Town Hall Debate

[kimpossible]

This is going to be a tough one. Bush tends to do better in town hall type situations but I think it's domestic issues, so Kerry might be more prepared.

[Shuriken]

A number of commentators, not all of them Republicans, are already saying:

•That Bush lowered expectations and Kerry raised them so much in the first debate that Kerry has more to lose this time.

•That Bush can turn in an awful, pathetic performance — fall on his face, if you will — and people will still vote for him anyway because they have already made up their minds. Once again, Bush could end up "losing" the debates but still winning the election.

[kimpossible]

"Weapon of Mass Deception" Did I hear that correctly?

They look like they're going to karaoke when they get up and speak.

[nonamerasian]

Bush just chuckled at Kerry's comments.

I sense a can of whoop-ass coming up.

[Mr.Lum]

He's a horrible debater. He yelling at the moderator. Over like what 2-4 countries where we don't have popular support. LOL. He should know his bloody place.

[kimpossible]

He's a horrible debater. He yelling at the moderator. Over like what 2-4 countries where we don't have popular support. LOL. He should know his bloody place.

no shit. guess dubya didn't take his lithium today. easy, tiger. easy

[Mr.Lum]

no shit. guess dubya didn't take his lithium today. easy, tiger. easy

I bet he's like that when he's drunk. LOL.

[nonamerasian]

I think he's doing well. Speaking like one would expect a president to speak.

I'm not talking about his issues, but his demeanor.

He's not making childish faces or blubbering. Sounding confident and whatnot.

He's a bit worked up, but I like it.

Oh-oh. Kerry's making a big promise. If he wins, I bet it's gonna haunt him. Haunt him bad.

*hides face*

[Mr.Lum]

I think he's doing well. Speaking like one would expect a president to speak.

I'm not talking about his issues, but his demeanor.



I agree. Not the kind I would like, I like Northeastern leaders. He's like one of those forceful folks from the frontier. LOL. My neighbor's words.

I think this was a straight up draw. Bush was able to speak quickly this time. Neither really had much to say, both were very hollow. So many exagerations and over optomistic promises from both of them. I don't like the "big government is bad" lines from people who are in the government. It makes them sound 1) lazy 2) I don't trust most of America; I don't think we would have gotten rid of segragation and other forms of obviously institutionalized discrimination if it were left up to most people for example. Both of them keep talking about God so much. I like God, love Him even, but this is not about God. This is not church. Religion in the hands of leaders is oppression. Bush and the blonde bunny against abortion sounded like "big government" forcing people to conform. Most Republican social policies sound that way. Kerry sounds like less intellegent people would think he is high andmighty. I worry how he will sounds to the people off the coasts. It was an intense debate. Kerry again, refuses to make an effort to attack Bush violently. He's too polite. I would hit at and a little bit below the belt. He's got to be exposed so we can take america back. Bush on the environment was funny. Contradicted reality. I want a New Englander in office to rep my values and I'm barely getting it out of Kerry and certainly not out of mountain man. They let you down. But the debate was a draw. But Bush and Kerry are on my damn nerves. They're so fake.

[A.R.A.M.]

I think he's doing well. Speaking like one would expect a president to speak.

I'm not talking about his issues, but his demeanor.

He's not making childish faces or blubbering. Sounding confident and whatnot.

He's a bit worked up, but I like it.

Oh-oh. Kerry's making a big promise. If he wins, I bet it's gonna haunt him. Haunt him bad.

*hides face*

Bush was much more polished this time around. And that moment when he got in the moderators face might actually serve him well. I thought he just looked testy, but some might see it as him standing up for himself.

But Kerry did get in a couple of good zingers, such as, "It's the military's job to win the war. It's the President's job to win the peace." But Kerry clearly failed to address the Republican spin on his global test remark. He could have used Bush's bringing it up in this debate to drive home his point that Bush is relying on spin and "weapons of mass deceptions" to mischaracterize Kerry.

[Mr.Lum]

But Kerry did get in a couple of good zingers, such as, "It's the military's job to win the war. It's the President's job to win the peace." But Kerry clearly failed to address the Republican spin on his global test remark. He could have used Bush's bringing it up in this debate to drive home his point that Bush is relying on spin and "weapons of mass deceptions" to mischaracterize Kerry.


I agree, but I think you'd be pretty slow to think he ment that as literally as Bush made it sound (or at least have not seen the debate)

[ism]

Bush didn't win me but he addressed certain segments of the population very well, concerning the morality of certain issues. How he brought the issues along and drew comparisons between his moral stances and the moral stance against slavery was effective rhetoric. Rove did his homework very well.

Kerry did well, and like Shuriken said, did have more to lose, so it'll be interesting to see what the flash polls say, even though I believe it's a draw.

[kitty]

Bush was so disrespectful to the moderator and to the regulations, I was surprised that the moderator didn't bitch-slap him. Notice, that he would just jump up and started retorting, w/out being told that the OPTIONAL followup time was actually being allocated. Theoretically, you ahve to wait, signal your desire for a followup, and then make sure the moderator is actually giving it to you. I think it says a lot about Bush's attitudes towards diplomacy and respect that he couldn't find enough finesse to wait the five seconds to follow the regulations he and his camp helped think up in the first place. Apparently, it's only rules when they're convenient.

That being said, I think Bush won, because people will respond more to his passion than Kerry's intellectualizing. I seriously think he went over most voters' heads... he made more sense, and was much more classy, but I think it'll turn people off. People want a dumb cowboy jock.

Oh, and what an awful abortion answer by Kerry. I was disappointed.

[Faithless]

Bush didn't win me but he addressed certain segments of the population very well, concerning the morality of certain issues. How he brought the issues along and drew comparisons between his moral stances and the moral stance against slavery was effective rhetoric. Rove did his homework very well.
Always have to question some Republican bringing up slavery in a response. :rolleyes:

There's a transcript out? Anyway, Bush was talking about activist judges, I guess, and how these judges used the Constitution to uphold slavery.

He's so fucked. If he remains in office for another four, he'll have a field day with picking his own blend of conservative activist judges -- seeing as there a few current Supreme Court prudes hanging on by their wrinkled skin for Bush to come back and replace their seats with his kind.

You could also look at Dred Scott the other way, too. In that, it could be argued that it took activist judges to end slavery, segregation, etc. :rolleyes:

Bush said about the judge issue: "And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution."

