Supreme Court Vacancy - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-05-2005, 01:49 PM   #121
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:12 PM
George Bush is not a "lame duck" president. A lame duck president is one who was not re-elected and has to serve the remaining two months of his term after the election but before being inagurated.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 01:52 PM   #122
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
when it gets down to it, i think that many Republicans might mouth an anti-choice/pro-life line, but deep down no one wants to see that law overturned. especially Republican women.
No one? I'd say there are more than you believe who would either (i) want to the law overturned (male and female), or (ii) be ambivilent if the law were overturned.

Pushing a candidate who would clearly overturn Roe v. Wade would require A LOT of political capital - with little return on the investment.

Abortion divides the country, but not in a way that give either party a clear victory.

Bush will likely make other issues the centerpiece of the confirmation fight (and no matter who he appoints, there will be a fight). If he nominates some one like Gonzalez, he gets "credit" for the first Hispanic on the Court.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 01:54 PM   #123
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
George Bush is not a "lame duck" president. A lame duck president is one who was not re-elected and has to serve the remaining two months of his term after the election but before being inagurated.
I believe the definition has been expanded to include any incumbant who cannot run for re-election.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 01:57 PM   #124
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




when it gets down to it, i think that many Republicans might mouth an anti-choice/pro-life line, but deep down no one wants to see that law overturned. especially Republican women.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

2 of my best friends are Republican women. They both hate abortion and want Roe v. Wade overturned. My brother's wife wants Roe v. Wade overturned. 2 of my close friend's wives want Roe v. Wade overturned. Every single Republican woman I have ever talked to about Roe v. Wade wanted it overturned.

All my Republican friends, male or female, want Roe v. Wade overturned. Heck, I even used to know a liberal Democrat who, though we never talked specifically about Roe v. Wade, considered abortion murder.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 01:58 PM   #125
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I believe the definition has been expanded to include any incumbant who cannot run for re-election.
Expanded by definition or just by usage?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 02:07 PM   #126
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:12 AM
By usage
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 02:09 PM   #127
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


No one? I'd say there are more than you believe who would either (i) want to the law overturned (male and female), or (ii) be ambivilent if the law were overturned.

Pushing a candidate who would clearly overturn Roe v. Wade would require A LOT of political capital - with little return on the investment.
Well, like they said in Spiderman 2, sometimes doing the right thing requires sacrifice. If Bush really believes that abortion is murder, he needs to do everything possible to give that particular type of murder the same status as other murders in the USA - illegal. I doubt it would drastically hurt the Republican party; there's a lot of pro-lifers out there, and most are Republican, I'd say. But even if it does destroy the Republican Party, isn't doing the right thing worth it?

Concerning "investment": From a pro-life view, I'd say that saving the lives of pre-born babies would be a good return on the investment.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 02:19 PM   #128
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Here's an interesting article on abortion stats during the Bush years that I stumbled across. Looks like every anti-abortion person who voted for Bush voted for the wrong guy.

from the Houston Chronicle, October 2004

Why abortion rate is up in Bush years
By GLEN HAROLD STASSEN and GARY KRANE

I, Glen, am a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis. I am consistently pro-life. My son David is one witness. For my family, "pro-life" is personal. My wife caught rubella in the eighth week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and raise our baby. David is legally blind and severely handicapped; he also is a blessing to us and to the world. Gary Krane is an investigative journalist.

We look at the fruits of political policies more than words. We analyzed the data on abortion during the Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information -- federal reports go only to the year 2000, and many states do not report -- but we found enough data to identify trends. Our findings are disturbing.

Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4 percent decline during the 1990s. This was a steady decrease averaging 1.7 percent per year. (The data come from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies.)

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.


We found four states that have posted three-year statistics: Kentucky's increased by 3.2 percent from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3 percent from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9 percent from 1999 to 2002. Colorado's rates skyrocketed 111 percent. We found 12 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6 percent average increase), and four saw a decrease (4.3 percent average).

Under Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.

For anyone familiar with why most women have abortions, this is no surprise:

Two-thirds of women who have abortions cite "inability to afford a child" as their primary reason (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). In the Bush presidency, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Herbert Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.

