Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I started the complaint with reference to our modern Great Society and its resultant ills. I pointed to abortion and noted the activist courts and the silver-spoon cheering section. 1973 ring any bells in this context here?

RT came back with charts showing declines in murders (from the peak years during the crack wars) and in teenage birthrates and abortion rates from something-like 1990. I point out that I'm looking to drive rates back to where they were before the G promised to fix everything. You point out how obviously correct my point is, even with a "Duh"! Now you say my comparison doesn't take into account actual numbers. I simply don't agree that no comparison can be made with pre-1973 numbers, although some of the pre-1973 numbers are estimating illegal abortions.

And yes, if people get illegal abortions, I understand they will be taking risks with their lives. If you and Sebby's purported majority care so much, y'all can fly em to California to have the abortions. I think criminals should be shot.

So you're proudly a regressive thinker. Wonderful. Call me when you figure out time travel. In the meantime, I'll be with the "moral relativists" in the present tense.

Oh, and if you find your Norman Rockwell utopia, tell all the other angry white guys I said hello. And don't forget to bring lots of pron and lube. there's agoing to be alot of ass fucking in your Mayberry, because there sure as hell aren't going to be any women following you.

What the hell is the "shooting criminals" line about? You think people who have abortions should be shot? You sure you're Catholic and not Wahhabist?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
If you and bilmore* could please start loudly demanding the tripling of our armed forces (with an even larger increase in troops versed in nation building)** to accomodate all of the necessary activities embodied in your position, I'd appreciate it.

Okay.

I DEMAND THAT WE TRIPLE OUR . . . .

(I'd pay for it by banning all local stadium subsidies, mohair setasides, Lawrence Welk Museums, ceiling fan supports, foreign tax setoffs, caterpillar-sex-life studies, grants to public media, arts supports, public transit capital funding, public official junkets studying city water fountains in Beijing, and, of course, deductions for loss of goodwill.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Abortion is illegal in Saudi Arabia.

In Nigeria they would stone the woman to death for fornication, but only after she gives birth. (saw the link yesterday-its true).

[dtb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
In Nigeria they would stone the woman to death for fornication, but only after she gives birth. (saw the link yesterday-its true).

Maybe Hello can tell us what's wrong with this.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
And the GOP's justification for not funding birth control for the poor is?

Oh. oh. oh. I know this one.

It's because the most effective - and not to mention only morally acceptable - form of birth control is free. Abstinance is the answer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by dtb
Maybe Hello can tell us what's wrong with this.

I'll take it for him: The government pays for the stones.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Oh. oh. oh. I know this one.

It's because the most effective - and not to mention only morally acceptable - form of birth control is free. Abstinance is the answer.

Well it worked in the war on drugs.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
In Nigeria they would stone the woman to death for fornication, but only after she gives birth. (saw the link yesterday-its true).

Apparently there was "insufficient evidence" to convict the men in question for the same crime. I guess they don't know what a paternity test is in Nigeria. Not sure what the punishment is for the man involved, in any event.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by dtb
Maybe Hello can tell us what's wrong with this.

Nothing, so long as the people of Nigeria have decided to punish fornication in this way?

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by dtb
There's just no having a discussion with someone in your 10% -- those who would outlaw abortion in all circumstances.

In some ways, these people annoy me less. If someone genuinely believes a fetus is a life and ending it is murder, then I think it's understandable they might also believe the life shouldn't be snuffed out due to someone having been raped. It's the ones who attempt to speak from anywhere but the heart and try to spin their beliefs in terms of federalism or other such concepts that it gets really tortured.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
2. And I'd add sex education.

Silly. The GOP has thought of this too. Abstinence (and I'll spell it right this time) is the answer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Nothing, so long as the people of Nigeria have decided to punish fornication in this way?

Wrong. Just so long as society within the "state" of Nigeria in which the stoning takes place voted for it. Any federal interference - unless that intereference supported Hello's Mayberry moral sensibilities - is forbidden.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Start with the Basques. You can't trust those fuckers.

And they are furry.* Yuck.

*based on sample size of one (1) guy in college.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Hmph. You're just buttering me up after making me do the wrong research project.

Since abortion was illegal in a lot of states, I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were considerably lower. I imagine, also, that medically, abortions are easier to perform now than they were prior to 1973. Advances in modern medicine and all that. I guess we'd have to find a state that had legal abortions prior to 1973 and was tracking numbers. California maybe? Looking at the CDC report that I posted earlier, the big difference is from 1970 (193,491) to 1971 (485,816). From 1972 (586,760) to 1973 (615,831), there wasn't as a dramatic of a change. I wasn't alive then, but I imagine that the abortion debate must have alterted pregnant women to the option. Also, these numbers aren't tracking illegal abortions.

BTW, teen birth rates have steadily been declining since the 1950s. When was government aid made available?

Yes, I agree things are bad out there, and people are miserable. I'm not certain, though, that things are continuing to decline and some of the numbers have suggested a turnaround.

Also, you get a special place in hell for making me go and look at stuff like "Table 1.3—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS(–) IN CURRENT DOLLARS, CONSTANT (FY 2000) DOLLARS, AND AS PERCENTAGES OF GDP: 1940–2009" today. (http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2...5/pdf/hist.pdf) Your 1945 number was the wrong one to choose. 41.9 percent, though I guess it was better than the prior two years (43.6 percent). We're at about 20 percent right now, and the data doesn't go further back.

A quick check shows that abortion was legal in CA for five years before Roe. At the time of Roe, abortion was legal in NY and KS also. I'd suggest the upward trajectory in CA started sometime after it became legal. Thus, 168K in 1970, 400K in 1971 (or something like the numbers you posted). If thats what CA wants, thats what CA gets.

On a slightly different note, the Georgia Right to Life Committee (GRLC.org) or something like that, notes that the Federal government was tracking deaths (of all types) in 1960 and even included numbers for legal and illegal abortion. 24 and 39 respectively, though I'd obviously concede that others may have died who were misreported.

I can't guarantee when gov't aid really swung into high-gear (teen-births), but I know public housing was available en-masse somewhere in that period. It didn't really get crazy until Johnson and Nixon though. At least, that's when people remember Chicago getting seriously crazy.

Hello

PS What is with that 1945 budget outlay? I'm willing to exempt the entire Roosevelt era as a comparitive marker in an effort not to completely misrepresent a fair comparison. But the % of the GDP that was budgeted federally? Holy Jesus is that ever not exactly a good marker for the Great Society.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
PS What is with that 1945 budget outlay? I'm willing to exempt the entire Roosevelt era as a comparitive marker in an effort not to completely misrepresent a fair comparison. But the % of the GDP that was budgeted federally? Holy Jesus is that ever not exactly a good marker for the Great Society.

WWII