No shit. And that's what they did in the Dred Scott decision. Held that the constitution upheld slavery. In that case, what was needed was someone to deconstruct that logic.

[younggiftedandblack]

That being said, I think Bush won, because people will respond more to his passion than Kerry's intellectualizing. I seriously think he went over most voters' heads... he made more sense, and was much more classy, but I think it'll turn people off. People want a dumb cowboy jock.

I disagree Kit. Bush IMO was just more passionate about his shit. Kerry wasn't. Like Lum was saying he's just too nice and playing way too polite. He says the right things, but he doesn't put any umph! behind it. THAT's what alot of people respond to.

[ellsworth81]

i think bush did ok - although he wasn't entirely professional in conduct. he certainly did better than last time. kerry did as well as before. one thing in general though:

give iraq a fucking rest already.

seriously.

[A.R.A.M.]

I agree, but I think you'd be pretty slow to think he ment that as literally as Bush made it sound (or at least have not seen the debate)

Bush's crew has been on the news programs around the clock lately hammering away at the "global test." And just like that Richard Gere story about the gerbil, you can only hear their interpretation of what Kerry meant so many times before you're convinced it's true. It needs to be debunked.

But debunking the Bush administration's purposeful mischaracterization of Kerry's global test is not what I meant by my post above. Kerry argued that Bush, having failed to find weapons of mass destruction, was now turning to "weapons of mass deception" to alienate voters from Kerry. Kerry made this claim before Bush talked about the "global test." So, when Bush raised the "global test" issue, Kerry could have sprung on this as a perfect example of Bush relying on "weapons of mass deception," thereby proving his earlier claim. In other words, Kerry, rather than limply responding to Bush's accusation, could have seized upon Bush's spinning of "global test" as a strategic opportunity to not only reiterate what he really meant by "global test," but also prove to the undecideds his claim that Bush is relying on "weapons of mass deception" to win over voters. Then people maybe would have started taking Bush's other statements with a grain of salt. I do, but I don't know if the undecided do. That's my quibble with Kerry's performance. That and his pulling a Bush and freezing up during the stem cell question.

[Kuchana]

I disagree Kit. Bush IMO was just more passionate about his shit. Kerry wasn't. Like Lum was saying he's just too nice and playing way too polite. He says the right things, but he doesn't put any umph! behind it. THAT's what alot of people respond to.

I concur with you. Bush was so much better than the first debate. I was relieved to say the least. Plus he was fiesty. I was smiling through a lot of the exchange. I like to see him worked up.

i think bush did ok - although he wasn't entirely professional in conduct. he certainly did better than last time. kerry did as well as before. one thing in general though:

give iraq a fucking rest already.

seriously.


Unfortunately that's one of the key issues of this election. We will not stop hearing about it.

[Cipherous]

Oh, and what an awful abortion answer by Kerry. I was disappointed.

you have to admit, that was a tough one. If I was Kerry, I would've be frank: I would've just said I am for public funded abortions and try to make my case as to why I would be for it instead of brow beating the response.

[younggiftedandblack]

you have to admit, that was a tough one. If I was Kerry, I would've be frank: I would've just said I am for public funded abortions and try to make my case as to why I would be for it instead of brow beating the response.

There's no way in the world he could've answered that question to anyone's liking. That's a killer question. People know and expect a Repub. to be against it so it wasn't as hard on Bush.

[Jeff Yu :)]

Oh, and what an awful abortion answer by Kerry. I was disappointed.

It was a majorly loaded question, and one of the tough ones that divide the country. I thought he handled it well without seeming like a flip-flopper. Catholoic, but "I cannot legislate my faith into law." Score one for the Constitution and the first amendment, and for the atheists. I also thought that Bush got bitchslapped rather badly when Kerry mentions that under Bush's plan, a girl raped by her father would need her father's permission to get an abortion.

[nonamerasian]

I also thought that Bush got bitchslapped rather badly when Kerry mentions that under Bush's plan, a girl raped by her father would need her father's permission to get an abortion.

I don't remember the rebuttal to that.

[kitty]

Bush's rebuttal was basically a reiteration that no abortion undr any circumstance.

I just think that the majority of Americans don't care about Kerry's nuance. Kerry should've prepped a better answer, I thought, only because his answer spoke to his base but probably didn't sway an undecided voter.

[Yeahman]

I think Bush did surprisingly well.
Also I like this townhall format. These people ask a lot of questions that journalists really aren't interested in but the American people are.

I used to be an "Anyone but Bush" man. After that debate I think I'm an "anyone but Bush and Kerry" man. Not because I think Kerry did poorly. He didn't. I just realized how different my views are from his. The abortion response did it for me. IMO he answered it the best he could. But to hear it straight from the horse's mouth that he's for using my tax dollars for abortion, was a major let down. Forget the fact that his "one foot on each side" position on abortion makes no sense. Apart from all the rhetoric, he is unapologetically and enthusiastically for abortion. I once believed that whose in swing states have a moral obligation to vote for Kerry. After last night's debate I now believe that people have a moral obligation not to vote for Bush or Kerry.

[ellsworth81]

so wait, that did question didn't just ask if he was for abortion, but rather, whether he would use tax dollars to enforce his (partial) support of abortion. i can't say i agree with that entirely (i'm anti-govt spending in general)

did he seem enthusiastically thumbs up for it? i didn't get that impression ... seemed more moderate.

I think Bush did surprisingly well.
Also I like this townhall format. These people ask a lot of questions that journalists really aren't interested in but the American people are.

I used to be an "Anyone but Bush" man. After that debate I think I'm an "anyone but Bush and Kerry" man. Not because I think Kerry did poorly. He didn't. I just realized how different my views are from his. The abortion response did it for me. IMO he answered it the best he could. But to hear it straight from the horse's mouth that he's for using my tax dollars for abortion, was a major let down. Forget the fact that his "one foot on each side" position on abortion makes no sense. Apart from all the rhetoric, he is unapologetically and enthusiastically for abortion. I once believed that whose in swing states have a moral obligation to vote for Kerry. After last night's debate I now believe that people have a moral obligation not to vote for Bush or Kerry.

[Yeahman]

did he seem enthusiastically thumbs up for it? i didn't get that impression ... seemed more moderate.
If you just cut all the BS pandering out of his position, there's nothing there to suggest that he's anything but pro-abortion.
Notice that he never said that he's opposed to abortion. He said that he's Catholic and that he doesn't believe matters of faith should be legislated. Now if he was pro-life that statement would make no sense whatsoever. There is not a shred of pro-life in him.
A major disappointment. It almost made me what to vote for Bush.

