NationStates Jolt Archive

At this rate the only this I see is the 'conservation' of an asshole's right to be a bigot/racist/homophobe/warmonger/etc.

Seriously, I see conservatives in their BS political comercials trying to frighten the bejesus out of people with the brain-dead, hackneyed, utterly overused "they'll raise your taxes," mantra. But, without even having to look all that closely you can see that the "conservative" controlled congress and executive branches have blown what's now going on 350 Billion in tax payer dollars on a bungled war effort, after assuring us in the run up to the '04 election that John Kerry was exadurating about the cost exeeding 200 billion. So they can't be about conserving money.

After that, well, I'm at a loss. Can one of you vociferous CONs here on NSG please throw me a bone?

Not much these days. I wish the ideology I once associated myself with would come back from lunacy.

I seem to remember tax cuts.

I seem to remember tax cuts.

And how much money went back into your pocket from that? I'll tell you how much I got. Exactly $0.00. I actuall checked against previous returns last year.

Nothing, really.

Nowadays, there's only Republican and Democrat that are being widely used. "Liberal" and "Conservative" nowadays are usually just name calling.

Apparently, the small government party has actually increased the size of government. They are rationing civil rights, though.

Apparently, the small government party has actually increased the size of government. They are rationing civil rights, though.

Well, we can expect to have a small shortage of freedom here since we've shipped $300 Billion of it to Iraq. :rolleyes:

Well, we can expect to have a small shortage of freedom here since we've shipped $300 Billion of it to Iraq. :rolleyes:

$300 billion dollars? My God, think of what we could've used that money for.

I knew the Iraq war was costly, but I didn't know it was THAT costly. I never really looked up how much money it cost the U.S. Do you have any exact (or close to exact) numbers?

Because I always hear that America is spending a lot on the war, but 3/4 of the time (lol, inside joke), people never mention how much.

Why, they're conserving your great-great-grandchildren's moneys, apparently. I Guess PNAC needs it all now. Sorry, future generations.

Not much.

At this rate the only this I see is the 'conservation' of an asshole's right to be a bigot/racist/homophobe/warmonger/etc.


yes, that is essentially what conservatives want to conserve. as well as the social stratification which perpetuates it.

$300 billion dollars? My God, think of what we could've used that money for.

I knew the Iraq war was costly, but I didn't know it was THAT costly. I never really looked up how much money it cost the U.S. Do you have any exact (or close to exact) numbers?

Because I always hear that America is spending a lot on the war, but 3/4 of the time (lol, inside joke), people never mention how much.

I was just going by what I remember from the news. I actually thought it was approaching the $300 billion mark and was actually around 2.9 or 2.9 hundred billion.

These guys (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182) say otherwise.

how trolly....

At this rate the only this I see is the 'conservation' of an asshole's right to be a bigot/racist/homophobe/warmonger/etc.

Seriously, I see conservatives in their BS political comercials trying to frighten the bejesus out of people with the brain-dead, hackneyed, utterly overused "they'll raise your taxes," mantra. But, without even having to look all that closely you can see that the "conservative" controlled congress and executive branches have blown what's now going on 350 Billion in tax payer dollars on a bungled war effort, after assuring us in the run up to the '04 election that John Kerry was exadurating about the cost exeeding 200 billion. So they can't be about conserving money.

After that, well, I'm at a loss. Can one of you vociferous CONs here on NSG please throw me a bone?
The short answer is that you're not complaining about conservatives. You're whining about Republicans.

how trolly....

;) hehe (http://lostintransit.org/archives/trolley.jpg)

The short answer is that you're not complaining about conservatives. You're whining about Republicans.

Same thing these days. Except you're adding in your own value judgement against the OP. "Whining", indeed.:mad:

Same thing these days. Except you're adding in your own value judgement against the OP. "Whining", indeed.:mad:

Conservative /=/ Republican (or you know the other way around)

and not whining......baiting, trolling, and otherwise....

"At this rate the only this I see is the 'conservation' of an asshole's right to be a bigot/racist/homophobe/warmonger/etc. "

:rolleyes:

I was just going by what I remember from the news. I actually thought it was approaching the $300 billion mark and was actually around 2.9 or 2.9 hundred billion.

These guys (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182) say otherwise.

That is just flat out sad. Especially considering how horrible my schools are in my district, and to see it all get blown away on an unecessay war (IMHO, anyway).

Same thing these days. Except you're adding in your own value judgement against the OP. "Whining", indeed.:mad:

Is too a difference. And the OP is definitely whining.

How's this for sophisticated debate?

I could go into how there are responsible, conservative Democrats in a lot of places. I could even mention that all politics and government doesn't happen inside the beltway. But, I'm afraid it would be wasted effort on someone that can only muster up a "Same thing these days" argument.

We can give you Oh! So LOT!

How does Blood, Sweat and Sacrifice sound..?

as well as the social stratification which perpetuates it.

that's the real key

The short answer is that you're not complaining about conservatives. You're whining about Republicans.
Oh, so exercising the freedom of speech by saying something you don't agree with is whining now?

Not much these days. I wish the ideology I once associated myself with would come back from lunacy.
You sound a bit like Charles Barkley, when he said "I was a Republican until they lost their minds." I know conservative doesn't always mean Republican even though the Republicans claim the mantle, but I don't think it's true conservatives who have gone nuts--it's Republicans.

Hell, the head of the Cato Institute was on Al Franken today, extolling the virtues of divided government and calling for a Democratic takeover of at least one House of Congress. Cato! The home of libertarianism.

Strange days, man. Strange days.

The political parties pointing fingers at each other is ridiculous. We should be pointing fingers at ourselves. It doesn't matter who we put into office these days. Nothing will change for the better.

Politicians don't run for office to make things better for the people. They are trying to make things better for themselves and their buddies.

We are the ones who keep putting the same assholes back into office for the next term. Over and over again in the case of congress and the house.

People get so caught up in political finger pointing they lose common sense. Step back and look at the overview and you will see that "We the People" are being screwed. And we are doing it to ourselves.

The political parties pointing fingers at each other is ridiculous. We should be pointing fingers at ourselves. It doesn't matter who we put into office these days. Nothing will change for the better.

Politicians don't run for office to make things better for the people. They are trying to make things better for themselves and their buddies.

We are the ones who keep putting the same assholes back into office for the next term. Over and over again in the case of congress and the house.

People get so caught up in political finger pointing they lose common sense. Step back and look at the overview and you will see that "We the People" are being screwed. And we are doing it to ourselves.

Ima play the D's Advocate here, because I agree with you but;

What do impassioned speeches change? People all around the US say stuff like this every year, but they vote into the system anyway- because even if they have no voice it helps them pretend that they do. Do you even plan to do something different than your normal routine or are you going to sing a ballad to your countrymen then go on with your life, business as usual?

