subject of sexuality in schools outside of abstinence only education) If you want to end abortion, fund the social programs and give adequate education so the need for abortion will greatly diminish. If you really want to end abortion, that's the way to go about it. But way to feign outrage.

 

The Supreme Court said it was okay to burn the flag and so does the First Amendment of the Constitution. I'm not really seeing the mass trauma and emotional whining that a person who would see a burning flag would feel -- Why? Because there HAS ONLY BEEN ONE REPORTED CASE in the past year of a flag burning in the United States.

 

I never said I stood by an entire pro-life position.

 

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

[Kyyle23]

Boy I can tell where this discussion is going now....

 

[JUGGERNAUT]

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think I summed up your article quite nicely in this statement:

By your logic, it's ok to kill innocent babies that are partially born, & it's ok to burn the American flag regardless of the emotional & mental consequences that act will have on other Americans but it's a definite NO NO to kill terrorists that share the same cause as those who attacked us on 9/11 & threaten our way of life.

 

I never asked you what you feel personally on an issue. I won't say I care less about that but that is not something I can debate. I can only debate what you write.

If you are going to make a general argument you should stick with it. Resorting to an personal one is weak.

 

Your quote suggested repeal of RvW would change us from pro-choice to pro-coathanger. I refuted that claim by pointing out two acts of Congress already signed into law & working their way up to the USSC already explicitly protect a woman's right to choose an abortion. So either you are ignorant of that fact (& choose to remain so) or you are taking a non-credible position. You decide.

Edited August 26, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Steff]

LMAO...

 

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

 

 

Sorry, and noted.

[Texsox]

Sorry, and noted.

 

I am certain your comment is appreciated by many. I know the admins and mods really dislike editing posts.

 

BTW, in another context, that is one damn funny picture.

[Steff]

I am certain your comment is appreciated by many. I know the admins and mods really dislike editing posts.

 

BTW, in another context, that is one damn funny picture.

 

 

It was between that one and the baby crying.

 

 

I got that from a fellow poster here, BTW, so I can't take the credit.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

 

I didn't read the original post, although it's fairly easy easy to imagine what it said or showed, but it's good to see the mods cleaning up a bit on the personal attacks...

[Steff]

I didn't read the original post, although it's fairly easy easy to imagine what it said or showed, but it's good to see the mods cleaning up a bit on the personal attacks...   

 

 

 

It was not a personal attack. It was a picture of a baby... I want to keep it simple for you guys.