1
   

FDA's Reproductive Health and the religious right

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2003 10:16 am
Tres

There is really no question that the right dished it out to Clinton with a zest and fullness unmatched in US political history. Had that not been the case, you and NH could argue that Bush should be treated differently, but it wasn't, and you can't. He gets no pass.

But he shouldn't get one anyway. No elected official should. The citizen's job to speak his/her mind and work towards policies they think ought to be in place. If they think a politician has an agenda which he is not being forthright concerning, then it's fine to argue against such.
0 Replies
 
New Haven
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2003 10:19 am
I would advise a search of the International Legal literature on the role of China in controling the reproductive rights ( relative to gender of newborn) of women.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2003 10:20 am
I know that China has a shadey record. Why don't you provide the burden of proof, NH.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2003 10:54 am
Blatham - Very Happy Howdy, neighbor! Good to hear from you. Very Happy

I think you're reading something into what I wrote, though I'm sure it was not intentional. I don't recall asking anyone to give Bush a pass. I believe I was commenting on those who wished, and continue to wish, to give Clinton one. I personally don't waste my time bashing either of them. I like to stick to more useful exchanges.

The problem I think we run into here from time to time is that you think I'm sticking up for someone, when I'm really trying to stick up for something: the truth, logic, reasonableness. (All of course only as I see them.)

So in this case, I do think it completely appropriate to discuss Bush's or Clinton's records and positions on abortion, I don't think it's right or even useful to talk about Clinton's zipper or whether Bush looks like a chimp. I don't think Clinton is off-limits because he's no longer president, nor do I think Bush is off-limits by virtue of still holding the office.

I guess it really comes down to why you're here. When I see people call Bush or Clinton or anyone names, I come to the conclusion that they aren't really interested in discussing anything; I assume they just came here hoping to show other people with whom they agree how clever they are. (And that's not a slap at any one person or group. My dislike for such antics is decidedly non-partisan.)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2003 10:57 am
Tres

Then, we are in agreement.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2003 11:18 pm
Crikey......

Bringing this back to the top of the list to see if I can get anymore discussion. Can we try not to bash either Bush or Clinton?
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 06:52 pm
So, has eveyone who wants to acted on this stuff yet?
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 10:33 pm
Checking in. Too angry and depressed to post anything intelligent.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 10:58 pm
the current administrations policy regrading womens reproductive rights amount to legalized rape by the state.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2003 06:57 am
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/opinion/18KRIS.html
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2003 11:52 am
Diane wrote:
Checking in. Too angry and depressed to post anything intelligent.

Well, at least you recognize it. :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 03:21:08