Me, I'm out of the system. When I see evidence of the people around me getting perspective, I'll be back.

The special vote Schwarzenegger forced down our throats here in California had on it a measure that would require the parents to be informed if a minor was trying to get an abortion. People were so caught up in the politics of this vote that they actually voted against this measure. Do the parents in California really not care if their 14, 15, or 16 year old daughters are getting abortions? According to the vote, they don't.

People needed to look beyond the politics to evaluate the measures on their own merit. They didn't.

I hate to say it, but I'd sure like to see the look on a mother's face when she is told her 16 year old daughter died during an abortion she was never told was taking place. Then she realizes she voted against this proposition.

I'm not talking pro or con abortion. I'm talking about a parents right to know what is happening to her minor children.

They aren't conserving energy ...

They aren't conserving energy ...

or angular momentum

Me, I'm out of the system. When I see evidence of the people around me getting perspective, I'll be back.

The special vote Schwarzenegger forced down our throats here in California had on it a measure that would require the parents to be informed if a minor was trying to get an abortion. People were so caught up in the politics of this vote that they actually voted against this measure. Do the parents in California really not care if their 14, 15, or 16 year old daughters are getting abortions? According to the vote, they don't.

People needed to look beyond the politics to evaluate the measures on their own merit. They didn't.

I hate to say it, but I'd sure like to see the look on a mother's face when she is told her 16 year old daughter died during an abortion she was never told was taking place. Then she realizes she voted against this proposition.I'm going to threadjack here a second and tell you why I would have voted against that measure, and I'm a dad with a 16 year old daughter. If my daughter needed an abortion, she'd tell me--but I'm not the kind of parent that the 14-16 year old girls who need to sneak have to worry about. It's the parent who'll beat them, or kill them, or throw them out and make them homeless, or is the father of that fetus who's the one who shouldn't be notified.

I'm all about making abortions as rare as possible. That's why I support mandatory sex ed and free emergency and regular contraception. But there are going to be times when shit happens, and those women need an option, even if they're underage--maybe especially if they're underage--because the underage girls who can't tell their parents can't tell them for a reason. We're not talking about healthy family units here. We're talking about families that put the fun in dysfunctional.

Hell, the head of the Cato Institute was on Al Franken today, extolling the virtues of divided government and calling for a Democratic takeover of at least one House of Congress. Cato! The home of libertarianism.

Strange days, man. Strange days.

After the MCA and the "signing statements" and similar movements towards repressive autocracy, there is simply no other sane position to take.

"Out with all the capitalist politicians" (or statist, or whatever you prefer) will have to wait a few more years.

After the MCA and the "signing statements" and similar movements towards repressive autocracy, there is simply no other sane position to take.

"Out with all the capitalist politicians" will have to wait a few more years.He was basically arguing that we need divided government all the time now, and I don't disagree with him. Given the current makeup of parties, etc., I'd be very pleased with a Republican Senate--as long as it was tight, a Democratic House and Democratic President. That'll keep everything pretty moderate, because the Senate can kill anything it doesn't like pretty easily.

He was basically arguing that we need divided government all the time now, and I don't disagree with him. Given the current makeup of parties, etc., I'd be very pleased with a Republican Senate--as long as it was tight, a Democratic House and Democratic President. That'll keep everything pretty moderate, because the Senate can kill anything it doesn't like pretty easily.

What would the Democrats do that would need to be killed?

At most, they have merely tacitly supported the moves towards statist tyranny - they have not actively campaigned for it yet.

What would the Democrats do that would need to be killed?

At most, they have merely tacitly supported the moves towards statist tyranny - they have not actively campaigned for it yet.
From Cato's point of view, anything involving social programs.

From my point of view, to keep corruption at as low an ebb as possible. If you have opposing parties in charge of the two Houses of Congress, then it's harder--not impossible, but harder--for the individual parties to push through bullshit. It requires compromise, and it slows everything down, and slowing it down is a good thing in my book.

Oh, so exercising the freedom of speech by saying something you don't agree with is whining now?

Um, pretty much any time anyone whines it's freedom of speech. Because we're free to speak doesn't mean that everything we say is worthwhile. In this case, however, freedom of speech isn't involved because this is a private internet board with rules that often restrict freedom of speech for a plethora of reasons.

On to the whining part, I'll highlight the less attractive parts of this poorly-worded rant that appears to be just looking to make sure the thread doesn't stick around and warnings are handed out -

At this rate the only this I see is the 'conservation' of an asshole's right to be a bigot/racist/homophobe/warmonger/etc.

Seriously, I see conservatives in their BS political comercials trying to frighten the bejesus out of people with the brain-dead, hackneyed, utterly overused "they'll raise your taxes," mantra. But, without even having to look all that closely you can see that the "conservative" controlled congress and executive branches have blown what's now going on 350 Billion in tax payer dollars on a bungled war effort, after assuring us in the run up to the '04 election that John Kerry was exadurating about the cost exeeding 200 billion. So they can't be about conserving money.

After that, well, I'm at a loss. Can one of you vociferous CONs here on NSG please throw me a bone?

Yeah, you might see how someone might not see this as a reasonable attempt at discussion and moreso as a rant, or worse, trolling.

I'm going to threadjack here a second and tell you why I would have voted against that measure, and I'm a dad with a 16 year old daughter. If my daughter needed an abortion, she'd tell me--but I'm not the kind of parent that the 14-16 year old girls who need to sneak have to worry about. It's the parent who'll beat them, or kill them, or throw them out and make them homeless, or is the father of that fetus who's the one who shouldn't be notified.

I'm all about making abortions as rare as possible. That's why I support mandatory sex ed and free emergency and regular contraception. But there are going to be times when shit happens, and those women need an option, even if they're underage--maybe especially if they're underage--because the underage girls who can't tell their parents can't tell them for a reason. We're not talking about healthy family units here. We're talking about families that put the fun in dysfunctional.


I think the families you are speaking about are seriously in the minority.

If a young girl has the option of an abortion without her parents having know that shit happened, she will be more likely to take that option. Even if her parents are not abusive, why go through the lectures, disappointed parents, feeling ashamed thing when a quick abortion will take care of all of the problems.

I still say a parent has the right to know when major surgery is being performed on their children. Also, that aborted fetus would have been their grandchild.

Finally, it is a proven medical fact that girls who have abortions are more likely to suffer from any or all of the following: depression, drug abuse, alcoholism, etc.

Abortion should not be used as a contraceptive.

You sound a bit like Charles Barkley, when he said "I was a Republican until they lost their minds." I know conservative doesn't always mean Republican even though the Republicans claim the mantle, but I don't think it's true conservatives who have gone nuts--it's Republicans.

Hell, the head of the Cato Institute was on Al Franken today, extolling the virtues of divided government and calling for a Democratic takeover of at least one House of Congress. Cato! The home of libertarianism.

