Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes. - Page 201

ltl/fb · 04-19-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
blah blah birth control government abortion blah blah

Henry "Hyde Amendment" Hyde is stepping down after 2006 elections:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../hyde_retiring

Replaced_Texan · 04-19-2005, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I support welfare reform, but correlating a relationship between welfare reform and reduced abortions seems a stretch. I have never heard this argument before. Who did this study?

I think I posted the stats on abortions a few months ago when Hello was in his "things have gone downhill since 1947, damn you FDR! Damn you!" mode. They were from the CDC.

bilmore · 04-19-2005, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
One gets the feeling that the only acceptable choice for Sully would have been this guy:

Well, I suspect the biggest accomodation Sully's gonna get from this new guy will be, the stake he gets burned on will be sanded first.

Maybe.

Replaced_Texan · 04-19-2005, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Henry "Hyde Amendment" Hyde is stepping down after 2006 elections:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../hyde_retiring

Has anyone been looking at the Senate races yet? Until Hutchison announces which race she's going to run (and the last report I heard was that she has $7million stashed away already for a run on the Governor's mansion), no Republican is going to step up. There's a lawyer at V&E named Barbara Radnofsky who will probably run in the Democratic primary, and I have heard rumblings that Ken Bensten is interested in running again. Obviously, an open seat will be more competitive than against KBH, but it will probably boil down to voter turnout.

I can't imagine that Rick Santorum will have an easy run next time around in PA. Hyde will be gone, and I don't know anything about West Virginia politics, but I imagine the seat will be hard for the Ds to keep.

I find it interesting that both majority leaders will be up for reelection next year. ETA, I read that wrong, only Bill Frist will be up for reelection.

Gattigap · 04-19-2005, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Until Hutchison announces which race she's going to run (and the last report I heard was that she has $7million stashed away already for a run on the Governor's mansion), no Republican is going to step up.

Is Gov. Goodhair term-limited?

Replaced_Texan · 04-19-2005, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Is Gov. Goodhair term-limited?

Nope. We're all anticipating the primary with glee. It's gonna be bloody. And hopefully split the party up a little.

He's already relseased videos of her with *gasp* Hillary Clinton.

Hank Chinaski · 04-19-2005, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Dyson's point is that strategic bombing was a waste of money and lives, not that he didn't want to be fighting Hitler.

They's all be dead by now anyway so get off it. My point was the post-war/anti-war writing of a guy from the fraternity that invented instant vaporization of tens of thousands is suspect-

Hank Chinaski · 04-19-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I sadly have to concur. I have raised the argument that the first step to fighting abortion is making birth control easily available for all - if not free. The right wingers always offer some claptrap about how we have to "get back to responsibility."

you need to go to less serious parties-seriously

ltl/fb · 04-19-2005, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Nope. We're all anticipating the primary with glee. It's gonna be bloody. And hopefully split the party up a little.

He's already relseased videos of her with *gasp* Hillary Clinton.

A SENATOR has been filmed with another SENATOR?!?!?!?! The scandal!

Say_hello_for_me · 04-19-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The reasons tend to be a little more complicated than that, but my point holds regardless -- if Hello was serious about the "ending welfare will end unwanted births" argument, then he's a wackadoo.

Your post today wasn't really responsive to mine.

Or maybe someone has a better theory on what has changed since 1996?

Sidd Finch · 04-19-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Your post today wasn't really responsive to mine.

Or maybe someone has a better theory on what has changed since 1996?

Yeah, nothing has changed since 1996 except for a reduction in welfare benefits. And all those people who were thinking "score! I got a baby and my AFDC will go up a whole 'nother $120 a month!" learned their lessons.

The reduction in welfare benefits also caused the dot-com boom and bust, the fall in crime rates, and 9/11. Because, after all, nothing else has changed and generally any social trend is caused by a single factor.

Sidd Finch · 04-19-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Your post today wasn't really responsive to mine.

Or maybe someone has a better theory on what has changed since 1996?

Just for the hell of it, I thought I would check the underlying data, rather than just comment on your theory (i.e., that neither increased access to birth control, nor sex education, nor increased engagement in religion, nor anything other than welfare reform had contribued to the "40% drop in abortion rates in the last ten years" that you cite).

Go to google, and put in "abortion rates." Check the first hit -- you'll see that the abortion rate began falling in 1990, well before welfare reform.

Then, check a few more hits. You'll see that the CDC hasn't published data going past 2000, so the 40% decline you cite is not particularly well established. However, several articles indicate that the abortion rate has increased since then.

Can you provide the source on which you relied for the claimed fall, that you claimed began in 1996, and that you claim is causally related to welfare reform?

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-19-2005, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Curtis LeMay said after the bombing runs on Tokyo, that if we lost the war he would been tried for war crimes.

When you think about what he was doing, you can understand why. When they firebombed Tokyo, there really wasn't a pretense that they were going after military or industrial targets.

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-19-2005, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually, in the beginning of the battle for Britain, the Luftwaffe was only bombing and attacking RAF bases. And it was working. But then England bombed Berlin and so Hitler, for revenge, directed Goering to bomb London. During the blitz the RAF was able to recover and turn the tide of the war.

As I think I've posted here, it was a little more complicated. A Luftwaffe night raid trying to hit the docks near London -- a military target -- dropped bombs instead on civilian areas. In retaliation, the English bombed Berlin. Hitler then ordered the shift in focus from military to civilian targets.

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-19-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Bombing a weapons factory, a power plant, or the house where you think the opposing leader is staying -- is that strategic or tactical? I would define that as strategic, and effective.

Strategic. You can call it effective, but the actual facts suggest otherwise. E.g., our decapitation strikes against Hussein at the start of the war didn't.

Quote:

As for WWII, I can certainly think of two strategic bombing attacks that were extremely effective, and many, many tactical bombing attacks that were not.

OK, I'll qualify my argument for nukes.