[bluemonq]

Now if he was pro-life that statement would make no sense whatsoever.
welllll, to be nit-picky, he could be pro-life, just not pro-force my views on others. and as for how tax dollars could be used for abortions, think medicare, and poor people who want and abortion. sigh. thhtg had it right when adams wrote that the only person you could trust to lead [the country] is someone who didn't particularly want the job. i mean, just look at all the lies...

btw, im pretty pissed about the entire group who calls themselves PRO-LIFE since they are usually FOR the DEATH PENALTY. they're really PRO-BIRTH. some consistency, puh-leaze!!!

[kitty]

he didn't say he was for or against tax dollars being used for abortion. he simply couldn't make a pledge that it wouldn't happen. pledges are bad bad ideas.

[bluemonq]

he didn't say he was for or against tax dollars being used for abortion. he simply couldn't make a pledge that it wouldn't happen. pledges are bad bad ideas.
i know, i was trying to answer someone who earlier was wondering how it would happen, and why it should happen if it did... frankly, a lot of pro-birth people are also anti-welfare assistance, which is sorta puzzling.

[Yeahman]

welllll, to be nit-picky, he could be pro-life, just not pro-force my views on others. and as for how tax dollars could be used for abortions, think medicare, and poor people who want and abortion. sigh. thhtg had it right when adams wrote that the only person you could trust to lead [the country] is someone who didn't particularly want the job. i mean, just look at all the lies...

btw, im pretty pissed about the entire group who calls themselves PRO-LIFE since they are usually FOR the DEATH PENALTY. they're really PRO-BIRTH. some consistency, puh-leaze!!!
Well there is a difference between killing the innocent and killing the guilty. But I am pro-life in its fullest sense. I oppose abortion and the death penalty as do most Catholics.

And you can't be pro-life and for abortion. That's like saying you're opposed to the death penalty but don't think it's right to legislate it.

he didn't say he was for or against tax dollars being used for abortion. he simply couldn't make a pledge that it wouldn't happen. pledges are bad bad ideas.
From the debate:
"you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise."

Did I miss the part of the Constitution about the right to affordable abortions?

[onnihs]

I think this debate was arguably good for both candidates. Bush has redeemed himself a little from the first debate, but still falls short for me... i think mostly because of our ideological differences, which include the fact that he allows faith to dictate his policies. This is a big no no in my eyes.

Kerry appeared to be more passionate than the previous debate IMO, and gave good retorts regarding abortion and stem cell research rather well. They really hit home with me. He has, in this debate, offered a better America than Bush.

[Bhodi_Li]

he didn't say he was for or against tax dollars being used for abortion. he simply couldn't make a pledge that it wouldn't happen. pledges are bad bad ideas.But didn't Kerry pledge that there would be no tax increases under his administration for the middle class?

[Yeahman]

Everyone knows that pledges don't count unless phrased in the format, "Read my lips..."

[TB4000]

I think this debate was the one that would give any undecideds more reason to get out there and make a decision, especially with the issues that were brought up and how Kerry and Bush responded, respectively.

[Jeff Yu :)]

If you just cut all the BS pandering out of his position, there's nothing there to suggest that he's anything but pro-abortion.
Notice that he never said that he's opposed to abortion. He said that he's Catholic and that he doesn't believe matters of faith should be legislated. Now if he was pro-life that statement would make no sense whatsoever. There is not a shred of pro-life in him.
A major disappointment. It almost made me what to vote for Bush.

What exactly do you want him to say, then? "Fuck all your beliefs, I'm pro-choice and fuckall what you people think about that." Pro-choice is his position, and he handled this loaded question flawlessly by stating his position while avoiding having to insult certain religions and he clearly states the fact that he can't force his own religion down the throats of Americans of other faiths. That you are dislike his position doesn't mean that he didn't handle the question extremely well.

Look at how someone asked Bush questions about mistakes, and he completely ignored the question and went back to stumping his Iraq = terrorists, 9/11, WMDs, rahrahrah speech. Kerry, when faced with a loaded question, tackeled it head on and addressed it directly. In presentation, I have to say that Kerry looked far more presidential, calm, and articulate, while Bush threw a hissy fit with the moderator and kept looking like he wanted to punch Kerry.

[Yeahman]

What exactly do you want him to say, then? "Fuck all your beliefs, I'm pro-choice and fuckall what you people think about that." Pro-choice is his position, and he handled this loaded question flawlessly by stating his position while avoiding having to insult certain religions and he clearly states the fact that he can't force his own religion down the throats of Americans of other faiths. That you are dislike his position doesn't mean that he didn't handle the question extremely well.
Like I said before, he handled the question as best as he could as a pro-choicer. I am not saying that he debated poorly. I said just the opposite. I am disappointed at his position.

[Kuchana]

I think Bush did surprisingly well.
Also I like this townhall format. These people ask a lot of questions that journalists really aren't interested in but the American people are.

I used to be an "Anyone but Bush" man. After that debate I think I'm an "anyone but Bush and Kerry" man. Not because I think Kerry did poorly. He didn't. I just realized how different my views are from his. The abortion response did it for me. IMO he answered it the best he could. But to hear it straight from the horse's mouth that he's for using my tax dollars for abortion, was a major let down. Forget the fact that his "one foot on each side" position on abortion makes no sense. Apart from all the rhetoric, he is unapologetically and enthusiastically for abortion. I once believed that whose in swing states have a moral obligation to vote for Kerry. After last night's debate I now believe that people have a moral obligation not to vote for Bush or Kerry.

Me, too. I wish the last debat was in this same format. I think it's much more effective.

Hearing Kerry's stance on abortion reinforced my beliefs against abortion. No matter how he tries to skirt the issue, the fact stands he's not pro-choice no matter how much he wants you to think he is, especially when he would use government money to fund it? How sick is that?

[Shuriken]

Mr. President, recognizing Saddam Hussein as a threat is not the same thing as supporting the way that you rushed to war. You can support one idea but not the other, and that isn't a contradiction. I wish that you would stop saying that criticizing the way you went to war is a reversal of believing Hussein was a threat. But I know that you won't.

Worst of all, I'm worried about those who believe your illogic.

Apart from all the rhetoric, he is unapologetically and enthusiastically for abortion.

