Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The fastest way to shut up a pro-lifer is to ask him or her if he/she is willing to pay the cost attendant to raising the child through college. I've never seen so much sudden and debilitating larengitis hit the assembeled members of a group all at once.

My favorite pro-lifer position is "Well, its all about personal responsibility." This nifty comeback begs the question, "Do you have a relative on medicare assistance of some sort?" (nearly all of them do) "Well then why don't you take personal responsibility for your family instead of leaving it to the govt? Why would you be so irresponsible so as not to plan for your relatives? And why weren't you responsbile enough to save for retirment instead of relying on social security, which my generation will have to pay for?"

These shrill people wouldn't know responsibility if straddled them and pissed in their eyes. They just get off on feeling morally superior.

If there was a fastest way to shut you up, I'm sure somebody would have figured it out by now. The fastest way to get you freaks shrieking is to show you a picture of a torn-up 3rd trimester fetus and asking you why this should be legal bug hacking kids up on day 1 should not be. Your entire reasoning is based on the idea that you and others like DTB's friends are a bunch of selfish bastages, and you ascribe these traits to all others. Simply saying it, doesn't make it true. Slave's aunts and uncles and numerous young people from my area stand in absolute contrast to your vapid pontificating, and your blanket statements are proven wrong hundreds of thousands of times every year in this country by Catholics and others.

And you'd change the subject if you knew them (i.e., if you didn't surround yourself with vapid selfish me-first NIMBYers).

Hello

[dtb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The only church edict worth a shit is from St. Francis of Assisi -"Do onto others as you'd have them do unto you." I live that one because its practical, sensible and I believe encapsulates how people should live.

I'm betting someone already has pointed this out -- but Mr. Assisi wasn't exactly the first to come up with this.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
OK, GOPers. Your candidate, somewhat improbably, ridicules the credibility of his opponent on fiscal matters while remaining curiously silent on the double digit increases in non-defense-related spending on his watch, and his apparent loss of his veto pen, lying somewhere in uncleared brush in Crawford.

Anyone think he'll veto this? Slave, you still think he'll find his pen sometime after Election Day?

No, no, no. Fiscal discipline is about controlling spending, not about creating new tax loopholes. Reagan taught us that if you keep cutting taxes you will balance the budget.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The fastest way to shut up a pro-lifer is to ask him or her if he/she is willing to pay the cost attendant to raising the child through college. I've never seen so much sudden and debilitating larengitis hit the assembeled members of a group all at once.

I think you've just hit on a brilliant solution to the problems of poor neighborhoods, welfare, and poverty in general.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Your entire reasoning is based on the idea that you and others like DTB's friends are a bunch of selfish bastages, and you ascribe these traits to all others. Simply saying it, doesn't make it true. Slave's aunts and uncles and numerous young people from my area stand in absolute contrast to your vapid pontificating, and your blanket statements are proven wrong hundreds of thousands of times every year in this country by Catholics and others.

I'm pro-choice, and know many principled people who are not. So, in other words, I agree with you that SD should stop over-simplifying and stereotyping.

And you'd change the subject if you knew them (i.e., if you didn't surround yourself with vapid selfish me-first NIMBYers).

On the other hand, pot, kettle. Your view that Repubs would all gleefully move into the ghetto while Dems are all millionaires living in gated communities is beyond tiresome.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'll take simple-minded consistency in comparison to hypocricy any day of the week. In this regard, I like how you guys (used generically) are taking the abortion/gay marriage thing to (try and) show hypocricy in positions of state's righters, without acknowledging that the argument implicitly recognizes that either all or none of them belong in the Federal realm. But noooo, I don't hear y'all admitting that Roe was a mistake. All I'm hearing is y'all laughing about people on our side (and, uhm, yours) making the same inconsistent and fundamentally improper mistake with the gay marriage.

So yeah, if it keeps me from flip-flopping and appearing to find new meanings in the same words every other day, I'll take simple-minded consistency any day. You throw the charge at me from the scrap yard of democratic principles, and its probably the only thing y'all should be trying to keep.

Okay, you want a simple and principled answer on the abortion/gay marriage issues (there are two issues, by the way)? How about this: no legislature has any business regulating the familial relations of citizens in a free and democratic society unless it can demonstrate a compelling overriding public health interest.

I realize that actually having to deal with me as an individual disrupts your favored approach of addressing cliches instead of actual beliefs or positions, but there it is,

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Okay, you want a simple and principled answer on the abortion/gay marriage issues (there are two issues, by the way)? How about this: no legislature has any business regulating the familial relations of citizens in a free and democratic society unless it can demonstrate a compelling overriding public health interest.

I'll buy this completely, but don't see how it speaks to abortion at all.

Or, when your kids get tired of your med bills and act on that, is it just a "familial" issue?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
This guy checked both, repeatedly.

Says, Bushies are actively and affirmatively FOR Bush.

Kerryites are actively and affirmatively for . . . . um . . . . getting rid of Bush.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct11.html

I read the article, too, Bilmore, and to be fair you should have noted that the quotes from the Kerry people (to the question of why they are voting for Kerry) are more along the lines of "it's 50-50 -- I like him and he's the Not Bush."

You're right that the Bush voters from that article are for unambiguously for Bush, though. Dred Scott, indeed.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
no legislature has any business regulating the familial relations of citizens in a free and democratic society unless it can demonstrate a compelling overriding public health interest.

Flip-flopper.

Last time we went drinking you agreed with me that the gov't should use our tax dollars to buy us hookers and coke.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, it should. That was me. Bilmore. I used to post here.

Ah, Bilmore, we hardly knew ye.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
How about this: no legislature has any business regulating the familial relations of citizens in a free and democratic society unless it can demonstrate a compelling overriding public health interest.

this test would apply equally to the guy with the cross bow as it does to abortion, wouldn't it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Flip-flopper.

Last time we went drinking you agreed with me that the gov't should use our tax dollars to buy us hookers and coke.

I thought we were talking about bilmore's tax dollars.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
On the other hand, pot, kettle. Your view that Repubs would all gleefully move into the ghetto while Dems are all millionaires living in gated communities is beyond tiresome.

If you, in sunny new and rich Northern California, have no idea what I'm talking about, you could just say so. It might make you seem a little dense after its been clarified sequentially upon request for numerous posters, but I can't imagine one interpretation at any level beyond -afterbirth- on an Iowa Test that would read my words as meaning what you've said above.

Just to clear this up (again):
Get rid of any federal subsidies that create ghettoes by concentrating poverty. No ghetto, no ghetto to move into.
And many Dems aren't millionaires living in gated communities. You certainly don't want me to list their other constituencies.

The fact that so many greedy liberal lawyers can read what I write and still not have the first clue what I've said is evidence to me of the lengths people will go to not know what is happening in this nation. In your defense, I appreciate that you at least do not pretend to know. Its just sad to me that its so distant that you and others would constantly misinterpret it.


Hello

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Anyone think he'll veto this? Slave, you still think he'll find his pen sometime after Election Day?

FWIW, I did, in fact, stick a Bic pen in my RNC return envelope, with a note stating that my contribution will be forthcoming once the President picks it up and vetoes something. Anything.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought we were talking about bilmore's tax dollars.

"Bilmore's taxes"?

Remember that $1000 child tax credit?

(Of course, in fairness, the more kids you have, the more you really need the hookers and coke, so maybe it's a wash.)