Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Only a 9.4? Was the degree of difficulty not there?

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, it was more a rant about the DEMs being hypocrits, the fallacy of the "GOP = Racist" stigma that the DEMs are happy to fan, and the GOP, or at least Bush, not getting credit where its due.

The GOP would do a lot to stop the "fallacy" if they would stop saying things like "we would be a lot better off if we had elected a segregationist long ago."

And yes, I do credit the party for disciplining him.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
9.7

2. Second time today he made me laugh.

[Fugee]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Third, "mostly legal" or "mostly illegal" probably means any of a thousand different things, depending on who you are asking. In fact, I'd bet that some "mostly legal" people would give you the same set of legal circumstances as some "mostly illegal" person, so that their only difference is the definition of "mostly". The one thing it definitely says though is that 79% (of a group skewed 5/4 by women) agree that it should not be always legal.

It does also say that 81% agree that it should not be always illegal.

I think BRC's interpretation of what "mostly legal" and "mostly illegal" means is much more likely correct than yours. Only a federalist would be thinking in terms of state by state rather than situation by situation in answering a question like that.

And the people I know who are in the "always illegal" or "mostly illegal" camps are definitely thinking in terms of everywhere in the US, not just in certain states. Ditto for the "always legal" and "mostly legal" folks I know.

But you were so busy exchanging insults with Sebby that you didn't answer his very interesting question: Do you really think the GOP power structure really wants to overturn Roe? Does Bush really want to?

ETA: I am in the personally uncomfortable position of believing abortion is morally wrong but not in favor of overturning Roe.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Fugee
It does also say that 81% agree that it should not be always illegal.

I think BRC's interpretation of what "mostly legal" and "mostly illegal" means is much more likely correct than yours. Only a federalist would be thinking in terms of state by state rather than situation by situation in answering a question like that.

And the people I know who are in the "always illegal" or "mostly illegal" camps are definitely thinking in terms of everywhere in the US, not just in certain states. Ditto for the "always legal" and "mostly legal" folks I know.

But you were so busy exchanging insults with Sebby that you didn't answer his very interesting question: Do you really think the GOP power structure really wants to overturn Roe? Does Bush really want to?

ETA: I am in the personally uncomfortable position of believing abortion is morally wrong but not in favor of overturning Roe.

I was being deliberately non-insulting today, but his question is beyond dumb (and I don't mean that in the truly name-calling sense) to me. Do you or anyone here thing that Bush or Rove aren't true believers? Of course he wants to get rid of it, and he's probably laughing every time some hysterical questioner suggests that the country will go up in arms about it.

In any case, I'm not saying that the majority of people are thinking about it from a Federalist view. I'm saying they'll buy into it, or at least accept it and not actively oppose it. Will people in CA really care that someone in Indiana can't get an abortion when they don't care that people in Mexico can't? Only the extremists will care, and even a lot of them won't care all that much because the NYC and CA liberals will have what they want, and the Indiana and Missouri extremists will have what they want.

The fact is, its the closest we can get to giving people what they want as communities. Of course, the whole idea of overturning Roe is part of an even bigger picture. Our federal union should be composed of 50 little independent states that run their own affairs and kick in for common security and what not.

My experience is that nobody will go nuts whatsoever when this happens, and I'm from a mostly democratic city. Rather, the people screaming the loudest about how people will go nuts are the people who already scream the loudest. Maybe they just like to scream. But the Bugle and Drum corps is right on the money. If the country will go nuts, than 50 states will have legalized abortion put into their constitutions or whatever. Do I look worried or do they?

It reminds me of the old PB where every 2 weeks someone would show up and say "I used to be a Republican, but I've had it". While these guys were supposedly throwing in the towel, congress has been gaining more and more Republicans. Lawyers aren't exactly reflective of our population.

Its funny that it took the last election for some people to think that the states rights thing might be their salvation. I've always liked the idea of the 50 states racing towards the bottom. Wanna see how fast the Great Society nonsense gets thrown out wholesale? Wait til Illinois' next Republican governor (in 20 years) gets to say "we can't afford it, but California gives its poor people food stamps and abortions!!! Any poor people need a greyhound ticket?". And really, why should Virginians be subsidizing Illinois corn farmers or Illinoisans be subsidizing Virginia tobacco farmers?

If states fuck things up enough, either they'll turn into Detroit or the people will realize what's happening and stop the slide.

On a more personal note, I'm actually part of the 79% and the 81% (I'd suspect that most here are). Which is why I think its so easy to sell it to the vast middle. I'm sympathetic to the health of the mother issue, but I'm just as sympathetic to people in Utah or Dutch country or southern Indiana being able to define their own communities instead of having their morals jammed down their throats by 5 judges and the Democrats bugle and drum corps.

So really, interpret it anyway you want, but its happening and after people learn to filter out the bugles, the drums and Sebby's screams, they'll realize that the day after ain't gonna be all that different from the day before.

Hello

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Our federal union should be composed of 50 little independent states that run their own affairs and kick in for common security and what not.

Hello

Why would you like to see the United States be more like the European Union?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Why would you like to see the United States be more like the European Union?

Why wouldn't you?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"Really? Damn."

