Dick Cheney

[rimbaud]

This guy gave a great speech.

1. His delivery, while pretty monotone, is very effective. His half-smile adds a little bite to his soft-spoken delivery.

2. His slogans are not all original, but they are presented well and evry effective.

3. He was confident, cocky, and gave energy to the audience.

4. He really did not say a whole lot, but he made it seem as if he was.

5. Repetition. Always good when used effectively.

6. I actually laughed at some of the jokes.

7. How will GWB earn respect from the military when he was as bad as Clinton with his own service?

8. Added a few personal touches.

9. He did not give a greta speech content-wise. but overall it was good and what the convention needed.

------------------
Play the Piano Drunk Like a Percussion Instrument Until the Fingers Begin to Bleed a Bit

[Dennis2112]

Great speech!!! Man Am I proud to be an american.


He is playing bad cop real good. I hope Gov Bush plays the good cop tomorrow night. Traditionally the Vice-president is the attack dog while prez rises above it.

------------------
Houston Rockets Forever!!
In Rudy We Trust

[AntiSonic]

Best line(paraphrased): "As the man from Hope goes home to New York..."

Hillarious!!! I was rolling for about ten minutes. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
WE WILL WATCH THEM FALL... Next year :(

[Rocketman95]

Just like the man from Texas that goes home to Connecticut for school, or Kennebunkport, or one of the other 7 states that he has residence in.

Hilarious.

Just like Cheney who has to go home to Wyoming a few weeks ago to register to vote there.

Hilarious.

------------------
Going for the Rolls Royce!

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

[RocketMan Tex]

I began to watch it, and I'm proud to say that I fell asleep after less than five minutes.

------------------
Bring It!!

[BrianKagy]

I began to watch it, and I'm proud to say that I fell asleep after less than five minutes.

Always nice to hear from an informed voter.

And I don't think Bush attending Yale is quite the same as Hillary carpet-bagging for a new job.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by BrianKagy:
Always nice to hear from an informed voter.


Never claimed to be informed. Just bored and disgusted.

------------------
Bring It!!

[rimbaud]

RocketMan Tex,

You fell asleep?!?
But that was the best speech so far. I am sure it was more entertaining than Bush's will be - he cannot be quite as cocky.

100% unadulterated fun.

Rocketman95,

Yes, those are funny too.

Politics are funny, folks.

------------------
Play the Piano Drunk Like a Percussion Instrument Until the Fingers Begin to Bleed a Bit

[Special Patrol Group]

IMO, being an informed voter has little to do with listening intently to the scripted nonsense that spews forth like so much bile during these conventions. Very little of it, and it seems especially so this year, is intended to relay the party's platform or political agenda in general. They've really turned it into a huge sound bite fest and pandering party. Not that I expect anything different from the Democrats, but what I've seen coming out of Philly is just pathetic.

I usually vote Libertarian or Reform (Pat Buchanan?!!), but not this year. I'm going to hate voting for Gore but there's no way that, in good conscience, I can sit by and watch Born-again Bush turn the Supreme Court into a First Amendment wrecking crew.

[BrianKagy]

Spec, there's certainly something to that, but let me just add that listening to the prefabricated Wonderland tales the candidates tell at their conventions is still preferable to a good nap if you're trying to learn more about them.

Political apathy and cynicism are pretty fashionable nowadays, and people are welcome to act that way if they want-- but at the same time, it would be nice if those people would then admit that they're not following the political process very closely and have little more than a surface understanding of it.

I mean, I'll tell you one thing: I will not vote for Gore, but I also won't sleep through his acceptance speech after he's nominated. I want to know what he says he's about-- even if it's delivered in a saccharine happy talk format.

------------------
I didn't use the cocaine to get high, I just liked the way it smelled.

[heypartner]

Did you know Dick Cheney is the Chairman of the Board and CEO of Halliburton....a $21B oil services company?

Nice how you can go from the military to big biz to VP as if it is a career track.

So, does he have to resign his private-sector job...before he starts lobbying for it, or does his lobbying pulpit have to have the air of no for-profit ties.

McClain is looking better and better. We need some election reform baby.

[Dennis2112]

Originally posted by heypartner:
Did you know Dick Cheney is the Chairman of the Board and CEO of Halliburton....a $21B oil services company?

Nice how you can go from the military to big biz to VP as if it is a career track.

So, does he have to resign his private-sector job...before he starts lobbying for it, or does his lobbying pulpit have to have the air of no for-profit ties.

McClain is looking better and better. We need some election reform baby.

He has already re-signed from their board and from the 10 others he WAS on.


I wonder if Al Gore has sold his 1 million shares of stock of Oxidental Oil.. No not yet. Oh yeah weren't they the company that Clinton wanted to sell that Navy oil field to for 10 cents to the dollar.


------------------
Houston Rockets Forever!!
In Rudy We Trust


[This message has been edited by Dennis2112 (edited August 03, 2000).]

