Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Aren't we lucky that we've now got some state legislatures seeking to uphold the "rights" of pharmacists to make "business decisions" based on "moral principles" and not fill validly issued prescriptions for birth control pills, whether of the morning-after prevent implantation variety or even of your ordinary prevent ovulation sort. It's fucking ridiculous, but it might be interesting from a state as incubator perspective if different states will have differing legislation based on how strong the Christian-right influence is in a given state.

*sigh* (spree: my favorite legislature)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
ETA, it appears some of those bloggers who Ty's always quoting also think this will be a win for the Democrats:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/31/13226/2693

Not a "win", but a winning strategy. Their point, like Spanky's, is that it's good politics to try to drive a wedge between moderates and the hard-core, pro-life, cultural conservatives.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I heard that story too. Nice. Also mentioned some theologians predicting that if the German Cardinal gets elected (Ratzenberger or whoever he is), Catholics wanting a more moderate church will have to take solace in the prospect that at least it can't get much worse.

Ratzinger's also 77 years old, so they'd get another crack soon.

Given the quickness of the decision, I'd guess him or one of the leading Italians. No way they pick a third-world cardinal in less than 5 votes.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
*sigh* (spree: my favorite legislature)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is why I prefer not to pay too much attention to certain political bullshit. I'd hate to become one of those people who says "I don't watch or read the news, it's too depressing," but goddammit, I want to be in a good mood most days. I don't know how you folks can stand having these debates sometimes; I can only debate well -- or up to my high standards -- if I care about an issue, and if I really care, many statements made by the person in the opposition get me so MAD I want to jump up and down, which is a highly ineffective debate strategy.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is why I prefer not to pay too much attention to certain political bullshit. I'd hate to become one of those people who says "I don't watch or read the news, it's too depressing," but goddammit, I want to be in a good mood most days. I don't know how you folks can stand having these debates sometimes; I can only debate well -- or up to my high standards -- if I care about an issue, and if I really care, many statements made by the person in the opposition get me so MAD I want to jump up and down, which is a highly ineffective debate strategy.

FWIW, I did a lot of jumping up and down too. And yelling.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not a "win", but a winning strategy. Their point, like Spanky's, is that it's good politics to try to drive a wedge between moderates and the hard-core, pro-life, cultural conservatives.

But you are already starting to wreck the strategy. Instead of characterizing (and alienating some unneccessarily) as "hard-core, pro-life, cultural conservatives", can't you just substitute in something like "hard-core, anti-birth-control, cultural conservatives".

I'd reflexively include myself in the group that you are trying to wedge out. Yet, I'm one of the people (at least here) who has acknowledged that such a move by the Ds (if made strongly and consistently) would take a good part of my Rightness away from me.

Anyway, I'm just complaining about your initial characterization here. The strategy itself is a great one.

And RT... if you promise to at least not sound like you are encouraging abortion in your point #4, I'll help fund your campaign on points 1-3.

The thing is, in a Catholic family of dozens, I think this would put just about everyone on the same "moral" page for the first time in decades.

Club or whoever was right. Hillary might be a pretty scary prospect, now that I think about it.

Hello

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
ETA: What do they do in Spain and Italy? They're very Catholic but they have some of the lowest birth rates in Europe.

The women there all grow mustaches early, making it pretty much a non-issue.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by bilmore
The women there all grow mustaches early, making it pretty much a non-issue.

I thought it was because the men are fat and lazy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
I thought it was because the men are fat and lazy.

how come people can insult the Italians ad nasueum, but if I simply note that certain peoples where cloth head coverings I'm labeled a pariah?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I said this in another forum, and I'll say it here. I just want fewer unwanted pregnancies, which means I want a shitload of sex education at all levels (including, but not exclusively abstinance education) and an abudnance and readly availability of birth control.

In my perfect, rosy happy world, abortion would be rare because people would be properly educated about how to avoid pregnancy and they'd have the tools at hand to follow through on that education.

My problem is that I keep on running into people who want 1.) abstinance only sex education, 2.) elimination of the morning after pill, 3.) major restrictions on funding for family planning facilities AND 4.) elimination of abortion. They rely on 1.) to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And studies show that it doesn't work.

ETA: What do they do in Spain and Italy? They're very Catholic but they have some of the lowest birth rates in Europe.

I agree with that 100%

[bilmore]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
I thought it was because the men are fat and lazy.

She was speaking of factors specific to Spain and Italy, and thus my comment. Men are fat and lazy everywhere, and so yours is unresponsive.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
But you are already starting to wreck the strategy. Instead of characterizing (and alienating some unneccessarily) as "hard-core, pro-life, cultural conservatives", can't you just substitute in something like "hard-core, anti-birth-control, cultural conservatives".

I'd reflexively include myself in the group that you are trying to wedge out. Yet, I'm one of the people (at least here) who has acknowledged that such a move by the Ds (if made strongly and consistently) would take a good part of my Rightness away from me.

Anyway, I'm just complaining about your initial characterization here. The strategy itself is a great one.

I'm sorry if I didn't use the right terms, but the strategy is not about how you name people -- the point is, shifting the focus to preventing unwanted births will tend to divide the pro-life side into those who don't like abortion but don't have a problem with reasonable birth control, and the folks who can't abide either.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
The women there all grow mustaches early, making it pretty much a non-issue.

A Pope is selected, and bilmore comes out of seclusion. Coincidence?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
how come people can insult the Italians ad nauseum, but if I simply note that certain peoples where cloth head coverings I'm labeled a pariah?

Italians no longer need that protection.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
A Pope is selected, and bilmore comes out of seclusion. Coincidence?

Probably, yes.