Being pro-choice myself, I cannot describe anyone I know in my camp as being "enthusiastically for abortion." We do not advocate abortion. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. And if you're contemplating having one, but there's the slightest doubt in your mind about whether you should, for whatever reason, I would advise against it.

We just think that a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy ought to remain an option.

The anti-abortion movement (as opposed to those who are genuinely "pro-life") have created this caricature of a woman who gets an abortion as one who arbitrarily has one the day before she's due. I don't think that such a person exists.

Someone in my extended family had a late-term dialation-and-extraction abortion (what critics like to call "partial-birth abortion") a few years ago. The fetus was terribly deformed late in its gestation. Its brain was developing outside its skull. Doctors believed that the fetus, if brought to term, wouldn't live past one year. If this family member gave birth, it would have been an enormous financial and emotional drain on her and her husband. Because it was late in her pregnancy, her doctors believed that a D&X was the best, safest procedure for her. She had the abortion, and a couple years later, she and her husband had a healthy baby girl. (If she had been forced to give birth to the deformed fetus, she and her husband probably could not have afforded this second child.) But because her life wasn't immediately threatened, what the doctors did would have been outlawed by the "partial-birth abortion" ban. If such a law is to be in place, there should be an exception for the woman's health, not just her life.

To what extent federal dollars do or do not fund abortion can be a matter of honest debate.

[Yeahman]

Being pro-choice myself, I cannot describe anyone I know in my camp as being "enthusiastically for abortion." We do not advocate abortion. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. And if you're contemplating having one, but there's the slightest doubt in your mind about whether you should, for whatever reason, I would advise against it.

We just think that a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy ought to remain an option.
OK correction; Kerry is unapologetically and enthusastically for the "right" to an abortion.

The anti-abortion movement (as opposed to those who are genuinely "pro-life") have created this caricature of a woman who gets an abortion as one who arbitrarily has one the day before she's due. I don't think that such a person exists.

Someone in my extended family had a late-term dialation-and-extraction abortion (what critics like to call "partial-birth abortion") a few years ago. The fetus was terribly deformed late in its gestation. Its brain was developing outside its skull. Doctors believed that the fetus, if brought to term, wouldn't live past one year. If this family member gave birth, it would have been an enormous financial and emotional drain on her and her husband. Because it was late in her pregnancy, her doctors believed that a D&X was the best, safest procedure for her. She had the abortion, and a couple years later, she and her husband had a healthy baby girl. (If she had been forced to give birth to the deformed fetus, she and her husband probably could not have afforded this second child.) But because her life wasn't immediately threatened, what the doctors did would have been outlawed by the "partial-birth abortion" ban. If such a law is to be in place, there should be an exception for the woman's health, not just her life.
The pro-abortion movement have created this caricature of a women tho gets an abortion as one who has been raped by her father and about to give birth to a deformed child and lives in the projects.
We know that the vast majority of abortions are done during healthy pregnancies resulting from consentual sex by women who have the means. But whatever the reason, I don't believe you can kill an innocent human being. I just don't buy the "I don't like this one. Let's kill it and try again" arguement. However, in the case you gave, the baby would probably die naturally anyway so if you support euthanasia, it could be possible to support abortion in that case and still be pro-life under the assumption that the child is terminally ill and is suffering physically.

[nonamerasian]

But didn't Kerry pledge that there would be no tax increases under his administration for the middle class?

Yes, he did.

I don't see how that would be feasible.

[younggiftedandblack]

Yes, he did.

I don't see how that would be feasible.

I think he said it wouldn't happen under his admin the 1st year.

[nonamerasian]

I think he said it wouldn't happen under his admin the 1st year.

You're right.

[Deadpool]

BTW Don't buy prescription drugs from us.
It could be fake and dirty.
Yup.
U.S. drugs, not like that 3rd world Canadian crap.

[Faithless]

Bush's rebuttal was basically a reiteration that no abortion undr any circumstance.
"Dred Scott" is a "code word" for the anti-abortion movement.
Lufkin Daily News (http://www.lufkindailynews.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2004/10/10/1097382563.18121.6933.4038.html;COXnetJSessionID=B pTlQoIJVPBuHyvbz6lSUGx85nNG2Xk8gWWs8VV9nH4meXkOZ9Y k!846190786?urac=n&urvf=10974216053270.42814651137927284)
Flournoy in a faxed statement on behalf of Lufkin for Life compared Roe v. Wade to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Dred Scott case in 1857. In that case, a black slave was declared property and denied recognition as a person.
.
Bush's Dred Scott comment in the literal sense (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041010/NEWS03/110100074/-1/news)
...
Bush also was on a slippery factual slope when he referred to the U.S. Constitution and slavery.

Answering a question about the kind of Supreme Court justices he would pick, the president cited an 1857 Supreme Court ruling denying freedom to Dred Scott, a slave in Missouri. He called it an example of judges making decisions on the basis of their personal opinions, and not following the Constitution and laws of the nation.

“Judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights,” said Bush. “That’s a personal opinion; that’s not what the Constitution says.”

However, the Constitution allowed slavery for many years. An amendment abolishing slavery was not ratified until Dec. 18, 1865, after the defeat of the Confederacy in the Civil War, and eight years after the Dred Scott decision.

[kitty]

From the debate:
"you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise."

Did I miss the part of the Constitution about the right to affordable abortions?

Think about it... if you believe the choice for abortion (and please, your posts have been using the word 'pro-abortion', like you're saying Kerry is 'anti-baby'... when the stance is really 'pro-choice') is about maintaining the mother's right to life than of course you would have to consider the problem of allowing abortions but only those rich enough to afford it, when most women who currently need abortions are those too poor to afford it -- college students or young single mothers, or hell even rape victims.

though this should be reserved for an abortion thread, the pro-choice stance says that a mother's rights are being denied by forcing her to have a baby, and while it may be distasteful to consider abortions in cases in which there was consensual unprotected sex, consider instead instances in which safe sex goes wrong, or in instances of rape. Contrary to popular belief, condoms can break, and you CAN get pregnant even when you do everything right -- so are we saying that women who engage in sex and are unlucky enough to get pregnant deserve it?

Kerry is arguing that he is pro-choice, but he didn't say that he would institute a government program to do abortions, but acknowledging that abortions, as it stands, are for the wealthier Americans.

