NationStates Jolt Archive

This is really too good to be true. Is it April Fools already?

"Former President Clinton, defending his senator-wife's statements on abortion, said Wednesday that Democrats are held to a double standard," the Associated Press reports from Washington:

He contended that Republicans have defined the abortion debate in a way that boxes in Democrats.

"So for example, if you're a Democrat and you have sort of normal impulses, you're a sellout, like when Hillary said abortion is a tragedy for virtually everybody who undergoes it, we ought to do all we can to reduce abortion," Clinton said.

"All of a sudden," he continued, the media began asking, " 'Is she selling out? Is she abandoning her principles?' But if John McCain, who's pro-life, works with Hillary on global warming, he's a man of principle moving to the middle."

"It's nuts," the former president said.

Clinton is absolutely right: The media cheer when a Republican moves to the left and boo when a Democrat moves to the right. For an even more extreme example, compare their treatment of Jim Jeffords and Zell Miller.

Conservatives have been complaining about liberal media bias for decades. Now they've found an unlikely ally in Bill Clinton.

I dont think you understood what clinton meant ^_^

I think he blew one too many interns today...

I dont think you understood what clinton meant ^_^
I think I understood completely. It's not what he meant, it's how it came out.

More partisan bullshit from myrmisomething, whatevr his name is, who wouldve guessed it

Clinton says somethign a conservative agrees with and all of a sudden he is right about something.

This is really too good to be true. Is it April Fools already?

"Former President Clinton, defending his senator-wife's statements on abortion, said Wednesday that Democrats are held to a double standard," the Associated Press reports from Washington:

Clinton is absolutely right: The media cheer when a Republican moves to the left and boo when a Democrat moves to the right. For an even more extreme example, compare their treatment of Jim Jeffords and Zell Miller.

Conservatives have been complaining about liberal media bias for decades. Now they've found an unlikely ally in Bill Clinton.
Well, my local news sure doesn't have a liberal bias.

I dont think you understood what clinton meant ^_^

Isn't it strange how two different people can look at the exact same information and take away exactly different conclusions? Its endlessly fascinating...and more than a little frustrating.

Clinton says somethign a conservative agrees with and all of a sudden he is right about something.
that's pretty much how it works

Clinton says somethign a conservative agrees with and all of a sudden he is right about something.
Well ... DUH! :D

I see what Clinton is saying, and I think he's right. Most of the media would praise a republican that moves to the left and condemn a democrat that moves to the right. I see it too. It's not really a liberal bias, more of a stupid double standard.

Basically, it means a liberal can't do anything right, even if he/she moves to the middle. Also, conservatives can't do anything wrong, even if they move to the middle.

Basically it's just like society. Embracing liberalism while condemning liberals. Loving ideals but hating idealists.

No wonder we can't get anything done.

Just remember, no sane person is pro-abortion. Whether you're a liberal or a conservative, abortion is a tragedy. Removing the choice without removing the motivation/necessity is a greater tragedy.

Conservatives are only interested in removing the choice.

Basically, it means a liberal can't do anything right, even if he/she moves to the middle. Also, conservatives can't do anything wrong, even if they move to the middle.

Basically it's just like society. Embracing liberalism while ostracising liberals.

A clear sign that the war of words has been won. For now at least, public perception is that Conservatives stay true to their ideals or move to the center for unity. Liberals go out of the mainstream or sell out for power. An interesting double standard, I wonder how long it will last.

Ihatevacations']More partisan bullshit from myrmisomething, whatevr his name is, who wouldve guessed it
I love to see this. I figure I haven't done the day justice unless I've pissed off someone.

-snip-
a) If the media was all liberal, would they have published that little article?
b) What "the media" are they talking about?

Basically, it means a liberal can't do anything right, even if he/she moves to the middle. Also, conservatives can't do anything wrong, even if they move to the middle.

Basically it's just like society. Embracing liberalism while condemning liberals. Loving ideals but hating idealists.
mmmm, hypocrisy

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/imagine.jpg

Just remember, no sane person is pro-abortion. Whether you're a liberal or a conservative, abortion is a tragedy. Removing the choice without removing the motivation/necessity is a greater tragedy.

Then me and millions of others are insane.

Ever read freakonomics, btw?

a) If the media was all liberal, would they have published that little article?
b) What "the media" are they talking about?
You guys all take this way too seriously. Aren't you tired of voting in the same old polls about your favorite ...? Or telling a geek why girls don't like him? This is just supposed to be a fun little diversion, not a great argument. But if that's what you prefer, I can't stop you.