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by BrianKagy:
Spec, there's certainly something to that, but let me just add that listening to the prefabricated Wonderland tales the candidates tell at their conventions is still preferable to a good nap if you're trying to learn more about them.

Political apathy and cynicism are pretty fashionable nowadays, and people are welcome to act that way if they want-- but at the same time, it would be nice if those people would then admit that they're not following the political process very closely and have little more than a surface understanding of it.

I mean, I'll tell you one thing: I will not vote for Gore, but I also won't sleep through his acceptance speech after he's nominated. I want to know what he says he's about-- even if it's delivered in a saccharine happy talk format.



Brian, while I understand & respect where you are coming from, I also believe that you just do not learn very much about candidates via their acceptance speeches. IMHO, you learn more about them by examining their voting records (if they were members of Congress) or actions/leadership on certain issues/accomplishments (if they were Governors). Personally, I take more stock in what they do rather than in what they say, because I feel they will say almost anything to get elected.


------------------
Bring It!!

[This message has been edited by RocketMan Tex (edited August 03, 2000).]

[heypartner]

Originally posted by Dennis2112:
He has already re-signed from their board and from the 10 others he WAS on.

now I'm confused....did he re-sign or resign.

hey Dennis, didn't mean to say Gore is any better. hell, I didn't mean to even imply there's anything wrong with working for big biz before politics. In fact, they should before becoming politicians. I'm just coming here making trouble.

...and citing McClain reform and dreaming of Nader-esque reform. You now though, reform only lasts as long as the instigators, then it returns back the way it was with a new language only. Now, how's that for Hopeful Cynicism....I'm pathetic about federal politics. I just want the power moved closer to the majority of my votes--which is the state and local level.

Think about it. We have 3 votes at the federal level and dozens at the state and local. The appropriations should move closer to our votes.

[Rocketman95]

Just because they're at MTV doesn't make their opinions on serious matters any less valid than the editor of the Washington Post, IMO.

You probably wouldn't feel the same if they were advocating more conservative positions. I know I wouldn't either.

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Going for the Rolls Royce!

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

[BrianKagy]

Achebe, I've read an apt quote from a Scottish historian named Alexander Tytler (I've also seen it as 'Tyler', not sure which is correct). I've probably shared it with y'all before. Anyway, it goes something like this:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until a majority of the populace discovers it can vote itself largess from the public treasury.

If there's ever been a quote that appeared more prescient towards America's future than that one, I've yet to see it.

Now that the Republicans have decided that the "era of the end of Big Government" is over, we're all screwed.

------------------
I didn't use the cocaine to get high, I just liked the way it smelled.

[This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited August 03, 2000).]

[BrianKagy]

You're right, RM95. Who am I to question the journalistic integrity or native political intelligence of Serena Altschul?

The fact that MTV's political reporting is overwhelmingly biased leftward is mere icing on the "I Hate It" cake. I can think something is stupid and without merit even if it ostensibly is on my side.

Example: Pat Robertson.

------------------
I didn't use the cocaine to get high, I just liked the way it smelled.

[Rocketman95]

I agree with that. People are stupid because they are stupid, not because of where they work though.

------------------
Going for the Rolls Royce!

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

[sirhangover]

i loved seeing cheney stutter and look like an idiot on larry king last week..that was especially funny when larry asked him about the way he voted against nelson mandela's recognition ...he said he 'couldnt remember the vote'

classic guy..

they even commented on cbs last night how the GOP had put cheney into silence after he got torn up in interviews..now they dont want him to talk except in prepared speeches like last nights convention...

------------------
i am rather like a mosquito in a nudist camp..i know what i ought to do but i don't know where to begin...

[Almu]

First of all, speeches mean nothing at these conventions. If you heard all the analysis afterwards, they all said the same thing. They are using Clintons platform right back at him from 1992. God forbid if someone uses creativity. I prefer to wait until the debates to decide who is the right person to vote for. But for some reason, I am almost 75 percent sure that I won't vote neither one of these guys.

MadMax, I am pretty sure that you aimed that little jab at people like me. I am the biggest non-believer out there, but...in the words of some athlete that showed up last night at the convention...JUST BRING IT! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif

And I do get involved, by the way. I volunteer to teach English at my high school on Saturdays. I go to the local youth center on Tuesdays to help out with the kids and have a 14 year old to mentor named Eddie Grima. So, one day, when I BECOME PRESIDENT, you can look back at my great record. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

Three things.

One, the problem I have with the Republicans is that they give Clinton little credit. They say the economy is good because of the peoples hard work not the president. So, my question is that if its all the people, then why not just get rid of all the a-holes in Washington? I wish everyone would just work toward the common good instead of their own interest. I am being repetitive, so lets go to point two.