It's a tricky issue. He got roped into discussing the policies of it rather than giving an answer that most Americans will want to hear. I don't think he could've answered it well, though -- he is pro-choice and the republican spin machine always makes it sound like those who are pro-choice are pro-abortion. Yet, it was bad prep work on Kerry's part.

Me, too. I wish the last debat was in this same format. I think it's much more effective.

Hearing Kerry's stance on abortion reinforced my beliefs against abortion. No matter how he tries to skirt the issue, the fact stands he's not pro-choice no matter how much he wants you to think he is, especially when he would use government money to fund it? How sick is that?

he didn't say he would. he stopped short of saying that.

Mr. President, recognizing Saddam Hussein as a threat is not the same thing as supporting the way that you rushed to war. You can support one idea but not the other, and that isn't a contradiction. I wish that you would stop saying that criticizing the way you went to war is a reversal of believing Hussein was a threat. But I know that you won't.

Worst of all, I'm worried about those who believe your illogic.



Being pro-choice myself, I cannot describe anyone I know in my camp as being "enthusiastically for abortion." We do not advocate abortion. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. And if you're contemplating having one, but there's the slightest doubt in your mind about whether you should, for whatever reason, I would advise against it.

We just think that a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy ought to remain an option.

The anti-abortion movement (as opposed to those who are genuinely "pro-life") have created this caricature of a woman who gets an abortion as one who arbitrarily has one the day before she's due. I don't think that such a person exists.

Someone in my extended family had a late-term dialation-and-extraction abortion (what critics like to call "partial-birth abortion") a few years ago. The fetus was terribly deformed late in its gestation. Its brain was developing outside its skull. Doctors believed that the fetus, if brought to term, wouldn't live past one year. If this family member gave birth, it would have been an enormous financial and emotional drain on her and her husband. Because it was late in her pregnancy, her doctors believed that a D&X was the best, safest procedure for her. She had the abortion, and a couple years later, she and her husband had a healthy baby girl. (If she had been forced to give birth to the deformed fetus, she and her husband probably could not have afforded this second child.) But because her life wasn't immediately threatened, what the doctors did would have been outlawed by the "partial-birth abortion" ban. If such a law is to be in place, there should be an exception for the woman's health, not just her life.

To what extent federal dollars do or do not fund abortion can be a matter of honest debate.

that was a definitely good call.

two of my friends have had abortions now. both of them were careful, had protected sex, the condom never broke, and were students at cornell (not exactly easy financial stuff). we dont' know how they got pregnant but they did -- they were not irresponsible girls... the dice just rolled badly for them.

what's awful is how people characterize these women: as unfeeling sluts who hate babies. both these women weighed their choices heavily but felt they couldn't offer any good care for these babies. the abortion supremely affected their lives... for better or for worse, they actually took the responsibility very seriously.

oh and when thinking about abortion, it's not just about the rights of the mother, but what kind of life can be offered to the child.

OK correction; Kerry is unapologetically and enthusastically for the "right" to an abortion.


The pro-abortion movement have created this caricature of a women tho gets an abortion as one who has been raped by her father and about to give birth to a deformed child and lives in the projects.
We know that the vast majority of abortions are done during healthy pregnancies resulting from consentual sex by women who have the means. But whatever the reason, I don't believe you can kill an innocent human being. I just don't buy the "I don't like this one. Let's kill it and try again" arguement. However, in the case you gave, the baby would probably die naturally anyway so if you support euthanasia, it could be possible to support abortion in that case and still be pro-life under the assumption that the child is terminally ill and is suffering physically.

are you pro-military? pro-capital punishment?

[Bhodi_Li]

Watching these debates I've come to these few conclussions:

1) I don't trust either one
2) Bush is more passionate and prone to tunnel-vision errors, but stands behind his convictions. And I guess he is the environmentally-friendly candidate <sarc>. Does an excellent job speaking for the rich, but not as well for the middle class. PLUS he owns a lumber company.
3) Kerry is more sly and prone to change his direction based on public opinion, will speak out of both sides of his mouth. More analytical, but not necessarily more decisive.

So which one do I want leading the country in a time of war? I'd have to say I lean towards the current administration. Many of the "changes" that Kerry stated for the war are already in place and being refined as we speak.

[Yeahman]

Think about it... if you believe the choice for abortion (and please, your posts have been using the word 'pro-abortion', like you're saying Kerry is 'anti-baby'... when the stance is really 'pro-choice') is about maintaining the mother's right to life than of course you would have to consider the problem of allowing abortions but only those rich enough to afford it, when most women who currently need abortions are those too poor to afford it -- college students or young single mothers, or hell even rape victims.
From the POV of a pro-lifer, pro-choice = anti-baby.

though this should be reserved for an abortion thread, the pro-choice stance says that a mother's rights are being denied by forcing her to have a baby, and while it may be distasteful to consider abortions in cases in which there was consensual unprotected sex, consider instead instances in which safe sex goes wrong, or in instances of rape. Contrary to popular belief, condoms can break, and you CAN get pregnant even when you do everything right -- so are we saying that women who engage in sex and are unlucky enough to get pregnant deserve it?
Absolutely.
Who is forcing her to have a baby? The baby? Certainly not the government. So the mother's rights are being violated by the baby? That makes no sense from both the pro-abortion and pro-life POV.

Kerry is arguing that he is pro-choice, but he didn't say that he would institute a government program to do abortions, but acknowledging that abortions, as it stands, are for the wealthier Americans.
And so are BMW's. Should we subsidize them too?

are you pro-military? pro-capital punishment?
Pro-military. Anti-capital-punishment. Why do you ask?

[Shuriken]

The pro-abortion movement have created this caricature of a women th[at] gets an abortion as one who has been raped by her father and about to give birth to a deformed child and lives in the projects.

The most vocal opponents (not all opponents) of abortion seem to want to abolish abortion in all cases, even rape and incest, perhaps excepting when the pregnancy endangers a woman's life. But if the pro-choice movement seems to emphasize worst-case scenarios, it's largely because many in the anti-abortion movement don't acknowledge them. If the so-called "partial-birth" abortion ban could not take predicaments like my family member's into account, then the law was inherently flawed.


We know that the vast majority of abortions are done during healthy pregnancies resulting from consentual sex by women who have the means.

The vast majority of abortions are also performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, and some of them are performed when good-faith efforts at contraception fail. The anti-abortion movement emphasizes late-term abortions by women of means because those are the easiest to demonize.