Strange days, man. Strange days.

Well, to say that true conservatives haven't gone crazy, just the republicans, is like saying that sane people don't develop schizophrenia. People who get swept up in movements like these are the people who aren't really anything. They just like to follow the trend.

It's like when middle class suburban kids in the 80's started wearing ugly haircuts and ripped up clothing because they thought punk was cool. They didn't understand that there was a social movement behind the iconoclasm of punk and that songs like 'London Calling' actualy mean something, they just thought "those guys are cooler than Phil Collins."

By the same token, most of the people we have taken to be conservatives all this time were conservative the way those kids were punk. Or the way that Emo kids think they're all dark just because they listen to music that tells them that the hormonal shit that every teenager goes through is somehow deep and soulful. They like to think that Dubya is somehow like them. Remember all that "you could have a beer with the guy (if he wasn't a dry drunk whose private security would shoot you dead if you walked within 50 feet of the guy.) They don't really understand that the guy is just selling them an image of himself as they like to see themselves. The difference is, Emo kids will eventually grow up. These Theocrats and Banana Republicans never will.

I think the families you are speaking about are seriously in the minority.

If a young girl has the option of an abortion without her parents having know that shit happened, she will be more likely to take that option. Even if her parents are not abusive, why go through the lectures, disappointed parents, feeling ashamed thing when a quick abortion will take care of all of the problems.

I still say a parent has the right to know when major surgery is being performed on their children. Also, that aborted fetus would have been their grandchild.

Finally, it is a proven medical fact that girls who have abortions are more likely to suffer from any or all of the following: depression, drug abuse, alcoholism, etc.

Abortion should not be used as a contraceptive.
Let me clue you in on something--no woman uses abortion as contraception. As you said, it's surgery, and it's relatively expensive when compared to the price of contraception. No woman in her right mind would ever say to herself "oh, never mind about the condom, I can just get an abortion if I get knocked up." That's ridiculous.

Gee--rubbers in one hand, surgery in the other. Don't you realize just how stupid that sounds?

They're conserving the right to not have rights.

By the same token, most of the people we have taken to be conservatives all this time were conservative the way those kids were punk. Or the way that Emo kids think they're all dark just because they listen to music that tells them that the hormonal shit that every teenager goes through is somehow deep and soulful. They like to think that Dubya is somehow like them. Remember all that "you could have a beer with the guy (if he wasn't a dry drunk whose private security would shoot you dead if you walked within 50 feet of the guy.) They don't really understand that the guy is just selling them an image of himself as they like to see themselves. The difference is, Emo kids will eventually grow up. These Theocrats and Banana Republicans never will.

Well, I think the folks the republicans are losing right now are the ones who bought into the whole "tax cuts are always good" crowd. They were never hardcore anyway--they were the Reagan Republicans. But then they saw who was really in charge of the party--the mouth-breathers who were all over Terry Schiavo like vultures, the people who hired Heritage Foundation college students to rebuild Iraq, the people who were supposed to react to Katrina--and they've gotten scared. In the end, they want a government that works well, and you can't have that when the party in charge is predicated on the belief that government never works well.

Let me clue you in on something--no woman uses abortion as contraception. As you said, it's surgery, and it's relatively expensive when compared to the price of contraception. No woman in her right mind would ever say to herself "oh, never mind about the condom, I can just get an abortion if I get knocked up." That's ridiculous.

Gee--rubbers in one hand, surgery in the other. Don't you realize just how stupid that sounds?

You're probably arguing with somebody who thinks that a contraceptive is to not have sex. Or maybe the good old fashioned pull-out technique.

I think the families you are speaking about are seriously in the minority.

So are murder victims. We still have laws to take care of that circumstance.

For that matter, girls who have abortions are also an extreme minority. Don't you think that unstable homelives are likely to correlate highly with teen pregnancy?

Finally, it is a proven medical fact that girls who have abortions are more likely to suffer from any or all of the following: depression, drug abuse, alcoholism, etc.

That's because women who have those problems are more likely to get pregnant without planning. That's why they call them behavioral disorders. Women who are in stable, loving, commited relationships tend not to accidentally get pregnant, or feel so alone in their situation that they think the only solution is to have the pregnancy terminated. Nor might I add, do girls who have loving relationships with their parents. If your kids were bi-polar drug-addicted alcoholics I'd like to think you'd do something about it before the free clinic called you up to tell you that your 15 year old is killing your grandchild.

Abortion should not be used as a contraceptive.

So, when you think things, does the actual bumper sticker get fed into your brain like an ATM card, or do you just get your mouth programmed to spit out empty platitudes?

You're probably arguing with somebody who thinks that a contraceptive is to not have sex. Or maybe the good old fashioned pull-out technique.
More likely it's someone who got his sex-ed from Dr. Laura--and I have little doubt that it's a male, because women are rarely that stupid about birth control.

You're probably arguing with somebody who thinks that a contraceptive is to not have sex. Or maybe the good old fashioned pull-out technique.

My wife's mother used to say, "the best birth control device is an asprine held between the knees."

We've tried that position and it worked fine in every particular except the contraception. Although we left out the actual asprine. Maybe that makes all the difference.

You're probably arguing with somebody who thinks...

I have serious doubts about that.

I have serious doubts about that.

I see your point...

More likely it's someone who got his sex-ed from Dr. Laura--and I have little doubt that it's a male, because women are rarely that stupid about birth control.

Oh, I've met women who seemed that stupid about birth control. Usually the ones that had their engagement ring picked out already.

Oh, I've met women who seemed that stupid about birth control. Usually the ones that had their engagement ring picked out already.

And seemed is definitely the operative word in that sentence. ;)

And seemed is definitely the operative word in that sentence. ;)

;)

Why did the FDA just make the "morning after pill" (RU-something) an OTC drug for women over 18? This is a do-it-yourself abortion kit. Do women understand what this actually does to their bodies.

Do you believe girls under 18 will not be able to get the drug? Conception happens within hours of sex (if it happens).

Forget it. What I'm saying, or asking now, is would YOU like your minor daughter to able to have an abortion without YOUR knowledge. Forget about what you hope would happen, this is a yes or no question. I have 2 daughters and I say no.

...So I'm guessing now that maybe the answer is that they're looking to conserve their daughters' maidenhead.

*chuckles*

Firstly, Unabashed Greed, slow down and read through what you are about to post before you post it. It can really help clear up spelling and grammar errors as well as expose trolling. And I'm not talking about fishing. We're not all bigots, racists, homophobes, warmongers, and other miscellaneous deserving social pariahs.

That being said, it is true that the leadership of the republican party is no longer acting conservative. While they have retained the "lower taxes" policy they seem to have abandoned the "reduce government" policy.