Second, I love the way the Republicans are just drowning out McCain in all this. I guess they really want all that reform, eh? But, I can't blame them. They already want us to think they are for the little people despite the fact that their record shows otherwise. And I just can't wait until Chaney and Bush try and justify all the spending on the military that they already are planning(even though they haven't won). Hey, I can't blame them for just harping on Monica Lewinsky..err "bringing integrity to the White House". I guess its true that when you are on top and 70 percent of America agrees with you, you are going to take those type of hits. Ask anyone to name the top 5 presidents of all time and Kennedy pops up. Nobody cares about all his screwing in the bedroom. But, thats the way it goes. Also, don't you just love the way they had that gay person speaking about trade? And did you notice alot of Republicans praying in the audience so that God could somewhat cure that epidemic disease called being gay? Oh, yea. Way to reach out and be different.

Three. I am damn sure that we won't be hearing from Bradley at the Democratic Convention either. If he speaks, I will be shocked.

So, again, basically its vote Democratic or not at all. Hopefully during the debates, intelligence oozes out of someones brain and changes my mind all together. But, I doubt it.

------------------
I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan

[This message has been edited by Almu (edited August 03, 2000).]

[BrianKagy]

Nice how you can go from the military to big biz to VP as if it is a career track.

There is nothing like being connected. I hope to be connected myself someday. If there are any attractive daughters of elite CEO types reading this BBS (ha! ha! ha!), email me and we'll get married. I have a good job, I cook, I play guitar, and I love to listen.

As for Dennis, I think you have to understand that the majority (maybe the entirety) of posters on this BBS who disagree with you politically are not hypocrites. Trust me, I have tried to catch them in it more than once, and even people with whom I uniformly disagree (Rocketman95 for instance) are totally upfront about their candidates' inconsistencies.

In other words, yeah, Gore owns a ****load of Occidental stock. And RM95 would probably be among the first to point that out as a potential conflict of interest.

Brian, while I understand & respect where you are coming from, I also believe that you just do not learn very much about candidates via their acceptance speeches. IMHO, you learn more about them by examining their voting records... I take more stock in what they do rather than in what they say, because I feel they will say almost anything to get elected.

Bravo. I agree with every word. I hope you did not take my prior post to be aimed at you specifically; that was not my intent.

The person I had in mind was young, probably a college dropout, making $9.50 an hour in some menial job that he or she would have sneered at taking back when they were an 18th-Century English Lit major. They watch more than 30 hours of TV a week, take Rolling Stone's news stories at face value, haven't read a newspaper in years, and can't name their Congressman or Senator.

They feel disconnected from the political process, because aside from occasionally pandering for their votes by promising youth-oriented services, it has little real affect on their daily lives. That, combined with the prevalent fashionable cynicism that George Carlin and Dennis Miller have done so much to further, leaves them with little of value to say regarding politics.

And the only way to excuse that ignorance is to pretend that it was created intentionally, as a rebellious act against a corrupt and ineffective system.

None of that would bother me at all; I mean, I need someone to refill my coffee at Starbucks or re-stock my returned videos at Blockbuster. So these people are performing a valuable service.

None of that would bother me, were it permanently free of hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, as I said, the political process is designed to pander to these mouth-breathers once every four years. They weave their way out of the woodwork, adopt the trite slogans ("Rock the Vote!") and clicheed stereotypes ("Republicans are all racist"), and without contributing even a synapse's worth of rational consideration, cast a vote that is weighted the same as the individual votes of informed, conscientious Americans.

Once every four years, the "intentional ignorance" and well-deserved apathy act is mothballed in favor of the earnest young Concerned American act. They're no better informed than they were before they stopped pretending not to care, mind you, but now they want to Make A Difference.

Yeah, I'm bitter. People are stupid, and they allow themselves to be taken advantage of.

------------------
I didn't use the cocaine to get high, I just liked the way it smelled.

[Achebe]

I liked Plato's twist on it:

Democracy is silly b/c people are too stupid to rule themselves.

Oh wait, I didn't admit that.

------------------
Dubyah: Because the picture on the newspaper. It just seems so un-American to me, the picture of the guy storming the house with a scared little boy there. I talked to my little brother, Jeb—I haven't told this to many people. But he's the governor of—I shouldn't call him my little brother--my brother, Jeb, the great governor of Texas.
Jim Lehrer: Florida.
Dubyah: Florida. The state of the Florida.
—The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, April 27, 2000

Dubyah Speaks. (http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com/default.htm)

[Smokey]

I liked Cheney's speech last night. I think attacking the opponent is quite exciting. It's tradition.

Cheney didn't even bring up impeachment or the definition of is is.

Joe Lockhart was on Letterman last night and he was quite hillarious as well. Letterman was pushing Lockhart to rank on Bush, and the Clinton press secretary did. He guaranteed a Gore victory.

(Paraphrasing Lockhart) "28 days and counting. It's so easy to make fun of Bush, sometimes I don't even try"

Just Bring It.
(This may not make any sense to anyone, but for the under 21 voter it makes elections exciting)
------------------
This, my friends, is a post.