If a woman accidentally becomes pregnant but decides to keep the child, I would support that decision. But I would hate to see a woman forced to carry the emotional, financial, and physical weight of carrying a pregnancy to term — giving birth is no small thing — because of a moment's indiscretion or because birth control didn't work out. If the government says that she must have the child, regardless of its impact upon her, that to me sounds like a kind of punishment.


But whatever the reason, I don't believe you can kill an innocent human being. I just don't buy the "I don't like this one. Let's kill it and try again" arguement.

And I respect that belief. To the extent that they remind us that the decision whether or not to have an abortion is not an idle one, opponents of abortion have my appreciation. To the extent that they want to force their beliefs — many of them religiously based — dogmatically upon me, they have my distrust.

But I think that it's unfair of you to characterize my family member's situation as "I don't like this one." It glosses over the emotional anguish that she went through. I may be wrong here, but to me, and with all due respect, you seem to have unwaivering convictions that haven't been tested by experience. (I have occasionally been guilty of the same thing myself.) Experience sometimes affirms those beliefs, as it sometimes qualifies them.

I acknowledge that abortion rights may need to be limited at times. But I would be more open to government restrictions on abortion if I didn't see each new measure as an effort to undermine the entire concept of a woman's right to choose. The anti-abortion movement has made no secret of the fact that overturning Roe vs. Wade is its long-term goal. So, it is difficult for me not to see each new piece of abortion-limiting legislation as a part of that objective.

Anyway, this long post is just for me to clarify my own thinking on the subject. I don't expect anyone to be swayed by what I have written.

[kitty]

From the POV of a pro-lifer, pro-choice = anti-baby.


Spin machine hard at work. Pro-choice is not anti-baby... many pro-choice people would never have an abortion themselves -- they simply believe that the government should not take away that choice. Funny how nuance is lost on some right-wingers.


Absolutely.
Who is forcing her to have a baby? The baby? Certainly not the government. So the mother's rights are being violated by the baby? That makes no sense from both the pro-abortion and pro-life POV.


Actually, the government is forcing the mother to have the baby if they are not allowing for any alternative due to 'moral concerns' of a few in power.


And so are BMW's. Should we subsidize them too?


Alternative forms of transportation is subsidized by the government.


Pro-military. Anti-capital-punishment. Why do you ask?

Military action is also the killing of the innocent by the government. As is, on occasion, capital punishment. Why are you okay with killing some innocents but not others?

[nola]

What are the poll numbers like now after the second debate?

[hooligan]

What are the poll numbers like now after the second debate?i don't trust the polls, but bush is leading or it's tied. still. wtf.

[Faithless]

Transcript anyone?

[Mr.Lum]

From the POV of a pro-lifer, pro-choice = anti-baby.


Wow pro-lifers sound like morons.

[ChinaLama]

Wow pro-lifers sound like morons.

I didn't realize being for the protection of the unborn and recognizing their humanity was "moronic." Thanks for the education.

[Mr.Lum]

I didn't realize being for the protection of the unborn and recognizing their humanity was "moronic." Thanks for the education.

Yellow's explaination sounded moronic.

[Yeahman]

If a woman accidentally becomes pregnant but decides to keep the child, I would support that decision.
I certainly hope so. This society has become so permissive of abortion that the situation you just described is actually expected to end in abortion. Going through childbirth is now an oddity that takes courage to support.

But I think that it's unfair of you to characterize my family member's situation as "I don't like this one." It glosses over the emotional anguish that she went through. I may be wrong here, but to me, and with all due respect, you seem to have unwaivering convictions that haven't been tested by experience. (I have occasionally been guilty of the same thing myself.) Experience sometimes affirms those beliefs, as it sometimes qualifies them.
Of course. Though I am anti-death penality, if my daughter was raped it'd be hard to resist my desire to exact revenge. But at the same time I know it would be wrong. When you're in that situation sometimes you bend your morals to make yourself feel better.

I acknowledge that abortion rights may need to be limited at times. But I would be more open to government restrictions on abortion if I didn't see each new measure as an effort to undermine the entire concept of a woman's right to choose. The anti-abortion movement has made no secret of the fact that overturning Roe vs. Wade is its long-term goal. So, it is difficult for me not to see each new piece of abortion-limiting legislation as a part of that objective.
And you don't have to. The overturning of Roe v. Wade is a worthy and noble goal. Women do not have the right to choose to kill innocent babies.

Spin machine hard at work. Pro-choice is not anti-baby... many pro-choice people would never have an abortion themselves -- they simply believe that the government should not take away that choice. Funny how nuance is lost on some right-wingers.
Honestly, I hear the "pro-lifers are against women" arguement a lot more despite the fact that most women are pro-life. Funny how hypocritical some left-wingers are.

Actually, the government is forcing the mother to have the baby if they are not allowing for any alternative due to 'moral concerns' of a few in power.
The government also forces mothers to take care of their children. Child endangerment is a crime. It should be the moral concern of all Americans. Unfortunately a few in Washington oppose the moral concerns of the many. The you speak of "few in power" are the majority of Americans. It's typical left-wing spin made to make people think that abortion is only opposed by grumpy old white politicians and that the pro-choice movement is a movement of the people.

Alternative forms of transportation is subsidized by the government.
That's unequal treatment. The government should provide all Americans with a BMW. Why should only the wealth be able to drive them?

Military action is also the killing of the innocent by the government. As is, on occasion, capital punishment. Why are you okay with killing some innocents but not others?
I said that I'm opposed to capital punishment.
I'm not OK with killing ANYONE, innocent or not. In the case of military action, it should only be used to save lives which is a major reason why I opposed the war in Iraq.
I am not pro-life because I'm a "right-winger" as you would like to think. I am pro-life because I have a great respect for life.

[Faithless]

More news sources are speaking to Bush's weird "Dred Scott" reference.

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25311-2004Oct11.html)
...
Listeners were puzzled when President Bush, in Friday's debate, said he would not appoint a Supreme Court justice who supported the 1857 Dred Scott decision justifying slavery. Nobody was expecting Bush might appoint a pro-slavery judge, so the remark seemed to be another case of quirky Bush speak, as when he referred to urban brownfields as "sore spots."

