Frank Apisa wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Foxfyre's contention that this issue should be handled by the states or local communities is so wrong-headed, it makes some of George Bush's decisions look good by comparison.
But I am sure Foxfyre would be arguing that same way on the slavery issue if it were still before us.
And why is that Frank?
It's quite easy (as you should well know) to post a glib response that contains some semblance of a barb, but not much more, but perhaps you can provide us with the deeper thoughts of Frank Apisa.
If allowing States to decide abortion issue is "so wrong-headed..." it should be fairly easy for you to explain to the rest of us why this is so.
There is a highly respected school of thought that argues that decisions that affect the polity should be made as locally as possible. That you disagree with this is not a problem, but your scornful dismissal of it is.
The issue of slavery in this debate is a well worn canard. By such a standard, all decisions must be made by the Federal Government, but wait...there was a period of time when all branches of the Federal Government accepted the institution of slavery. So we can't trust the States and we can't trust the Feds...who can we trust?
The UN?
The issue of slavery may be a well worn canard by your standards, Finn...but the resemblance between the morons who suggested states should decide whether slavery was okay...and the morons who suggest that states should decide if a woman can have full control of her body...should be obvious to anyone...even one of the morons.
Some questions are too important to be left to township councils...or to states. Some have to be handled on a national level.
The question of whether a woman should have control over her own body is too important to be handled the way you poor folks want it to be handled.
I doubt you will be able to understand that...but if you try to pry your mind open, it might become possible in the future.
A typically vacuous and pathetic response Frank:
"What I say is obviously correct and only a moron would question it! I'm not going to support my rant with rationale because I doubt you would understand."
It reminds me of much earlier days when a kid, who was scared to death of fighting an opponent, walked away with the (attempted) sneering comment: "I'd fight you, but I'd probably kill you."
Why do you presume that there is greater wisdom at the national level than the state or local level?
What questions are fit for the local dunces to decide?
You have completely ignored my argument that the federal dunces have repeatedly made decisions with which you would disagree, and insist that they are somehow the sages of the country.
What you and your confreres actually mean is that you want to have important issues decided by a tiny, elite band of Judges who agree with you.
Should the Supreme Court veer to the Right with the addition of Alito, oh how you will squeal about the power of five men to decide the fate of the country, just as many of you did when the SC's decision meant Bush beat Gore in 2000.
If you are unable to articulate your position beyond a broad slogan, and insist on supporting it only with vitriol, so be it.