[This message has been edited by Smokey (edited August 03, 2000).]

[MadMax]

Brian -- you're my new favorite person!! Great post.

What I enjoy most are the cynics who act like they're smarter than everyone else. They have all the answers, and absolutely no one on the political scene is ever close to their grand knowledge. If that were so, why the hell don't they get involved. The answer to that question is mere laziness, apathy or the fact that it's just not cool to act like you care about much of anything.

Your MTV Rock the Vote reference was hysterical. Yeah..there's some unbiased journalism for you!! Do I really need Tabitha Soren or anyone else at MTV making editorial judgment calls on our process of national election. Look, Tabitha...spin the damn record or play some freaking music and shut up!

------------------

[slcrocket]

Man was DAMN impressive. Great public speaker. Didn't take much from him, though, to send that crowd into hysterics...

------------------
Jazzkiller

[AntiSonic]

Almu,

"So, my question is that if its all the people, then why not just get rid of all the a-holes in Washington?"

Actually, the Republicans ARE anti-big government.

"I wish everyone would just work toward the common good instead of their own interest."

Hey man, just join the Communist Party! Screw the Democrats and their pseudo-socialism! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
WE WILL WATCH THEM FALL... Next year http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/frown.gif

[This message has been edited by AntiSonic (edited August 05, 2000).]

[Almu]

AntiSonic...

I mean, if its all the people, get RID OF the government. If you ask a Republican, they will tell you Clintons administration WASTED eight years. So does that mean Bush Sr. wasted 4? Or Nixon?

If its all the people, I say lets kick them ALL out.

------------------
I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan

[outlaw]

Actually, the Republicans ARE anti-big government.

Except when it comes to what a woman does with her own body or what 2 consenting adults of the same gender do in their private bedroom.

[Achebe]

Brian,

That's a funny quote. I'm feeling like I support democracy (for the time being... it is 3:00 a.m.), so I'll be glad that the 'era of the end of big gov' is over. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

I'll be less enthusiastic about democracy in the morning when I realize that poorly informed people are choosing their candidates b/c of physical appearance and buzz words.

------------------
"At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived."
--Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush.

(Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00)
Dubyah Speaks (http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com/default.htm)

[AntiSonic]

outlaw,

"Except when it comes to what a woman does with her own body or what 2 consenting adults of the same gender do in their private bedroom."

I'm with you on the homosexuality issue(frankly, I can't see how anyone in their right mind would be against less competition amongst one's sex for mates http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif), but the Republicans aren't trying to pass legislation that would make it illegal for females to knowingly engage in activity where they could become pregnant.

------------------
WE WILL WATCH THEM FALL... Next year :(

[outlaw]

Dick Cheney is against ALL abortion even in cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother's life.

[AntiSonic]

outlaw,

"Dick Cheney is against ALL abortion even in cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother's life."

I can sympathize with him on the first two, because the unborn child is not at fault, and therefore should not be denied his/her right to life(What I want to know is exactly how hard is it to put kids up for adoption? There are thousands of couples out there who can't have their own kids. Are there circumstances that can make putting a child up for adoption impossible?).

On the mother's life issue, I really don't know... Someday, both will be able to be saved, but until then... I don't know... Call me a hypocrite, but I'd probably go with the mother, unless she herself made it known that she was willing to sacrifice her life for the child's. The child still isn't responsible(in the sense of wrong-doing) for putting his/her mother's life in danger, though, so I hope we can make leaps in medicine that will cut down on this horrible scenario. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/frown.gif

"...surely they don't think that a fertilized egg is already a lifeform."

Why not? It's just another stage of human development.

[This message has been edited by AntiSonic (edited August 05, 2000).]

[Achebe]

Perhaps we should cover this in a separate thread, but I would find it interesting to learn why social conservatives do not approve of abortion in times when the mother's health is in danger.

The Christian Conservatives: sending little bastards to foster homes.

------------------
"At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived."
--Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush.

(Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00)
Dubyah Speaks (http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com/default.htm)

[outlaw]

I want to know why the conservatives are against the morning after pill. surely they don't think that a fertilized egg is already a lifeform.

[Rocketman95]

Originally posted by AntiSonic:

Why not? It's just another stage of human development.

[This message has been edited by AntiSonic (edited August 05, 2000).]

So I guess that means you're against the pill, condoms, or any other form of contraceptive huh AntiSonic?

------------------
Going for the Rolls Royce!

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

[outlaw]

When you are able to pass a football through your sphincter, maybe you will understand what it's like to give birth. Men should not be legistlating what women do to their bodies.
And how can you tell a woman who's been raped that she MUST carry the child to term and re-live the experience everyday for nine months?

[This message has been edited by outlaw (edited August 06, 2000).]