But, in fact, the Dred Scott reference was something of a coded message to abortion opponents, who have long likened the injustice of the case to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision on abortion. The National Right to Life Committee has said the reasoning in the two cases is "nearly identical" and that "unborn children are now the same 'beings of an inferior order' that the justices considered blacks to be over a century ago." The Christian Medical Association has urged Bush "to emulate President Abraham Lincoln's opposition to the Dred Scott rationale."
...

[ChinaLama]

Yellow's explaination sounded moronic.


But that's not what you said. You said pro-lifers sounded moronic. In fact, that's not a moronic explanation at all. To a pro-life person, there isn't a gigantic difference between the moment after birth and the moment before birth, or between "viability" and non-"viability." To a pro-lifer, a fetus is a valuable human being, just as a born baby is. So being for the "choice" to kill a fetus is almost as bad as being for the "choice" to kill a baby.

[kitty]

Honestly, I hear the "pro-lifers are against women" arguement a lot more despite the fact that most women are pro-life. Funny how hypocritical some left-wingers are.


And honestly, I hear the pro-choice people want to kill your baby argument more frequently. It's like people can't distinguish between letting a woman decide for herself and what you would consider a worse opinion -- pro-choice people are basically saying it's the woman's right to decide for herself what her morality is ... whether she agrees a "baby" begins pre-birth or post-birth, it is NOT for the government to legislate.


The government also forces mothers to take care of their children. Child endangerment is a crime. It should be the moral concern of all Americans. Unfortunately a few in Washington oppose the moral concerns of the many. The you speak of "few in power" are the majority of Americans. It's typical left-wing spin made to make people think that abortion is only opposed by grumpy old white politicians and that the pro-choice movement is a movement of the people.


Actually, the government also provides alternatives for those who cannot care for their children -- they provide welfare to assist single mothers, allow mothers to give up custody to family members, fathers, or place children into the foster care system. Child endangerment IS a crime, but you are given a choice to prevent yourself from being in that situation...

Similarly, abortion provides an option out of a situation that would prove negative for all parties concerned. If the baby is going to be given a poor lifestyle, will be disabled, or might kill the mother, the option becomes necessary to consider.

oh, and btw, I never said that abortion is only opposed by grumpy old white politicians -- my statement was that one way or another, the people must be given options, not limited to what one side thinks. Pro-choice, again, does not cut off the pro-life argument. If you are pro-life, be pro-life -- pro-choicers think YOU have the right to decide, not the government. What pro-lifers want to do is take THEIR morality and force everyone else to abide by their definition, rather than allowing for a diversity of thought and opinion... incidentally, a principle that america was founded upon in the first place.


That's unequal treatment. The government should provide all Americans with a BMW. Why should only the wealth be able to drive them?


Wow, could this analogy get any more inane and immature?

I never said that there should be no differences between quality of basic needs between wealthy and non-wealthy -- that would be socialism. I said that the government should have the responsibility to provide the same basic opportunities for all. The wealthy can afford BMWs -- which fulfills the basic necessity of transportation... it would be one thing if, in a city where transportation is needed to get from home to work and vice versa, one could argue that the poor, no public transportation is provided and the poor are being denied adequate access to good jobs. But with public transportation, the poor have an alternative -- similarly, with abortion, the poor should be given the option to not have a baby or have a baby... but I'm sure the wealthy will be able to pay the top doctors to get their abortions done...


I said that I'm opposed to capital punishment.
I'm not OK with killing ANYONE, innocent or not. In the case of military action, it should only be used to save lives which is a major reason why I opposed the war in Iraq.
I am not pro-life because I'm a "right-winger" as you would like to think. I am pro-life because I have a great respect for life.

Except that pro-choice advocates include arguing for situations in which the abortion would save the woman's life.

With your great respect for life, is the mother's life not just as sacrosanct?

[Yeahman]

And honestly, I hear the pro-choice people want to kill your baby argument more frequently. It's like people can't distinguish between letting a woman decide for herself and what you would consider a worse opinion -- pro-choice people are basically saying it's the woman's right to decide for herself what her morality is ... whether she agrees a "baby" begins pre-birth or post-birth, it is NOT for the government to legislate.
The government has a duty to legislate it. The woman does not have the right to decide that murder is moral. Well she can but the government also has the right to say "no, murder is wrong."

Actually, the government also provides alternatives for those who cannot care for their children -- they provide welfare to assist single mothers, allow mothers to give up custody to family members, fathers, or place children into the foster care system. Child endangerment IS a crime, but you are given a choice to prevent yourself from being in that situation...

Similarly, abortion provides an option out of a situation that would prove negative for all parties concerned. If the baby is going to be given a poor lifestyle, will be disabled, or might kill the mother, the option becomes necessary to consider.

oh, and btw, I never said that abortion is only opposed by grumpy old white politicians -- my statement was that one way or another, the people must be given options, not limited to what one side thinks. Pro-choice, again, does not cut off the pro-life argument. If you are pro-life, be pro-life -- pro-choicers think YOU have the right to decide, not the government. What pro-lifers want to do is take THEIR morality and force everyone else to abide by their definition, rather than allowing for a diversity of thought and opinion... incidentally, a principle that america was founded upon in the first place.
On a wide variety of moral issues, you can have your own opinion and I would not fight to legislate mine. But abortion is different. We're talking about human lives here. You do not have the right to take another human's life regardless of what you think.

Wow, could this analogy get any more inane and immature?

I never said that there should be no differences between quality of basic needs between wealthy and non-wealthy -- that would be socialism. I said that the government should have the responsibility to provide the same basic opportunities for all. The wealthy can afford BMWs -- which fulfills the basic necessity of transportation... it would be one thing if, in a city where transportation is needed to get from home to work and vice versa, one could argue that the poor, no public transportation is provided and the poor are being denied adequate access to good jobs. But with public transportation, the poor have an alternative -- similarly, with abortion, the poor should be given the option to not have a baby or have a baby... but I'm sure the wealthy will be able to pay the top doctors to get their abortions done...
Says who? You? Why do you want to force your beliefs onto me?

Except that pro-choice advocates include arguing for situations in which the abortion would save the woman's life.

With your great respect for life, is the mother's life not just as sacrosanct?
Yes which is why pro-lifers always believe that the death of a baby is permissible if it was in the process of saving the mother's life. Pro-choicers always bring this arguement up when it's not an arguement at all. We agree!

[Faithless]

More is coming out on the "activist judges" issue.

The Myth of Activist Judges (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-oe-lithwick12oct12,1,4426772.story)

By Dahlia Lithwick, Dahlia Lithwick covers courts for Slate.com.