Of course no one is "pro-abortion";however, alot of people are anti-person1 telling other people what teh fuck to do based on person1's morals

You guys all take this way too seriously. Aren't you tired of voting in the same old polls about your favorite ...? Or telling a geek why girls don't like him? This is just supposed to be a fun little diversion, not a great argument. But if that's what you prefer, I can't stop you.
lol, this is NS! do you think anything that has anything to do with politics won't turn into a huge argument?

I am pro-abortion. Not that I think it should be mandatory, but if we had more abortion there would be less welfare-dependent single mothers.

I am pro-abortion. Not that I think it should be mandatory, but if we had more abortion there would be less welfare-dependent single mothers.

Hey, whatever gets the freeway moving faster. ;)

Ihatevacations']Of course no one is "pro-abortion";however, alot of people are anti-person1 telling other people what teh fuck to do based on person1's morals
It goes farther than that, though. Legislating morality is stupid and unworkable. It's a losing bet that a law can improve someone's behavior. But, that doesn't stop governments from doing just that.

I wish as much energy could be focused on good government as is spent on pro choice/anti abortion efforts. I suspect abortion only affects a tiny percentage of us, but good government, in whatever form that takes, would ultimately affect us all.

lol, this is NS! do you think anything that has anything to do with politics won't turn into a huge argument?
Sorry, my mistake :).

Then me and millions of others are insane.

Ever read freakonomics, btw?

I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying that there aren't sane people who support the right to have an abortion. I'm one of them. What I'm saying is that there aren't sane people cheering on casual conception then casual abortion.

I too believe overpopulation is a grave problem. I too believe that there are far to many greedy mouths out there. I just don't think abortion is the first option.

In that context, do you still consider yourself pro-abortion?

I am pro-abortion. Not that I think it should be mandatory, but if we had more abortion there would be less welfare-dependent single mothers.

Point was that no-one can be pro-abortion i.e. "Yey, another abortion! Keep 'em comin', these are damn good." The fact an abortion is needed is a saddening one, but sometimes an abortion is necessary - argument is pro-choice mainly. If we had no need for abortions, I'd be doing naked happy dances.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying that there aren't sane people who support the right to have an abortion. I'm one of them. What I'm saying is that there aren't sane people cheering on casual conception then casual abortion.

I too believe overpopulation is a grave problem. I too believe that there are far to many greedy mouths out there. I just don't think abortion is the first option.

Ditto.

Liberals say the media is conservative, conservatives claims its liberal. Its neither, they do what they think will make money, stop reading into it! Partisans call others partisans, because their brand of partisanship doesn’t agree with theirs. My fellow Americanism, look into third parties that actually represent you ideals, not the ideals of big corporations, gangster run unions and special interest groups. Vote Libertarian, vote Constitution Party, vote Reform, heck vote Green for all I care. Get these hacks out of power!

This rant brought to you by, the fact that I just woke up from twelve hours of sleep after a 38 hour period of sleeplessness.

I am pro-abortion. Not that I think it should be mandatory, but if we had more abortion there would be less welfare-dependent single mothers.
Why should we rely on abortion to limit the birth rate. What is wrong with contraceptives? I realize a couple pregnancies can still occur, but why should we consider that our front-line defense? Far more efficient to prevent than to abort, I'm sure.

It goes farther than that, though. Legislating morality is stupid and unworkable. It's a losing bet that a law can improve someone's behavior. But, that doesn't stop governments from doing just that.

I wish as much energy could be focused on good government as is spent on pro choice/anti abortion efforts. I suspect abortion only affects a tiny percentage of us, but good government, in whatever form that takes, would ultimately affect us all.

With all due respect, we've legislated morality before, and it has worked before. Desegregating schools in the south was legislating morality. Legislating a 40-hour workweek is legislating morality. In both cases, we have in a matter of only a generation or two moved from the idea that it's perfectly acceptable to not allow someone to sit next to you or drink from a drinking fountain if they have a certain skin color to considering that reprehensible, and we've moved (sort-of) from the idea that the law of the workshop is the law of the jungle to the idea that because workers provide the goods, they are entitled to a certain degree of respect by those they make those goods for.

The question isn't whether we should or should not legislate morality so much as it is what morality we should try and legislate. Increasing freedom and justice=good use of legislating morality. Increasing pseudo-Christian freakdom=good only for some people's political careers, but bad for America.