[AntiSonic]

So I guess that means you're against the pill, condoms, or any other form of contraceptive huh AntiSonic?

RM95- You can nourish a sperm cell all you want, but it will not grow into a mature human being. You can nourish an egg cell all you want, but it also will not grow into a mature human being. A fertilized egg, however, will grow into a mature human being when nourished, as will an infant, a toddler, a preschooler, and a teenager.

Preventing sperm and egg cells from meeting is not taking the life of a human being(if it was, then abstinence(sp?) could be thrown into the same looked-down-upon class that some people group condoms/the pill/etc...). There is no child if they don't meet.

"Men should not be legistlating what women do to their bodies."

outlaw- Men aren't trying to make laws that govern what a woman can/can't do with her body. Men and women are trying to make laws that govern what women can/can't do with their children's bodies.

"And how can you tell a woman who's been raped that she MUST carry the child to term and re-live the experience everyday for nine months?

How can you tell a person that he/she has to die because their mother suffered a horrible(worst) crime?

The woman is more than likely going to re-live the experience everyday for the rest of her life anyway, so why make her also live with the decision that she took another person's life?

Granted, she in all likelihood does not want the child, but the baby is still not at fault. Have there been any advancements made in the test-tube baby arena? Is it possible for a fetus to be removed from a womb and kept alive like unfertilized eggs are? This way, the mother doesn't have to have the child, the child doesn't have to die, and people that can't have children can make their adoptions more 'legitimate' by actually carrying and giving birth to the child. It may be years off, but it sure does beat the alternative...

Also, examples should(and allready should have) be made of sexual criminals to make people not even want to think of committing such a horrible act. Fund the police more. Increase patrol on the street, and give cops the right to go Rodney King to the tenth power on rapists.

"When you are able to pass a football through your sphincter, maybe you will understand what it's like to give birth."

99.9% of women understand that having a child will hurt like hell. 99.9% of women AND men also understand that engaging in sexual intercourse will potentially produce another human being. If you don't want to bring another human being into the world, then don't have sex. If you're just too horny to not have it, than try even harder not to. As an absolute last resort, BOTH sould take the maximum amount of preventive action(I mean EVERYTHING-both of them taking pills, either one using a condom, "pulling out," etc...).

To put it another way: I understand that putting a gun to my head and pulling the trigger will kill me. I do not want to die. Therefore, thrilling as it may be, I will not play Russian Roulette.

------------------
WE WILL WATCH THEM FALL... Next year http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/frown.gif

[This message has been edited by AntiSonic (edited August 07, 2000).]

[Achebe]

Whoa AntiSonic.

I respect your opinions (and sympathize actually w/ alot of your intuitions). My one concern is the rape/incest scenario. IMO, when a woman has been violated in the most personal way, the last thing that any of us should do is to start throwing guilt laden rules around.

I find your opinions interesting in that you previously condoned animal research. In the first few days after sex, the fetus is little more than a cell mass. Sure, it has potential, but it has no awareness or experience. How do you make the case that a few cells have merit but a complete sentient non-human does not? Is the issue some notion of a 'soul'? Are you just fond of humans?

------------------
"At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived."
--Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush.

(Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00)
Dubyah Speaks (http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com/default.htm)

[BrianKagy]

Men should not be legistlating what women do to their bodies.


This is just one of those facets of an argument that goes way, way, way too far.

But I'm in the mood to humor you. So I'll play along. I agree with this statement 100%.

FROM THIS DAY FORWARD, LET NO LAW PASSED BY A MAJORITY OF MEN APPLY TO WOMEN.

Women of America, rejoice! You may now:

* Kill

* Rape

* Drive drunk (Mothers Against Drunk Driving will have to remove or change the gender-specific aspect of their name, I guess)

* Buy a handgun without a waiting period

* Speed (but only if you're doing more than 70 in the far left lane)

* Use drugs

* Beat your children

* Sell pornography to children

* Masturbate in public

And ANYTHING ELSE you can think of!

Have fun! I'm moving to Australia!

Now, for a brief breather from sarcasm. The quote I posted above is one of the most asinine statements used in politics today-- and there are a lot of them, on both sides of a majority of the issues.

Part of living in society is accepting the fact that the individual does not possess ultimate, unlimited freedom. We've all agreed to sacrifice some of our freedoms in the interest of the greater society.

You don't have the right to wantonly murder an unborn child for the same reason you don't have the right to get loaded and drive your car down the sidewalk. It's detrimental to society. Our elected and appointed representatives have constructed a system whereby a woman can abort a fetus up to a particular stage of the pregnancy; after that time, society no longer believes the abortion to be acceptable.

It's an odd system and it doesn't make the hysterically shrieking need-a-lifers on either side of the issue happy. But it's a compromise that the majority of Americans are comfortable with.

If, as outlaw implies, women should not be bound to obey laws passed by men, I am curious as to what other implications this precedent might have.