I don't like the DHS. It, like the Patriot Act, was made so that politicians could pat themselves on the back and say to themselves that they were doing something to respond to the attacks. The DHS has become a bloated bureaucracy in just a few years. I think the smarter thing to do would have been to broaden the authority and responsibilities of the Department of Defense to include those assigned to the DHS.

I don't agree with the moral crusades of current republican leadership. I believe that if an embryo is going to be destroyed anyway there should be an option to donate it to research scientists.

I do not agree with the constitutional amendment to ban gay marraige. But no church should be forced to accept it either. It is not the governments place to dictate what is and isn't marraige, that is a personal and philosophical matter.

Your not upset with conservatives. Your upset with republicans. True conservatives are more like Libertarians.

Why did the FDA just make the "morning after pill" (RU-something) an OTC drug for women over 18? This is a do-it-yourself abortion kit. Do women understand what this actually does to their bodies. Wrong. EC is an overdose of birth control pills. RU-486 is a completely different pill. And it was made OTC for people over 18 over the objections of the medical board which examined it--they wanted it OTC for everyone. It was made that way for over-18 only because of assholes on the religious right who want to control whohas sex and when.

Do you believe girls under 18 will not be able to get the drug? Conception happens within hours of sex (if it happens).
In a word, yes. Considering that there's a woman right now who's going through an abortion because doctors decided she didn't need EC because she was single, I'd say it's pretty likely that single girls under 18 won't be able to get it readily.


Forget it. What I'm saying, or asking now, is would YOU like your minor daughter to able to have an abortion without YOUR knowledge. Forget about what you hope would happen, this is a yes or no question. I have 2 daughters and I say no.

Yes. Clearly and simply. I want her to have every available health option.

...So I'm guessing now that maybe the answer is that they're looking to conserve their daughters' maidenhead.

*chuckles*

So you're afraid to answer the question? Come one, it's a simple question. Yes or No. Would YOU like it if YOUR 16 year old daughter got an abortion without your knowledge?

Finally, it is a proven medical fact that girls who have abortions are more likely to suffer from any or all of the following: depression, drug abuse, alcoholism, etc.

Hold up, bub. Let me explain something to you as a person whom has Depression, has a Mother and a Sister whom are alchoholics, and a brother whom used to abuse drugs. Not one member of my family has had an abortion(Sans my mother, possibly, but that was YEARS after she became truly alchoholic).

All, and I repeat ALL, of these problems do not just pop up because of one event, even one such as abortion. They are all deeply rooted through years of events, sometimes even chemical imbalances, and no single event is the one cause. Certain events throughout life, and one's upbringing, are FAR more effectual upon these diseases than an abortion will ever be. It's a always a building effect.

/end rant.

So you're afraid to answer the question? Come one, it's a simple question. Yes or No. Would YOU like it if YOUR 16 year old daughter got an abortion without your knowledge?

I'm not nearly as frightened of answering your question as you seem to be regarding to the apparent sanctity of your daughters' uterii.

Firstly, Unabashed Greed, slow down and read through what you are about to post before you post it. It can really help clear up spelling and grammar errors as well as expose trolling. And I'm not talking about fishing. We're not all bigots, racists, homophobes, warmongers, and other miscellaneous deserving social pariahs.

That being said, it is true that the leadership of the republican party is no longer acting conservative. While they have retained the "lower taxes" policy they seem to have abandoned the "reduce government" policy.

I don't like the DHS. It, like the Patriot Act, was made so that politicians could pat themselves on the back and say to themselves that they were doing something to respond to the attacks. The DHS has become a bloated bureaucracy in just a few years. I think the smarter thing to do would have been to broaden the authority and responsibilities of the Department of Defense to include those assigned to the DHS.

I don't agree with the moral crusades of current republican leadership. I believe that if an embryo is going to be destroyed anyway there should be an option to donate it to research scientists.

I do not agree with the constitutional amendment to ban gay marraige. But no church should be forced to accept it either. It is not the governments place to dictate what is and isn't marraige, that is a personal and philosophical matter.

Your not upset with conservatives. Your upset with republicans. True conservatives are more like Libertarians.

Well said. I don't agree with all of it, but well said.

...So I'm guessing now that maybe the answer is that they're looking to conserve their daughters' maidenhead.

*chuckles*

No, they're worried about their sons, hence the gay marriage thing. :eek:;)

So you're afraid to answer the question? Come one, it's a simple question. Yes or No. Would YOU like it if YOUR 16 year old daughter got an abortion without your knowledge?

I'll answer. No, I wouldn't. However, I would address that fact not making her feel like she has to. I wouldn't want the government involved in any fashion even if that meant she did get an abortion without my knowledge. My largest concern would be the thought of my daughter going through such a difficult time in her life without my support. However, I would not try to influence her decision in any way. I figure the time for me to influence such a thing had passed at that point.

No, they're worried about their sons, hence the gay marriage thing. :eek:;)

...So I'm guessing now that maybe the answer is that they're looking to conserve their sons' maidenhead.

*chuckles*

Fixed.

Why did the FDA just make the "morning after pill" (RU-something) an OTC drug for women over 18? This is a do-it-yourself abortion kit. Do women understand what this actually does to their bodies.

Do you believe girls under 18 will not be able to get the drug? Conception happens within hours of sex (if it happens).

Forget it. What I'm saying, or asking now, is would YOU like your minor daughter to able to have an abortion without YOUR knowledge. Forget about what you hope would happen, this is a yes or no question. I have 2 daughters and I say no.

I hope that girls under 18 can get the drug. Girls under 18 can also get birth control pills. There is no qualitative difference.

In case you're not aware many birth control pills actually prevent the embryo from implanting in some cases. It's not something I'll be particularly worried about with any daughter, sister, cousin, mother, or any other female relative.

Wrong. EC is an overdose of birth control pills. RU-486 is a completely different pill. And it was made OTC for people over 18 over the objections of the medical board which examined it--they wanted it OTC for everyone. It was made that way for over-18 only because of assholes on the religious right who want to control whohas sex and when.


In a word, yes. Considering that there's a woman right now who's going through an abortion because doctors decided she didn't need EC because she was single, I'd say it's pretty likely that single girls under 18 won't be able to get it readily.


Yes. Clearly and simply. I want her to have every available health option.

First, any girl with an 18 year old sister (or brother) will have access. It will be sold in the schools like weed, crack, roofies, and ecstasy. If you don't believe this, you are very naive.

Second, so you don't care if your 16 year old daughter is out having sex? With what's going on in schools these days, she could come home with anything from crabs to HIV. The way you are talking, if she only came home pregnant, she'd be a good girl.

Third, all of you arguing against me are saying you don't care about your kids. If you knew about an abortion, you may agree to it. That's fine, if you discuss it with your kid. But to say that that you don't want to know about it, that's beyond my understanding.

I'm done. Just think about what I've said, that's all I ask.

I think the families you are speaking about are seriously in the minority.