With all due respect, we've legislated morality before, and it has worked before. Desegregating schools in the south was legislating morality. Legislating a 40-hour workweek is legislating morality. In both cases, we have in a matter of only a generation or two moved from the idea that it's perfectly acceptable to not allow someone to sit next to you or drink from a drinking fountain if they have a certain skin color to considering that reprehensible, and we've moved (sort-of) from the idea that the law of the workshop is the law of the jungle to the idea that because workers provide the goods, they are entitled to a certain degree of respect by those they make those goods for.

The question isn't whether we should or should not legislate morality so much as it is what morality we should try and legislate. Increasing freedom and justice=good use of legislating morality. Increasing pseudo-Christian freakdom=good only for some people's political careers, but bad for America.
I haven't been respected in a long time, thanks.
I might agree on Civil Rights, but I don't think I can on labor rights. Civil Rights certainly did give our fading Constitutional guarantees to a disenfranchised segment of the population and I think that was a moral victory for those involved.

Labor rights were won by strikes and negotiation. Forty hours is still only a target for clock watchers. Ambitious people will put in many more hours than that.

Behavior is a whole different thing. The 'War on Drugs' is a failure, Prohibition was a failure, and anti-abortion laws were failures. That doesn't mean that the ideals were bad, only that laws don't create equal moral standards in people. Is that a better way to put it?

I haven't been respected in a long time, thanks.
I might agree on Civil Rights, but I don't think I can on labor rights. Civil Rights certainly did give our fading Constitutional guarantees to a disenfranchised segment of the population and I think that was a moral victory for those involved.

Labor rights were won by strikes and negotiation. Forty hours is still only a target for clock watchers. Ambitious people will put in many more hours than that.

Behavior is a whole different thing. The 'War on Drugs' is a failure, Prohibition was a failure, and anti-abortion laws were failures. That doesn't mean that the ideals were bad, only that laws don't create equal moral standards in people. Is that a better way to put it?

Perhaps. It should be noted that the difference between labor and civil rights law and drug laws is that one is expanding citizen freedoms where many people would agree they should, and the other is expanding government power into an area that many would agree they shouldn't. I for one don't find that coincidental.

Perhaps. It should be noted that the difference between labor and civil rights law and drug laws is that one is expanding citizen freedoms where many people would agree they should, and the other is expanding government power into an area that many would agree they shouldn't. I for one don't find that coincidental.

I think labor laws are extending government power into where it doesn’t belong…

I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying that there aren't sane people who support the right to have an abortion. I'm one of them. What I'm saying is that there aren't sane people cheering on casual conception then casual abortion.Exactly. He did misunderstand. There is a subtle difference between being pro-choice (which I am) and being pro-abortion. The fact of the matter is that an abortion happens when something has gone wrong, despite the fact that it is important to have the option of aborting a pregnancy, open.
I therefore believe that the term "pro-abortion" should not be used. Pro-choice is the correct term. I don't honestly believe that anyone defends the use of abortion as a contraceptive method.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying that there aren't sane people who support the right to have an abortion. I'm one of them. What I'm saying is that there aren't sane people cheering on casual conception then casual abortion.

I too believe overpopulation is a grave problem. I too believe that there are far to many greedy mouths out there. I just don't think abortion is the first option.

In that context, do you still consider yourself pro-abortion?

That is what I meant, and I still consider myself pro-abortion.

I ask again, have you read freakonomics?

Exactly. He did misunderstand. There is a subtle difference between being pro-choice (which I am) and being pro-abortion. The fact of the matter is that an abortion happens when something has gone wrong, despite the fact that it is important to have the option of aborting a pregnancy, open.
I therefore believe that the term "pro-abortion" should not be used. Pro-choice is the correct term. I don't honestly believe that anyone defends the use of abortion as a contraceptive method.

I did not misunderstand.

That is what I meant, and I still consider myself pro-abortion.

I ask again, have you read freakonomics?

Nope.

Why should we rely on abortion to limit the birth rate. What is wrong with contraceptives? I realize a couple pregnancies can still occur, but why should we consider that our front-line defense? Far more efficient to prevent than to abort, I'm sure.

I dont think any pro-choice people are against contraceptives...

Nope.

It explains, logically and statistically, how abortions since roe v. wade have factored into lowering the crime rate.

That is what I meant, and I still consider myself pro-abortion.You do understand however that there are contraceptive methods that should be encouraged which render Abortion as a last chance solution?

You do understand however that there are contraceptive methods that should be encouraged which render Abortion as a last chance solution?

Im pro-contraceptive as well.