Do black people have to follow the laws?

Jews?

Hermaphroditic lesbian cripples?

------------------
I didn't use the cocaine to get high, I just liked the way it smelled.

[Special Patrol Group]

What's asinine is the suggestion that the right of a woman to decide whether or not she wants to give birth to a child is comparable to rape, murder, or any of the other crimes you have listed. Save for purchasing a handgun, which is constitutionally protected sans waiting period, and drug use, which is a victimless crime, and should be no crime at all.

The government has no right to stake a claim on a uterus or contents thereof. We do not have the right to tell some fifteen year old kid that her pregnancy is now our concern, and that she should shut up and go through with delivery because we think that's the right thing to do. And it's fairly well-documented that to attempt to do so results in the same abortions being performed by bad doctors, or no doctors at all.

It's not a damned bit of my business or yours what another person wants to put in or take out of their body. And no amount of Jesus said this, or God told me that is going to change the fact that to insist otherwise is to insist on an invasion of privacy and a violation of basic rights.

[Rocketman95]

Kagy, the difference is that women aren't doing those things to themselves, they're doing it to other people.

I guess this is where we disagree because I don't think abortion is killing a living thing. If the fetus is not viable outside of the woman's body, it's not living, IMO.

I don't think the government should regulate what ANYBODY does to their body, whether it's abortion or drugs.

------------------
Going for the Rolls Royce!

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

[Achebe]

We tell people not to smoke because it affects others, so there does seem to be a precedent.

That being said, kill it. There are 6 billion people on this rock. We can start enforcing reproduction when we've colonized Mars.


------------------
"At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived."
--Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush.

(Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00)
Dubyah Speaks (http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com/default.htm)

[TheFreak]

I have a problem with the "it's her body" argument. If it's her body, why does it cease to be so in the 3rd trimester? If it's her body in the first few months, then it should be her body throughout the entire pregnancy, and an abortion should be legal the day before birth. Otherwise the "her body" defense doesn't fly.

A question for the "anti-life" ( http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif) group -- Do you think if a person walked up to a woman 9 months pregnant, and deliberately stabbed her in the stomach, killing her baby but leaving her with just a cut in the mid-section, that that person should be charged with murder? What about a woman who uses drugs, smokes, drinks, any kind of substance abuse during pregnancy, leaving the child harmed in some way, whether it be addicted to crack, fetal alcohol syndrome, what have you...should that be child abuse?

Regarding an earlier reference in the thread, back in college my wife and I had heard of this thing called the "morning after pill", and decided we were in a situation where we might have cause to try it out. We didn't know much about it, so we went to the clinic where they sold them to get more information first before deciding whether or not we wanted one. After hearing more about this pill, we decided something just didn't sound right. We could not in good conscience take this pill, we felt it definitely crossed the line and was not birth control. We decided to go ahead and take our chances, and lucky for us at the time, we ended up with nothing to worry about.

------------------
"Thick, lustrous hair is very important to me."
-George Costanza

[Rocketman95]

Freak, I, like all pro-choice people I know, don't believe in abortion after the baby is viable on its own, unless the mother's health is at risk.



------------------
Going for the Rolls Royce!

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

[outlaw]

anti-life? that's a new one to me. but if that's what you want to call me then so be it. I have no guilt as a pro-choice voter. However, how come 90% of "pro-lifers" are for the death penalty?

[sirhangover]

oh great this thread has mutated to abortion..ill see you guys 10000000 posts from now when this thread is still cooking 25 years from now...i dont think we'll come to a consensus on this one...have we ever agreed on anything here? ever?

i am getting better at rejections in the bar scene after posting a few threads here i can handle abuse and everything close to a slap in the face..thanks guys...

------------------
i am rather like a mosquito in a nudist camp..i know what i ought to do but i don't know where to begin...

[AntiSonic]

Originally posted by Achebe:
My one concern is the rape/incest scenario. IMO, when a woman has been violated in the most personal way, the last thing that any of us should do is to start throwing guilt laden rules around.


Achebe, I respect all(and sympathize with some) of your opinions as well, but I'm just saying that a human being shouldn't be put to death because of a crime that happened to his/her mother. Rape is horrible, and in my humble opinion we should be doing a hell of a lot more than we are to prevent it so women wouldn't have to be forced with the decision of carrying an unwanted child for nine months or putting it to death.

I find your opinions interesting in that you previously condoned animal research. In the first few days after sex, the fetus is little more than a cell mass. Sure, it has potential, but it has no awareness or experience. How do you make the case that a few cells have merit but a complete sentient non-human does not?

Guess what- we're all just cell masses, and it's illegal to kill us.

The issue is human rights, not animal, and I think we really ought to start treating ourselves more humanely before we start dishing out benevolence to animals.