If a young girl has the option of an abortion without her parents having know that shit happened, she will be more likely to take that option. Even if her parents are not abusive, why go through the lectures, disappointed parents, feeling ashamed thing when a quick abortion will take care of all of the problems.

Perhaps in dysfunctional families. In my family, my sister was fairly quick to discuss her pregnancy with the adults in my family. She eventually decided to have the child. Amazingly, all of this occurred without any government intervention whatsoever.


I still say a parent has the right to know when major surgery is being performed on their children. Also, that aborted fetus would have been their grandchild.

Yes. Apparently, this sounds like a good argument to you. My sister's kid would have been my nephew, perhaps I should have control of her uterus too. Quick question, just how closely related must I be in order to force a woman to endure a pregnancy?


Finally, it is a proven medical fact that girls who have abortions are more likely to suffer from any or all of the following: depression, drug abuse, alcoholism, etc.

A proven medical fact. Good then you can provide that proof. I'll wait. You suggest that depression, drug abuse, alcoholism, etc. is a result of the abortion, so I'll wait while you prove that too.


Abortion should not be used as a contraceptive.

And it isn't. Do you know how difficult abortions are? Have you actually done any research or do you just listen to talking points? A large number of abortions are performed on women who already have children. A large number of abortions are performed on women who were using contraception. To suggest women are willing and ready to undergo surgery just so they won't have to use a condom is absurd.

Fixed.

Indeed. I'm suprised I'm the only one that cought it.

Your not upset with conservatives. Your upset with republicans. True conservatives are more like Libertarians.

Not exactly. Libertarianism is closer to classical liberalism than conservatism. Although what constitutes conservatism always depends on the context.

First, any girl with an 18 year old sister (or brother) will have access. It will be sold in the schools like weed, crack, roofies, and ecstasy. If you don't believe this, you are very naive.

Just like weed, huh? Again, do you have any idea what you're talking about? This isn't a fun experience. It's some women will very much seek to avoid.

Second, so you don't care if your 16 year old daughter is out having sex? With what's going on in schools these days, she could come home with anything from crabs to HIV. The way you are talking, if she only came home pregnant, she'd be a good girl.

Actually, you're the one who acts as if you need the government to let you know what you're daughter is doing. It sounds as if your very concerned your daughters will be doing exactly this. And the availability of this pill will have NO effect on the sex act. None. You keep making absurd assertions with not one lick of support.


Third, all of you arguing against me are saying you don't care about your kids. If you knew about an abortion, you may agree to it. That's fine, if you discuss it with your kid. But to say that that you don't want to know about it, that's beyond my understanding.

I'm done. Just think about what I've said, that's all I ask.

You're quite fond of the strawman (if you don't know what that is, look it up and see your posts for many examples). Your question wasn't whether anyone would want their daughter to get an abortion, but whether or not one would want their daught to have AVAILABLE an abortion. The old bait and switch. It's a piss poor argument.

Nothing in the answer suggested anyone 'didn't want to know' as you claim.

Just like weed, huh? Again, do you have any idea what you're talking about? This isn't a fun experience. It's some women will very much seek to avoid.



Actually, you're the one who acts as if you need the government to let you know what you're daughter is doing. It sounds as if your very concerned your daughters will be doing exactly this. And the availability of this pill will have NO effect on the sex act. None. You keep making absurd assertions with not one lick of support.




You're quite fond of the strawman (if you don't know what that is, look it up and see your posts for many examples). Your question wasn't whether anyone would want their daughter to get an abortion, but whether or not one would want their daught to have AVAILABLE an abortion. The old bait and switch. It's a piss poor argument.

Nothing in the answer suggested anyone 'didn't want to know' as you claim.

You did not read the post. I asked; "Would YOU want YOUR 16 year old daughter to get an abortion without your knowledge?" Simple yes or no question.

Sorry, your right. I should not state medical studies results without posting the studies. Can't do it at this time. But if you care to google, you can find them.

Finally, I don't want the government involved in my family's life any more than necessary. But if my MINOR child is undergoing surgery, I think I have the right to know about it. After all, I love them. I am concerned about their welfare. And I am LEGALLY responsible for my children.

California law states that no one under the age of 18 can enter into a contract without parent approval. How can getting a medical procedure by a licensed doctor NOT include a contract? This measure should not even be needed.

Classical being the operative word, EC.

What has come to be known as liberalism today tends to favor taxation of people who contribute most to society and more government spending to aid those with less resources. A redistribution of wealth and government enforced socio-economic equality. Many modern liberals advocate a greater degree of government interference in the free market, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, civil service examinations, universal education, and progressive taxation. It has become more like...socialism.

True conservatives are more like Libertarians.

except for their inherent authoritarianism. oh, wait...

You did not read the post. I asked; "Would YOU want YOUR 16 year old daughter to get an abortion without your knowledge?" Simple yes or no question.

No, you didn't. Let me help you out with the little known quote function -

Forget it. What I'm saying, or asking now, is would YOU like your minor daughter to able to have an abortion without YOUR knowledge. Forget about what you hope would happen, this is a yes or no question. I have 2 daughters and I say no.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11848715&postcount=52
Bolding added since you clearly didn't remember what you wrote. He said, yes, I WOULD want her to BE ABLE (that's means it would available not necessarily used) an abortion without his knowledge.

I want you to be able to spout Nazi propaganda. I want it to be legal, in other words. However, I'd love if no one ever did it ever again. Want someone to be capable of doing something and wanting someone to do it are not the same thing. You're attempt to equate them is a strawman, if it's on purpose, or else you simply worded your question very poorly, so poorly that the question meant something completely different than you wanted to say.

except for their inherent authoritarianism...
One could argue that is also present in socialism and its various currents.

At this rate the only this I see is the 'conservation' of an asshole's right to be a bigot/racist/homophobe/warmonger/etc.

Seriously, I see conservatives in their BS political comercials trying to frighten the bejesus out of people with the brain-dead, hackneyed, utterly overused "they'll raise your taxes," mantra. But, without even having to look all that closely you can see that the "conservative" controlled congress and executive branches have blown what's now going on 350 Billion in tax payer dollars on a bungled war effort, after assuring us in the run up to the '04 election that John Kerry was exadurating about the cost exeeding 200 billion. So they can't be about conserving money.

After that, well, I'm at a loss. Can one of you vociferous CONs here on NSG please throw me a bone?

This is why I'd prefer a socialist system, not a system of two political parties that essentually believe in the same capitalistic system.

One could argue that is also present in socialism and its various currents.

sure. and?

Wars are fought when they are needed for political reasons. Vietnam was initiated by Democrats. Iraq was initiated by a so-called Republican. The Vietnam war was expensive. The Iraq war is more expensive. prices are higher these days.

Wars are fought when they are needed for political reasons. Vietnam was initiated by Democrats. Iraq was initiated by a so-called Republican. The Vietnam war was expensive. The Iraq war is more expensive. prices are higher these days.