Flogging the courts to score political points wounds democracy.

Among all the soaring weirdness on display during the presidential and vice presidential debates, most of us completely missed the fact that neither the president nor his vice president has a clue as to how courts really work. That's because at this moment in history, you needn't really understand courts to despise them.

First we witnessed Dick Cheney, intoning squintily: "In Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of — the Legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage." On Friday we heard the president — evidently in the throes of some history-induced seizure — respond to a question about potential Supreme Court nominees: "Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says."

Cheney and Bush brazenly mischaracterized the actions of those courts. Cheney was trying to disparage an "activist" Massachusetts Supreme Court in last year's Goodrich vs. Department of Public Health. But that court was simply interpreting the state's constitution to find that when it said treating whole classes of citizens as second class was impermissible, it meant it. No one ordered that the state constitution be modified.

Agree or disagree with the result, but the court's act — of interpreting state law — wasn't unfettered "activism." Similarly, Bush's argument that the justices who decided the 1857 case of Dred Scott vs. Sanford were "activists" because they privileged their "opinions" over the U.S. Constitution was incorrect. Chief Justice Roger Taney read the spots off that Constitution to find "that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people." Dred Scott was not free, the majority ruled, because the Constitution did not consider him free. That was, as a matter of constitutional formalism, accurate. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, wouldn't be ratified for eight years.

Bush and Cheney torture legal history to suggest that "activist judges" means only "judges we disagree with." They get away with this largely because we have swallowed the myth of activist judges without ever tasting or chewing. The words have become so loaded — so fraught with non-meaning — that no one even stops to question them.

Lest you think judge-bashing is all just rhetorical, here's an image to accompany the words: Last week the Republican-led House of Representatives voted to split the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — the federal appellate court whose reach stretches from the western U.S. to Alaska to Hawaii to Guam. The plan — introduced as a last-minute amendment to a larger bill — would split that court into three, with Hawaii and California isolated into some kind of Liberal Leper Circuit. The benign explanation for this emergency dissection is the court's vast size. But that claim has been around since the 1940s. The real reason for the renewed need to hack up the court is upcoming elections, demagoguery and the increasingly bold attacks by politicians on "activist courts."

Courts are, if you stop to consider, the perfect scapegoat. The criticism is diffuse; they cherish their dignity; and they are structurally incapable of responding to attacks.

The 9th Circuit is a demagogue's dream. Last year a three-judge panel attempted to halt the California recall election. The year before, the court found the presence of the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. The court's reversal rate in the U.S. Supreme Court was long a national punch line — although that number has leveled off in recent years.

Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) voted for the split because, as he said in decrying the court's decision to invalidate the Pledge, "These contemptuous judgments tear at the moral fabric of our nation, disregard the will of the people and force a corrupt ideology upon our society." Renzi, like Bush and Cheney, is willing to poison the long-term legitimacy of the judiciary for a short-term payoff on the stump.

Because the circuit-division proposal cannot pass in the Senate, the net effect of this last-minute grandstanding will be to kill a larger bill that would have added 58 desperately needed new judgeships across the nation. The solution to the problem of an overburdened, thinly stretched judiciary, then, is to ensure it's short-handed.

There are some reasonable arguments for splitting the 9th Circuit: It covers nine states and 57 million people. It handles nearly double the average number of appeals heard by the other appellate courts. Yet most of its judges think it works fine, and there's little evidence that it's doing a worse job than the other circuits.

The real reason to leave the 9th Circuit alone is that chipping away at its credibility and independence, with a thousand cheap political shots, is doing violence to the notion of an independent judiciary.

Running a political campaign on the promise of neutralizing "activist judges" is the worst form of cynicism. The real danger to our democracy isn't from out-of-control activist judges. It's from out-of-control hyper-activist legislatures.

[Mr.Lum]

But that's not what you said. You said pro-lifers sounded moronic. In fact, that's not a moronic explanation at all. To a pro-life person, there isn't a gigantic difference between the moment after birth and the moment before birth, or between "viability" and non-"viability." To a pro-lifer, a fetus is a valuable human being, just as a born baby is. So being for the "choice" to kill a fetus is almost as bad as being for the "choice" to kill a baby.

He said "to prolifers" as if he were giving the prolife position. And from that I said that prolifers sound like morons. prochoice=antibaby is foolishness. Someone may be for the choice to abort a baby that was given to a little girl by her brother or dad but that doesn't mean they're against having babies.

[kitty]

The government has a duty to legislate it. The woman does not have the right to decide that murder is moral. Well she can but the government also has the right to say "no, murder is wrong."




We agree that murder is wrong. We disagree that a foetus constitutes human life that falls under your laws. There you go pushing your beliefs onto me. I push nothing onto you, save that everyone should have a choice.

Could we also agree to move this to the other thread? this is confusing...

Says who? You? Why do you want to force your beliefs onto me?


Hey, you think to make things more equal, everyone should get BMWs, be my guest. Fundamentally, I ain't forcing you to NOT have a BMW. This analogy is still childish, dumb, and frankly, beneath you.

More is coming out on the "activist judges" issue.

The Myth of Activist Judges (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-oe-lithwick12oct12,1,4426772.story)

good article. it's totally true... to this administration... an activist judge is 'any judge we disagree with'

[ChinaLama]

It's a little disingenuous for anyone to say they're not pushing any of their beliefs on others. Most of us are against racism. A lot of us are for affirmative action. Are we seriously going to refrain pushing those beliefs and policies on others? If you have a friend who constantly calls you a chink or a gook or a nip, would you push your anti-racist beliefs on him and tell him to stfu or would you "keep an open mind" and just let it slide?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

It's a little disingenuous for anyone to say they're not pushing any of their beliefs on others. Most of us are against racism. A lot of us are for affirmative action. Are we seriously going to refrain pushing those beliefs and policies on others? If you have a friend who constantly calls you a chink or a gook or a nip, would you push your anti-racist beliefs on him and tell him to stfu or would you "keep an open mind" and just let it slide?

Exactly. Which is why this "don't push your beliefs onto me" argument is flawed.

[ChinaLama]

not to mention: the law IS basically pushing a set of beliefs on all of us. For instance, some of us may think it's moral to revenge kill murderers. But our law imposes a different kind of morality-- that any killing, except defensive, is wrong. Not "inefficient," which by the way would still be moral since it values efficiency over say equity, but WRONG.