It's illegal for a person to kill another person regardless of age. Humans have different characteristics at different stages of life- but they're still human! There was a point in all of our lives when we didn't have legs, a head, or arms- but they grew in! Just like there was a stage in our lives when we didn't have as deep of voices, as long of legs, or pubic hair.

If we start dictating when a human being becomes a human being out of convenience, then it probably won't be long until we start dictating when a human being ceases to be a human being out of convenience. If we're allowed to kill children because they "inconvenience" us, then what's going to be there to stop us from killing the elderly? The handicapped?

Is the issue some notion of a 'soul'? Are you just fond of humans?

Personally, it is an issue of soul, but my argument is based on human rights and not religion. Again, IMHO, we should clean up our act on how we treat each other before we start catering to other species.

------------------
WE WILL WATCH THEM FALL... Next year :(

[Rocketman95]

AntiSonic,

I'm not dictating when a human being becomes a human being out of convenience. I just believe that if the fetus cannot live on it's own, then it's not a human being. Aborting it then, IMO, is nothing more than wearing a condom or pulling out (which a lot of people need to learn how to do).

------------------
Going for the Rolls Royce!

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

[BrianKagy]

Not that I am one, but to answer this question:

However, how come 90% of "pro-lifers" are for the death penalty?

Maybe because there doesn't seem to be any major inconsistency with advocating the execution of a murderer but opposing the 'murder' of an innocent baby/fetus/glob of cells.

Sorry, but while I'm "pro-death" (both pro-choice and pro-capital punishment), I think the left tends to look really foolish on this one in supporting the ending of a human life when it's only six weeks old and guilty of nothing but inconvenience, but then opposing the ending of a human life when it's 39 years old and guilty of murder.

------------------
I didn't use the cocaine to get high, I just liked the way it smelled.

[Special Patrol Group]

Number one, I never meant to suggest that you were a fundie, I was merely making reference to the most common reasoning of pro-lifers. I apologize for any offense, and mean none of this as a personal attack. Just discussion.

Number two, there is no comparison between DUI and abortion. DUI endangers the lives of everyone else on the road. A fetus, at any stage of development, is part of the mother and therefore her responsibility and her property. Up to and including the right to terminate the pregnancy. In no other instance, save for suicide and use of unauthorized drugs, does the government interfere with how adults use, or abuse, their own bodies. And those three are three too many.

As for existing laws, slavery was once perfectly legal. Hopefully the government's desire to interfere in citizen's private affairs will go the way of it's desire to see them enslaved. As for any imagined societal interest, individual freedoms come in all shapes and sizes. The freedom to control one's own reproductive system is hardly on a par with the freedom to smash a passer-by on the head with a claw hammer, or burn down someone's house.

If you wish not to have an abortion for whatever reasons you may have, that's fine. But there's no freaking way that anyone has the right to tell me not to have one.

[AntiSonic]

RM95,

Infants can't survive on their own either. Humans cannot possibly survive on their own until they can crawl(probably much later than that).

The mother's body nurturing the baby during pregnancy isn't much different than nursing it after birth.

------------------
WE WILL WATCH THEM FALL... Next year http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/frown.gif

[This message has been edited by AntiSonic (edited August 07, 2000).]

[outlaw]

there doesn't seem to be any major inconsistency with advocating the execution of a murderer but opposing the 'murder' of an innocent baby/fetus/glob of cells

Most pro-lifers quote the commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill". Well, it doesn't go on to say "unless this person did so and so".
So I think there is an inconsistency there.
Human life is human life.

I do not oppose the death penalty but I do think that our justice system is too screwed up and biased to distribute it fairly.

[BrianKagy]

Number two, there is no comparison between DUI and abortion

Right-- but there is a comparison between exempting a woman from laws prohibiting her from having an abortion, and exempting a woman from other laws that restrict her freedoms.

That is the point. Not whether abortion is good, bad, indifferent, or great fun at parties-- but whether the argument "men shouldn't tell women how to use their bodies" is anything other than clicheed sophistry.

Which it ISN'T. There are a lot of good arguments on the pro-choice side; that is not one of them.

Among the reasons why: you seem extremely determined to be allowed to have an abortion. And you seem to buy heavily into the idea that men shouldn't be able to tell you not to.

What if 51% of all women opposed your right to abort your fetus? You'd still think them wrong, wouldn't you?

I think you would. In which case, you'd probably come up with some additional arguments rather than focusing on their gender.

I suggest you take that step now, for the reasons I've already outlined. Gender exemptions like this one are fallacious fantasies at best under a constitutional republic. You either obey the law or you get it changed; you don't claim it doesn't apply to you because of your gender.

As for existing laws, slavery was once perfectly legal.

OK, this extremely tired example-- which is used by proponents of any political position you can imagine at this point-- needs to be retired. It signifies nothing. It is as common, and as silly, and as tired, as calling your opponent a Nazi.

Both sides want the law changed. ANTI-abortion people could JUST as easily say this in defense of THEIR position.