Wow. That's it. That's your argument? Really? This is your defense for the Iraq war? Vague political reasons? Your defense for the 300 Billion dollars is 'prices are higher these days.'

Meanwhile, I take the quote function adequately demonstrated your strawman for you.

Why did the FDA just make the "morning after pill" (RU-something) an OTC drug for women over 18? This is a do-it-yourself abortion kit. Do women understand what this actually does to their bodies.

The distinction is a semantic one. Pregnancy, by definition, occurs only when a fertilized egg is implanted. Abortion is termination of a pregnancy.

The morning-after pills work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. Technically it's not abortion because no implantation has occurred and therefore no pregnancy. If implantation occurs before the pill is taken, then the pill does nothing. This is how they can say that the pill will not terminate a pregnancy that has already occurred.

The people who think morning after pills cause abortions are usually under the mistaken impression that pregnancy begins at conception. It's technical, yes, but vital for clarification of the argument.

First, any girl with an 18 year old sister (or brother) will have access. It will be sold in the schools like weed, crack, roofies, and ecstasy. If you don't believe this, you are very naive. Naive? Me? I'm the one who's saying that women 14-16 should have access to emergency contraception. And you're calling me naive? Look in the mirror. You're acting like denying them access will somehow solve the problem.

Second, so you don't care if your 16 year old daughter is out having sex? With what's going on in schools these days, she could come home with anything from crabs to HIV. The way you are talking, if she only came home pregnant, she'd be a good girl.It's not a matter of whether I care or not. Most 16 year olds have sex--period, end of sentence. Those who wait are few and far between, and if you don't believe that, you're beng foolish. Teens are going to have sex--they've been doing it for millenia and no amount of social engineering is going to stop that. So the best thing we can do is make sure that they 1) know the consequences and 2) can protect themselves against as many of those consequences as possible. In other words, teach them to be adults.

So in answer to your question, no, I don't care if my 16 year old is out having sex, as long as she's doing it responsibly, and given the huge number of talks we've had on the subject, and our comfort level with it (and the fact that she's got a couple of bad examples on her mom's side), I feel as secure as any parent does with the situation.

Third, all of you arguing against me are saying you don't care about your kids. If you knew about an abortion, you may agree to it. That's fine, if you discuss it with your kid. But to say that that you don't want to know about it, that's beyond my understanding.

I'm done. Just think about what I've said, that's all I ask.
I have to wonder if your misreading of posts is deliberate or if you're just unable to grasp simple concepts. I would rather that if my daughter needed an abortion, she would come talk to me and tell me about it, so I could go through it with her, but if for some reason she felt like she couldn't, I'd want her to have access. That's a far cry from "you don't care about your kids." If you said that to my face, you'd be wiping spit off it right now.

Supposedly, at any rate, the notions of personal responsibility and accountability in society.

The distinction is a semantic one. Pregnancy, by definition, occurs only when a fertilized egg is implanted. Abortion is termination of a pregnancy.

The morning-after pills work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. Technically it's not abortion because no implantation has occurred and therefore no pregnancy. If implantation occurs before the pill is taken, then the pill does nothing. This is how they can say that the pill will not terminate a pregnancy that has already occurred.

The people who think morning after pills cause abortions are usually under the mistaken impression that pregnancy begins at conception. It's technical, yes, but vital for clarification of the argument.
Actually, EC works to keep the ovaries from producing an egg in the first place, so as to avoid fertilization. It is possible that it would also keep implantation from occurring and it's that possibility that has fuckhead right-wingers (as opposed to regular right-wingers) calling it an abortifacient, even though it isn't, not in any real sense of the word.

Classical being the operative word, EC.

What has come to be known as liberalism today tends to favor taxation of people who contribute most to society and more government spending to aid those with less resources. A redistribution of wealth and government enforced socio-economic equality. Many modern liberals advocate a greater degree of government interference in the free market, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, civil service examinations, universal education, and progressive taxation. It has become more like...socialism.

Is money the only way you measure one's contribution to society? How sad.

Is money the only way you measure one's contribution to society? How sad.

How else, in tangible terms, does one contribute?

How else, in tangible terms, does one contribute?Well, there are plenty of things that get produced that don't get translated into cash, at least not in any noticeable way. Artists, writers, musicians--many of these toil and never make real money for what they do, but they provide great things for society.

And then there are those people who work with the disadvantaged--people who run homeless shelters and soup kitchens who make very little cash for the work they do--is their value less than that of a CEO who gets a $10 million bonus for driving his company's stock into the toilet? Not to me.

Seriously, I see conservatives in their BS political comercials trying to frighten the bejesus out of people with the brain-dead, hackneyed, utterly overused "they'll raise your taxes," mantra.


Do you pay income taxes?

How else, in tangible terms, does one contribute?

Implementation of solutions that require money, I imagine. Giving money to the Transportation Dept. in order to pay for highway repair would be useless without the workmen who actually repair bad stretches of road. Donations to charities have to be converted to useful goods, and those goods have to make it to the people that need it. If contributions to society stopped at money, then we'd never get anything done.

Actually, EC works to keep the ovaries from producing an egg in the first place, so as to avoid fertilization. It is possible that it would also keep implantation from occurring and it's that possibility that has fuckhead right-wingers (as opposed to regular right-wingers) calling it an abortifacient, even though it isn't, not in any real sense of the word.

We're both right. From MedlinePlus (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007014.htm):

Emergency contraception has several potential effects on a woman's reproductive system that could help to decrease her risk of getting pregnant. Emergency contraceptive drugs appear to work primarily by preventing or delaying egg release (ovulation) from the ovaries. They may also slow egg or sperm transport in the fallopian tubes, and they may make the uterine lining less hospitable for implantation of a pregnancy. For example, IUDs are toxic to sperm and change the uterine lining so that implantation is less likely.

The pill works in several ways to prevent pregnancy. The pill suppresses ovulation so that an egg is not released from the ovaries, and changes the cervical mucus, causing it to become thicker and making it more difficult for sperm to swim into the womb. The pill also does not allow the lining of the womb to develop enough to receive and nurture a fertilized egg.

We're both right. From MedlinePlus (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007014.htm):

I guess the point I was trying to make is that the primary function of EC is to stop or delay ovulation. But asshole right-wingers make it sound like EC's primary function is to keep the fertilized egg from implanting. That's a secondary effect at best, and it's pushing a flawed construction because it's implying that fertilized eggs always implant and that these would too if not for the EC, when that's far from the case.

This is the kind of argument that those assholes can't win without lying about the basics.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that the primary function of EC is to stop or delay ovulation. But asshole right-wingers make it sound like EC's primary function is to keep the fertilized egg from implanting. That's a secondary effect at best, and it's pushing a flawed construction because it's implying that fertilized eggs always implant and that these would too if not for the EC, when that's far from the case.