Half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate. And men who are jobless usually do not marry. In the 16 states, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.

Women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency -- with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million -- abortion increases.

My wife and I know -- as does my son David -- that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, every father and every child needs public and family support.

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, insurance, jobs, child care and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs, health insurance and support for mothers.

Glen Stassen is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, in Pasadena, Calif. He can be e-mailed at gstassen@fuller.edu.

Krane is an independent investigative journalist in Philadelphia.Readers can write to him at 151 Tulpehocken, Philadelphia, PA 19144 or Coordinator@FairElections.us.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 02:25 PM   #129
War Child
 
Sparkysgrrrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: under the table and screaming
Posts: 754
Local Time: 09:12 AM
It's all ass backwards, isn't it...
Bush is elected by the Anti-Choice and more abortions occur...
Clinton is elected by the Pro-Choice, and he passes more laws restricting abortions than any other president.

__________________
Sparkysgrrrl is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 02:35 PM   #130
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

2 of my best friends are Republican women. They both hate abortion and want Roe v. Wade overturned. My brother's wife wants Roe v. Wade overturned. 2 of my close friend's wives want Roe v. Wade overturned. Every single Republican woman I have ever talked to about Roe v. Wade wanted it overturned.

All my Republican friends, male or female, want Roe v. Wade overturned. Heck, I even used to know a liberal Democrat who, though we never talked specifically about Roe v. Wade, considered abortion murder.


i am talking about elected officials. the women who walk the halls of Congress. they owe their careers to the very feminists they must now deride.

and while "no one" was probably a bit of a stretch, i bet you'd be surprised at how many people, even if they are personall opposed to abortion, don't want it to be illegal.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 02:37 PM   #131
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


No one? I'd say there are more than you believe who would either (i) want to the law overturned (male and female), or (ii) be ambivilent if the law were overturned.

Pushing a candidate who would clearly overturn Roe v. Wade would require A LOT of political capital - with little return on the investment.

Abortion divides the country, but not in a way that give either party a clear victory.

Bush will likely make other issues the centerpiece of the confirmation fight (and no matter who he appoints, there will be a fight). If he nominates some one like Gonzalez, he gets "credit" for the first Hispanic on the Court.


i agree with pretty much all of your post, which is why i don't think we're going to see Roe v Wade overturned any time soon.

also, the current joke in DC is that, amongst Republicans, "Gonzales is Spanish for Souter."
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 02:38 PM   #132
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Well, like they said in Spiderman 2, sometimes doing the right thing requires sacrifice. If Bush really believes that abortion is murder, he needs to do everything possible to give that particular type of murder the same status as other murders in the USA - illegal. I doubt it would drastically hurt the Republican party; there's a lot of pro-lifers out there, and most are Republican, I'd say. But even if it does destroy the Republican Party, isn't doing the right thing worth it?

Concerning "investment": From a pro-life view, I'd say that saving the lives of pre-born babies would be a good return on the investment.


they republicans know this.

and this is what they've been exploiting for the past 30 years, and you've got nothing to show for it.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 03:24 PM   #133
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




they republicans know this.

and this is what they've been exploiting for the past 30 years, and you've got nothing to show for it.
They're not exploiting that.

In fact, it's the opposite. Most of the Republicans in office now are chicken. They're afraid of the Ted Kennedys; they're afraid they'll be "Tom Delayed". Their fear of the opposition is stronger than their loyalty to the people who actually voted for them in the first place.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 03:26 PM   #134
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

and while "no one" was probably a bit of a stretch, i bet you'd be surprised at how many people, even if they are personall opposed to abortion, don't want it to be illegal.
I think you'd be surprised how many people do want ti to be made illegal.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 03:39 PM   #135
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Petaluma, CA
Posts: 359
Local Time: 06:12 PM
80's it may seem that way in your circle but everyone I know believes it should be legal. I can also point to people who have chosen not to abort but would still not make it illegal. The reason is, it is up to that couple to make their own decision and every decision is different. Another thing you might consider, there are statistics in the book Freakonomics stating that abortion rates do not change according to abortion being illegal or not. Apparently they change according to (as previously stated) the parents being able to support them.
__________________

__________________
MissMoo is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com