steissd
Try a little harder to engage your grey matter.
To Blatham:
Sir/Madam,
personal attacks disabled the Abuzz, and I will not respond in the manner you attacked me.
By all means, your approach implies that everyone that does not share your stance, does not use his/her gray matter, and this is, at least, ridiculous.
steissd, your previous post is likely to have raised a lot of hackles. It is possible that you do not realize that a number of people may have taken it personally. I know that i was shocked by how lightly you seem to think people who choose abortion come to that decision. It is very simplistic to suggest that abortion is somehow related to fun.
steissd wrote:Abortion has nothing to do with fun, it may be quite a painful procedure if not being properly anesthetized. Circumstances that may lead to abortion often refer to sex without responsibility. ...
In most cases, especially among teenagers, partners just do not use contraceptives; ...
Sometimes - I'm really glad about this! - you are so ignorant and your responses show such flatness that they can't be taken serious.
steissd wrote:Pro-choice position advocates freedom of fun.
steissd - once i read this part of your previous post, you lost me, in terms of being to take any further comment from you on this subject seriously.
I agree, ehBeth.
I was gonna suggest that this part be split off, but aw, what the heck. Freewheeling is good. It may come back to what I had in mind, but since what I had in mind is so abstract, some tangents on the way are really to be expected.
blatham wrote:Unless I read her anxiety incorrectly, sozobe is growing concerned that the Bush administration may bring about a number of profound and pervasive changes in laws and policies with insufficient openness and opportunities for debate, and will do this over the wishes (if more folks knew, they wouldn't be happy) of too many citizens, and that they will do this not with some huge mandate but simply because they know better than the population what is right and good. At least, that is how she'd word it if she and I were the same person.
Yes yes yes I missed this before yes. (And a good thing too we're not the same person because then I wouldn't have you around to make my babbling more clear.)
Along the same lines, NYT editorial Thursday, "Steamrolling Judicial Nominees":
Quote:The Bush administration is naturally going to nominate candidates for the bench who are more conservative than some Democrats would like, and the Republican majority in the Senate is going to approve them. That does not mean, however, that the administration should be allowed to act without scrutiny, and pack the courts with new judges who hold views that are out of whack with those of the vast majority of Americans. We fear that that is what the hasty hearing process is trying to hide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/06THU2.html
Last note before I go...Phoenix has begun a thread related to another element which is likely to have serious consequences for liberty under this administration...note again Prof Cole's statement about how this element is also being flown under the radar and without opportunity for citizen discussion...
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3898
There is a picture emerging - and it is a troubling one.....
Thank you Blatham for that wonderful clarification and topic-getting-back-on-course summary you did a ways up there...
I think it is the problem of so many things happening in so many areas that causes some to have trouble engaging with this topic - point to any one, and it can be argued over endlessly - it sort of needs a step back and a really comprehensive view to see a possible/actual and very disturbing trend emerging.
Precisely. That is why I am trying to avoid arguing each issue, so that the stepping-back can happen.
Just reviewed the last couple of pages here including particularly the somewhat indignant reactions to Stessid's earlier posts concerning abortion.
It is interesting to see the inquisitors of the new liberal secular religion at work. In terms of slavish adherence to the established orthodoxy and intolerance regarding any statement challenging it you are fully the equals of those who preceded you in earlier centuries.
Completely agree with George. I do not advocate attacks on the abortion clinics, neither do I consider that abortions should be completely prohibited. I am against excessive easiness such a procedure can be performed in terms of permission. I think, something must be done to protect fetuses rights to remain alive, and to provide additional options to the sterile families to have kids.
Does this justify personal attacks with accusation in alleged mental retardation?
Of course it does not, steissd. If it were otherwise, intelligent, well educated people would always be in agreement. As a matter of fact, you and I are largely in disagreement on this particular issue.
OK, this proves that we are living people, and living people may have different opinions on different issues.
While I don't think Bush has crossed the line of impudence, arrogance and ignorance, I DO think blatham has...
As far as I know, Mr. Bush has never permitted to himself any insulting verbal attacks on those that do not support his stance.
Hmmm - axis of evil doesn't count?
Axis of evil refers to rogue regimes, and not to political opposition in the USA. As far as I understand, Mr. Bush did not attribute Messrs. Liebermann and Kerry, or Mrs. Clinton to such an axis.
OK, come on folks... This is veering off all over the place and much of it has little to do with the topic at hand.
The ONLY reason I've used the abortion example is because it's a topic everyone is pretty much famaliar with. This ISN'T a debate on abortion! The idea is that abortion is ONE issue where there is discussion of the lines moving so let's see if we can stay with the idea of moving lines itself and NOT focus on whether they should or shouldn't be moving.