[Fugee]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I was being deliberately non-insulting today, but his question is beyond dumb (and I don't mean that in the truly name-calling sense) to me. Do you or anyone here thing that Bush or Rove aren't true believers? Of course he wants to get rid of it, and he's probably laughing every time some hysterical questioner suggests that the country will go up in arms about it.

I don't know what to think about Bush. He talks the talk and people in the Christian community who know him say he's the real deal but I don't see a lot more than talk. I know little about Rove but get the sense he is all about winning. So I'll answer your question more broadly: I suspect there are a whole lot of "pro-life" GOP pols who are more than happy to go after the low hanging fruit like partial birth abortion to placate the religious right but would change their tune mighty quick if it looked like it would cost them an election.

If the GOP was so determined to overturn Roe, why hasn't it been done? 7 of the current justices were appointed by GOP presidents: 3 by Reagan and 2 by Bush I. Do you really think the people in charge of making the short lists for RR and GHWB were fooled by them?

I don't know whether or not there would be a mass outcry across the country if Roe were overturned and Red States starting banning abortion. I do suspect there are people living in Red States who want to keep it legal there and some of them might even vote GOP.

[SlaveNoMore]

Fugee
If the GOP was so determined to overturn Roe, why hasn't it been done? 7 of the current justices were appointed by GOP presidents: 3 by Reagan and 2 by Bush I. Do you really think the people in charge of making the short lists for RR and GHWB were fooled by them?

Yes. see Souter, David

I don't know whether or not there would be a mass outcry across the country if Roe were overturned and Red States starting banning abortion. I do suspect there are people living in Red States who want to keep it legal there and some of them might even vote GOP.

Again, the public is mislead on the major issues. Joe and Jess Sixpack mistakenly think that an overturning of Roe will automatically make abortion illegal nationwide - which as we all know here is patently false.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Fugee
I don't know what to think about Bush. He talks the talk and people in the Christian community who know him say he's the real deal but I don't see a lot more than talk. I know little about Rove but get the sense he is all about winning. So I'll answer your question more broadly: I suspect there are a whole lot of "pro-life" GOP pols who are more than happy to go after the low hanging fruit like partial birth abortion to placate the religious right but would change their tune mighty quick if it looked like it would cost them an election.

If the GOP was so determined to overturn Roe, why hasn't it been done? 7 of the current justices were appointed by GOP presidents: 3 by Reagan and 2 by Bush I. Do you really think the people in charge of making the short lists for RR and GHWB were fooled by them?

I don't know whether or not there would be a mass outcry across the country if Roe were overturned and Red States starting banning abortion. I do suspect there are people living in Red States who want to keep it legal there and some of them might even vote GOP.

I don't think anyone was fooled by Supreme Court nominees. Rather, I think it was clear who the majority was in Congress during Reagan and Bush I, and appointing that 5th anti-Roe Justice was a battle they couldn't win. So they took the high ground, cept with Souter who in retrospect I don't think anyone would appoint again.

As for those GOPers in the red states who want to keep it legal, some of them might get their wish. Some of them might not. Overall, more people will get what they want for their communities. Last I read from some pro-Choice group, 30+ states are in danger of having abortion all but completely outlawed, and its basically the same 30+ states that banned it before Roe.

And sure, its not worth doing if it will cost someone an election. So taking the low-hanging fruit seems like a pretty rational process so far. The whole point of an election is to have the popular will expressed (within the confines of what is actually in the Constitution). Roe defeated the entire process, which is why its a complete abomination to anyone who truly believes in a Democracy instead of minority-rule by Judicial fiat.

Open up what is subject to election though (by defeating Roe), and a lot more of that fruit is going to be low hanging in a lot more states.

In any case, all the things you might worry about with unwanted babies are things I worry about too. The thing is, all of the Judicial-fiat solutions imposed over the last 50 years to fix our society have turned out to be unproductive impositions. From desegration bussing to Roe, judges have completely failed to foresee the negative consequences of their arbitrary solutions, and it hasn't helped solve problems in this country.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yes. see Souter, David

Perhaps you're failing to draw a distinction between what Bush said and what Bush wanted.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The thing is, all of the Judicial-fiat solutions imposed over the last 50 years to fix our society have turned out to be unproductive impositions. From desegration bussing to Roe, judges have completely failed to foresee the negative consequences of their arbitrary solutions, and it hasn't helped solve problems in this country.

Which negative consequences?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Adder
Which negative consequences?

e.g., 70 million white people moving to the suburbs. Sprawl, concentration of poverty, aggrivating the disconnect between our nation's citizens, increase in just about everything bad (though many trends have reversed since Gingrich and co. came in). Which consequences weren't negative? You seen a northern city lately?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
e.g., 70 million white people moving to the suburbs. Sprawl, concentration of poverty, aggrivating the disconnect between our nation's citizens, increase in just about everything bad (though many trends have reversed since Gingrich and co. came in). Which consequences weren't negative? You seen a northern city lately?

Um... these are consequences of Roe and desegregation by busing?? And why would busing be necessary if there had been no white flight?

And yes, I have seen a northern city lately. Philly, New York, Chicago, Minneapolis - all doing pretty damn well. And DC, which isn't a northern city, but certainly experienced all of the phenomina you apparently believe were caused by busing and abortion, is doing much better these days too. But I'm sure that is just 'cause of all of the Repulican politicians these places have elected.

Ad(that's one mighty big conspiracy theory ya got going on there)der