This is the kind of argument that those assholes can't win without lying about the basics.

You're preaching to the choir on this one Nazz. ;) I just can't stand it when fuckheads take a technical distinction and make it the talking point. One of the pharmacists I worked with used it as his basis for refusing to sell BC's. He thought that, since in his view life began at conception, and since it MIGHT stop an implantation that might otherwise occur, it was his moral obligation to "stop the stoppers." He's since been fired, and rightly so.

Then I see others co-opting the same flawed argument and it sickens me.

How else, in tangible terms, does one contribute?

First of all, you seem to know right off the bat that you need to set the terms of the argument to be more restrictive than reality because otherwise you can't win.

Teaching. How's that? I'd put a mentor or a gradeschool teacher up against a CEO every day of every week and would put teacher as having a greater contribution to more people for more benefit.

Art.

Leadership.

Defense. Firefighters, cops, soldiers (pretend they are actually ONLY used for self-defense). All get paid a pittance compared to people who are less necessary to society.

Britney Spears made more money than the guy who invented penicillin. Are you telling that makes her contribution to society more valuable? Money is about perceived value and scarcity, not actual value. If that weren't true gold would not be particularly valuable.

Well after reading your post I am inclined to believe that the American conservatives are nicely conserving education from 1750. Other than that, I am really not sure what conservativism in American can be, short of homophobia and slavery of everyone not white.

You did not read the post. I asked; "Would YOU want YOUR 16 year old daughter to get an abortion without your knowledge?" Simple yes or no question.

The answer is no, i would not want my daughter to get any abortion.
But, i want her her to have the opportunity, as well as those girls who really need the protection of their parent not knowing. Remember, even if those girls are in the minority, the law is there to protect minorities.
Here is a simple analogy: Would i want my daughter to be stabbed with a knife? No, of course not. But i want her to have the opportunity. Because i want her to go out without a 100% fail safe protection in order for her to learn that life isnt lala happy fucking Disneyland and because i want knifes to be legal.
Bad things happening are the price for freedom, but freedom is paramount.
Now answer me a simple yes or no question: Would you lock up your daughters in your basement and be all caring and loving to them, but never let em out so that nothing would ever hurt them?

First of all, you seem to know right off the bat that you need to set the terms of the argument to be more restrictive than reality because otherwise you can't win.

Teaching. How's that? I'd put a mentor or a gradeschool teacher up against a CEO every day of every week and would put teacher as having a greater contribution to more people for more benefit.

Art.

Leadership.

Defense. Firefighters, cops, soldiers (pretend they are actually ONLY used for self-defense). All get paid a pittance compared to people who are less necessary to society.

Britney Spears made more money than the guy who invented penicillin. Are you telling that makes her contribution to society more valuable? Money is about perceived value and scarcity, not actual value. If that weren't true gold would not be particularly valuable.
Excellent example of what I was talking about up top.

Excellent example of what I was talking about up top.

I actually read your post before I replied. I agree with it, of course.

At this rate the only this I see is the 'conservation' of an asshole's right to be a bigot/racist/homophobe/warmonger/etc.

Seriously, I see conservatives in their BS political comercials trying to frighten the bejesus out of people with the brain-dead, hackneyed, utterly overused "they'll raise your taxes," mantra. But, without even having to look all that closely you can see that the "conservative" controlled congress and executive branches have blown what's now going on 350 Billion in tax payer dollars on a bungled war effort, after assuring us in the run up to the '04 election that John Kerry was exadurating about the cost exeeding 200 billion. So they can't be about conserving money.

After that, well, I'm at a loss. Can one of you vociferous CONs here on NSG please throw me a bone?

That's it plain and simple :headbang:

I dont believe that what the OP discusses are conservative values at all. I understand that a lot of people who think they are conservatives support and prop up such silliness, but in some cases they are 'lip-service' conservatives only (much as an earlier poster described, it's part of their 'pose' like faux punks of an earlier decade), and in other cases they simply dont think critically about the situation and conflate Republican with conservatism.

There is nothing conservative about the current Republican party. Quite the contrary, these guys are radicals pure and simple.

The only thing being conserved by a vote for the current crop of radical Republicans is the rot in what was once the party of preference for anyone with conservative values.

How can you tell a true conservative from a lip-service poser? True conservatives are pissed at the Republican party for allowing this bunch of radicals to take over, for the harm done to the country, for the damage done to the reputation of conservatism, and for leaving them no sane choice of a major party to vote for except the democrats....

There is nothing conservative about the current Republican party. Quite the contrary, these guys are radicals pure and simple.

The only thing being conserved by a vote for the current crop of radical Republicans is the rot in what was once the party of preference for anyone with conservative values.

How can you tell a true conservative from a lip-service poser? True conservatives are pissed at the Republican party for allowing this bunch of radicals to take over, for the harm done to the country, for the damage done to the reputation of conservatism, and for leaving them no sane choice of a major party to vote for except the democrats....
And there's the real question--what will true conservatives do? Will they sit this election out, will they change parties even temporarily, or will they vote for the same-old-same-old adn then bitch when nothing changes?

When a country is at war this is a rather extraordinary event and regardless of what political party controls the government, wars cost a lot of money.

Peace is a lot less expensive and eventually we will win and peace shall return.

Wars are always expensive. World War II was expensive and a Democrat was in office.

Conservatism is not totally about conserving money, the fact that conservative governments spend less than liberal ones is a byproduct of the two underlying approaches to government.

Conservatism looks for a relatively smaller government in terms of its role in society. Because the government has less of a role in society, it costs less. One of the often misunderstood corollaries of this theory is the idea that human wants can be better met (better could mean in a moral sense or in an economic efficiency sense) by having certain human needs met by the free market or by charities than by government involvement. For this reason conservatives despise government entitlement dole approaches to dealing with poverty but at the same time are often the sorts of people who give personally or through their churches to food banks and other relief for the poor.

Unfortunately, conservatives are misunderstood to be republicans or worse yet christian fundamentalist republicans who are actually big government types who want government's role even to expand into reproductive matters such as abortion. These folks are not conservative in the small government sense they are just a group of liberals that do not fit in well with Democrats and are (a crappy) part of the many interests that have banded with the Republican party.

Let me explain this in a way that every good little Marxist here can understand: if you tax your boss into the poorhouse he won't be able to pay you to work for him, you'll be out of a job, and either just you or he too will end up on welfare. No matter what, as an underling, you will lose.

It's easy to cling to principles when you're in a comfrotable home with every luxury in a neighborhood that isn't starving.

I have seen firsthand what excessive taxation can do. I have seen firsthand the failures of government. I have good reason to distrust public officials.

Let me explain this in a way that every good little Marxist here can understand: if you tax your boss into the poorhouse he won't be able to pay you to work for him, you'll be out of a job, and either just you or he too will end up on welfare. No matter what, as an underling, you will lose.