Democrats and Republicans alike have picked up on this as their coup-de-grace argument in favor of changing any law they don't like. "Well, sure, the marriage tax penalty is law, but heck, so was slavery!"

It's stupid. It's a shortcut to thinking. And it's below you judging from what you've posted thus far.

there's no freaking way that anyone has the right to tell me not to have one.

That's what Roe v. Wade says. It is an interpretation of the constitution. Currently, that interpretation favors a woman's right to choose abortion. In 5 or ten or 100 years, it may no longer do so-- at which time, you're damned tooting the government will have the right to tell you what to do with your body.

I suggest, if you really believe the apparently Libertarian views that you're embracing in this argument, that you give some serious thought to the best way to achieve your political goals. Look, right now abortion's legal. It might not stay that way. Drugs are illegal. They might not stay that way. Do you want to spend your energy in overturning those specific laws? Or, would you rather work to change our system of government so that those kinds of laws would be impossible to pass in the first place?

Maybe you'd be better off voting Libertarian.

Most pro-lifers quote the commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill". Well, it doesn't go on to say "unless this person did so and so".

Right-- that's why they switch to the "eye for an eye" thing there.



------------------
I didn't use the cocaine to get high, I just liked the way it smelled.

[Special Patrol Group]

I couldn't agree more that the whole "men shouldn't decide," argument is a poor one. I am simply of the opinion that no one other than the prospective parent should decide, which is a Libertarian view, at it's heart, and one of the reasons that I do typically vote Libertarian. Even though I do not agree with bits of the Libertarian platform.

I am not female. I just wanted to make my points from sort of a neutral position, in that laws are laws, regardless of whether or not they affect one person in the same manner as someone else. That, and it's easier than entering into "my daughter, sister...," etc. And hey, male pregnancy could be right around the corner. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

I suppose that we could argue the comparison of abortion to crimes like DUI all day, but I guess that in the end it all boils down to the same murder vs. not murder argument, and that's a neverending one. So I'll bow out, having offered my two cents, perhaps a bit too vehemently.

Agreed about the slavery reference. My bad.

[BrianKagy]

What's asinine is the suggestion that the right of a woman to decide whether or not she wants to give birth to a child is comparable to rape, murder, or any of the other crimes you have listed.

Why? If a woman should be able to have an abortion because "men shouldn't be able to tell a woman what to do with her body", why shouldn't she be able to fill it with drugs and alcohol and then put it behind the wheel of a car? Why should we limit the gender exception to our laws to just aborting a baby? I mean, if we're going to exempt women from our laws in that regard because we "don't understand pregnancy" the way they do, why can we then say we understand anything else a woman thinks or feels or wants?

I mean, after all:

Kagy, the difference is that women aren't doing those things to themselves, they're doing it to other people

Right. Well, except for the dead baby.

I'm not debating abortion in and of itself-- just the aspect of the pro-abortion argument that says "Men shouldn't be able to tell a woman to have a baby".

It isn't men that are telling them not to. It's the United States government, which represents every man, woman, and child living in America. Women are just as able as men to effect the legislative process; if, after the legislative process has taken action, women find themselves displeased with the result, too ****in' bad. Get out there and unelect the representatives that aren't on your side-- if you can. And frankly, I don't see that happening. I don't think there is a groundswell of support for either the Bible-thumpers or the wailing, coathanger-waving extremists on the feminist side. Most Americans could care less about the issue.

It's not a damned bit of my business or yours what another person wants to put in or take out of their body.

See, I agree with you on this-- except when it applies to the part of the argument where women should be allowed to have abortions because "men can't tell them what to do with their bodies". That's all I'm attacking here.

And no amount of Jesus said this, or God told me that...

Just got off the phone with God and is he ever pissed at you.

In all seriousness, you need to back the short bus up there, Special Patrol Group. I'm not a thumper, and I'm not anti-abortion.

I'm going to go ahead and re-post part of my last post, because I think it completely answers you:

Part of living in society is accepting the fact that the individual does not possess ultimate, unlimited freedom. We've all agreed to sacrifice some of our freedoms in the interest of the greater society.

You don't have the right to wantonly murder an unborn child for the same reason you don't have the right to get loaded and drive your car down the sidewalk. It's detrimental to society. Our elected and appointed representatives have constructed a system whereby a woman can abort a fetus up to a particular stage of the pregnancy; after that time, society no longer believes the abortion to be acceptable.

THAT is why we 'have the right' to tell people that there are certain things they're just not permitted to do with their bodies.

I'd like to see a heck of a lot LESS of it, but that's WHY it happens. It's oversimplification to pretend that abortion is at all unique as an example of the government controlling our bodies. Suppressing individual freedom is done all the time.

Abortion (at least the illegal versions of it) is just one more example of society deciding that a particular behavior is detrimental to the nation as a whole.

------------------
I didn't use the cocaine to get high, I just liked the way it smelled.