It explains, logically and statistically, how abortions since roe v. wade have factored into lowering the crime rate.

Interesting. But does it make the assertion that it's the abortions themselves that had anything to do with that, or does it mean that the absence of a dependent means there is less stress, desperation and economic pressure on those unwilling/unable to support a child?

Does the article make the point that the result is changed if conception had never occured at all?

What is it about abortion, specifically, that reduces crime rate? In other words. does the medical procedure itself reduce crime, or is it the absence of extra hungry mouths and responsibilities?

Think about it this way. I think contraception is to abortion as diplomacy is to war.

War and abortion are sometime necessary as a very last resort (arguably,) but contraception and diplomacy should always be fully explored first.

Once war or abortion happens, you can never go back...

Im pro-contraceptive as well.
So am I but you are still ignoring the fact that from a utopian point of view, abortion would not exist.
Abortions happen because un unwanted pregnancy has occured, despite all the contraceptive methods available to avoid such a pregnancy. Something hasn't gone as initially planned. I don't see how a person can define himself as being pro plan-B, when plan A should be given alot more relevance.

I think Clinton should use contraception too.

This is really too good to be true. Is it April Fools already?

"Former President Clinton, defending his senator-wife's statements on abortion, said Wednesday that Democrats are held to a double standard," the Associated Press reports from Washington:

Clinton is absolutely right: The media cheer when a Republican moves to the left and boo when a Democrat moves to the right. For an even more extreme example, compare their treatment of Jim Jeffords and Zell Miller.

Conservatives have been complaining about liberal media bias for decades. Now they've found an unlikely ally in Bill Clinton.
So let me get this straight--because the media talks well about conservatives who claim to be moderate (like McCain) but talk badly about Democrats who claim to be moderate, the media has a liberal bias. Riiiiiiiight. Seems to me that if the media were liberal, liberals might get a voice on the air sometimes, never mind being ridiculed 50 seconds out of every minute.

Look at McCain's record sometime--he's as hardcore a conservative as you'll find. He's no moderate, but he gets credit for being one because he talks a good game. When it comes time to vote, though, he's Bush's butt-boy. That's not moderate--that's hacktacular.

And you might try rereading that comment Clinton made--seems to me he was saying that the Democrats can't catch a break from the media, mainly because they're too busy licking Republican ass.

This has probably been said, but if not...

It can also be inferred that the papers want to make out Hillary as someone who wavers on her core principals when she moves to that front on Abortion (which isn't mutually exclusive from being pro-choice either), but praise McCain, a guy on the right, for similar moves torward the center.

At the least, to be intellectually consistent, you'd have to recognize this stance as equally plausible, but I don't think intellectual consistency was one of your concerns when you put up this post...

So let me get this straight--because the media talks well about conservatives who claim to be moderate (like McCain) but talk badly about Democrats who claim to be moderate, the media has a liberal bias. Riiiiiiiight. Seems to me that if the media were liberal, liberals might get a voice on the air sometimes, never mind being ridiculed 50 seconds out of every minute.

Take that chip off your shoulder! You don't win the prize for thoroughly reading the thread tonight.

Well dude, if you mean by 'light discussion' or whatever you called it, that we should accept analogies that don't hold up, I don't think it's a fair thing to ask for.

I see what Clinton is saying, and I think he's right. Most of the media would praise a republican that moves to the left and condemn a democrat that moves to the right. I see it too. It's not really a liberal bias, more of a stupid double standard.
Damn, beat me to it.

Well dude, if you mean by 'light discussion' or whatever you called it, that we should accept analogies that don't hold up, I don't think it's a fair thing to ask for.
Actually Haloman has already settled it. It's not bias as much as a double standard. Which is exactly what Clinton claimed. And what I said is just as correct. The media prefers a Jumpin Jim Jeffords to a Zig-Zag Zell Miller any day.

Actually Haloman has already settled it. It's not bias as much as a double standard. Which is exactly what Clinton claimed. And what I said is just as correct. The media prefers a Jumpin Jim Jeffords to a Zig-Zag Zell Miller any day.

Yeah, that's why Jeffords has gotten so much more air time than Miller. :rolleyes:

Yeah, that's why Jeffords has gotten so much more air time than Miller. :rolleyes:
I don't think you can equate air time and favorable treatment. Jeffords had his share when he jumped parties and Miller was featured during the conventions. That's about all either got, except that Miller writes books that people read, so he makes the talk show circuits to promote them. Jeffords has something to do with milk, doesn't he?