It's easy to cling to principles when you're in a comfrotable home with every luxury in a neighborhood that isn't starving.

I have seen firsthand what excessive taxation can do. I have seen firsthand the failures of government. I have good reason to distrust public officials.

I love this little bit of hyperbole. Tax the boss into the poorhouse, huh? If the boss having a slightly higher tax rate and a LARGELY higher salary can end up in the poorhouse, then where do you think the worker is? Your 'argument' would only stand to reason if as a result the boss takes home less than the underlings, something that is pretty much never the case (since were this true the boss would also end up in a lower bracket).

Personally, I don't agree with a graduated tax in the form the US and some other countries use, but you're argument is plain and simply not based on any actual tax format.

For me, I'd just be happy if they got rid of all the tax loopholes that allowed my grandfather to brag about how he paid less in taxes than my father despite having a much larger income and not having any dependents anymore (my father had five dependents).

Let me explain this in a way that every good little Marxist here can understand: if you tax your boss into the poorhouse he won't be able to pay you to work for him, you'll be out of a job, and either just you or he too will end up on welfare. No matter what, as an underling, you will lose.

That's why you expropriate his company instead.

I suggest you re-examine what a "good little Marxist" would actually say.

Let me explain this in a way that every good little Marxist here can understand: if you tax your boss into the poorhouse he won't be able to pay you to work for him, you'll be out of a job, and either just you or he too will end up on welfare. No matter what, as an underling, you will lose.

It's easy to cling to principles when you're in a comfrotable home with every luxury in a neighborhood that isn't starving.

I have seen firsthand what excessive taxation can do. I have seen firsthand the failures of government. I have good reason to distrust public officials.

And I'm going to explain this in a way that any moron could understand, but you probably can't because you're an ideologue, which is dumber than a moron.

There is an optimal point of taxation for the various figures along the economic spectrum which strikes a balance between preserving the incentive to work and funding the government. Right now that balance is to high on the lower end of the spectrum and too low on the highest end.

The argument that conservatives like to put forward is that the more money businesses don't have to pay in taxes, the more they will have to invest. Problem is, having money isn't what creates businesses. Having demand for your services is. If you lack capital you can take out a loan, get a contribution from a venture capitalist, or any number of capitalization options. As long as an entrepeneur with a clear vision knows what he's doing, it doesn't matter if he doesn't have the capital in his pocket.

However, if the underlings are paying the taxes that the overlords aren't paying, then there is no demand. And the rich guy isn't going to invest his money in a business that isn't doing any business. Either way, as overling or underling, you loose when the government doesn't get it's funds from the people who have the most funds to give.

Conservatism looks for a relatively smaller government in terms of its role in society.

except in terms of its overtly coercive arms - those it wants bigger, scarier, and more destructive.

And there's the real question--what will true conservatives do? Will they sit this election out, will they change parties even temporarily, or will they vote for the same-old-same-old adn then bitch when nothing changes?

If a person has conservative convictions, they will do whatever they can to rein in the radical excesses of the current regime, including voting Democrat. This is why I expect any American with true conservative convictions to be fuming at the Republicans, taking over their party and turning it into 'radical-central' is a right bastard trick.

The extent to which debt, deficit, government size, control and influence have increased under the Republicans would make any sane conservative sick to the pits of their stomachs. If someone votes for the current Republicans, either they are not conservative or they are not very bright.

If a person has conservative convictions, they will do whatever they can to rein in the radical excesses of the current regime, including voting Democrat. This is why I expect any American with true conservative convictions to be fuming at the Republicans, taking over their party and turning it into 'radical-central' is a right bastard trick.

The extent to which debt, deficit, government size, control and influence have increased under the Republicans would make any sane conservative sick to the pits of their stomachs. If someone votes for the current Republicans, either they are not conservative or they are not very bright.

Just so. They've controlled Congress, both houses (except for that brief interlude in the Senate back in the 90's), since 1994. Have they acted on any of the issues they use to energize the base? Why is abortion still legal in the United States? Why is Gay Marriage even an issue? Shouldn't the US government be at a size comparable to the mid 19th century or smaller? Why does the department of Education still exist? Why is Affirmative Action still being debated? Why have all those activist Federal judges continued on the bench and not been impeached?

Me, I'm out of the system. When I see evidence of the people around me getting perspective, I'll be back.

The special vote Schwarzenegger forced down our throats here in California had on it a measure that would require the parents to be informed if a minor was trying to get an abortion. People were so caught up in the politics of this vote that they actually voted against this measure. Do the parents in California really not care if their 14, 15, or 16 year old daughters are getting abortions? According to the vote, they don't.

People needed to look beyond the politics to evaluate the measures on their own merit. They didn't.

I hate to say it, but I'd sure like to see the look on a mother's face when she is told her 16 year old daughter died during an abortion she was never told was taking place. Then she realizes she voted against this proposition.

I'm not talking pro or con abortion. I'm talking about a parents right to know what is happening to her minor children.

If they know they could stop their children or bully them out of any abortion, it's the childs right to decide and it is important to protect that freedom, and I'm sure they do realise what they voted for just because they disagreed with you doesn't mean it was out of ignorance.

First, any girl with an 18 year old sister (or brother) will have access. It will be sold in the schools like weed, crack, roofies, and ecstasy. If you don't believe this, you are very naive.
no birth control or a pill, which do you really prefer?

Second, so you don't care if your 16 year old daughter is out having sex? With what's going on in schools these days, she could come home with anything from crabs to HIV. The way you are talking, if she only came home pregnant, she'd be a good girl.
Keep it relavent don;t go around insulting his parenting it's low.

Third, all of you arguing against me are saying you don't care about your kids. If you knew about an abortion, you may agree to it. That's fine, if you discuss it with your kid. But to say that that you don't want to know about it, that's beyond my understanding.

I'm done. Just think about what I've said, that's all I ask.

But their (the girls) right to their body comes before your piece of mind. I'm sure they would want to know about it but if they wouldn't tell you, you probably aren't that good of a parent to begin with.

Keep it relavent don;t go around insulting his parenting it's low.



But their (the girls) right to their body comes before your piece of mind. I'm sure they would want to know about it but if they wouldn't tell you, you probably aren't that good of a parent to begin with.

:eek:

:eek:

Well, if she only did that she wouldn't be pregnant in the first place.



I'll get my coat.

:eek:


I'm not saying they wouldn't go to him (her?).

The short answer is that you're not complaining about conservatives. You're whining about Republicans.
It seems that about 90% of American conservatives support the Republicans so there's no little purpose in differentiating.

It seems that about 90% of American conservatives support the Republicans so there's no little purpose in differentiating.

to be fair, about 20% of them loudly claim to be 'independent' before launching into another round of unappologetic support for some republican policy