Da Senate

[kallend 2,101]

Da Coach to make a run?

www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5659003

Wonder who he'll spit on in the Senate chamber?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

I'd say he'd probably spit on Kerry... if Kerry were ever there to actually cast a vote.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Jib 0]

Quote

I'd say he'd probably spit on Kerry... if Kerry were ever there to actually cast a vote.

No, he'd do it after Kerry changed his vote when the issue came up again.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[TheAnvil 0]

Probably Byrd, Boxer, Feinstein, et al. And definitely Teddy K.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,101]

Quote

Probably Byrd, Boxer, Feinstein, et al. And definitely Teddy K.

It has to be a San Franciscan, so Feinstein is a likely choice.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

if Kerry were ever there to actually cast a vote.

Hey now, so what if he missed all of the important votes that needed to be dealt with. It's no big deal

But hey, he did make it there to vote against the Laci Peterson Act. What a stand-up guy.

Forty-two

[Nightingale 0]

there's no precedent for the Laci Peterson Act. In virtually every single other instance, a pregnant woman is treated by law as a single entity.

An act like that could open a huge can of worms...

for example:

when leasing apartments, agents are required to ignore a woman's pregnancy, even if, when the baby is born, the apartment will be considered "overoccupied". Housing law requires a pregnant woman be treated and counted as one person, not two.

when driving a car, a pregnant woman cannot take the carpool lane if she's the only person there. A fetus has no standing here either. She doesn't count as two people just because she's pregnant.

The supreme court has ruled that " "the word 'person' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

This bill elevates the legal status of a fetus to make it equal to that of the adult woman. The court's ruling stated that a fetus is NOT entitled to equal protection under the law.


course, the main objection to that law was that it undermined abortion rights... even the republicans agree that it does (CNN):

"Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, admitted that the measure could have an impact on abortion law.

"They say it undermines abortion rights. It does undermine it," he said. "But that's irrelevant. We're concerned here about a woman and her child. ... The partisan arguments over abortion should not stop a bill that protects women and children."

[Kennedy 0]

OK, forget legal and illegal, and let's talk right and wrong.

Some piece of shit assaults a pregnant woman, kicking her in the stomach repeatedly, intent on killing the unborn baby.

Should he (A) go to jail 2-10 for aggrivated assault or (B) be sentenced like a murderer? Forget what anyone else says, and what the law says. I want to know what Nightingale thinks of this.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[tunaplanet 0]

That's an interesting liberal view on the act.

Forty-two

[Nightingale 0]

I'd like to see some kind of additional penalty. However, the act was poorly worded and provided a backdoor loophole to attack abortion rights, which is why it didn't pass.

If I'd been voting, I'd have voted against it too. Not because I disagree with the premise that harming an fetus against the will of the mother should have a harsh penalty, but because the act may open loopholes that ought to remain closed. If a bill can be drafted that does not elevate the status of a fetus to that of a born baby (perhaps a separate legal category alltogether), I'd probably support it.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

I want to know what Nightingale thinks of this.

She thinks the way her party tells her she should think.

Look, this is not in any way a personal attack but a sad realization that this is what is wrong with politics today. Instead of thinking for ourselves, we for the most part become sheep and do what the party tells them to do/think. This forum board is a perfect example of this.

Jot down on a piece of paper 3 liberals and 3 conservatives that post on these boards and go read some of their posts. You will see for the most part they agree with everything the republicans/democrats believe in and they defend it religeously...and blindly. See if you can find conservatives/liberals on the boards disagreeing with their party. You may find one or two once in a blue moon.

The fact is nobody with an intelligent mind agrees with everything one particuliar party says but yet all you see on these boards and in real life is people blindly walking around in a zombie-like state spouting off whatever their party tells them they should.

That is what is wrong with politics. No one thinks for themselves.

Forty-two

[Nightingale 0]

my own personal thoughts are more in line with libertarian, but I find that the libertarian party takes too extreme a position on several issues, to the point where I would be uncomfortable joining them, but have voted for libertarian candidates several times.

I do not agree with a lot of the tax and spend stuff democrats tend to do. I also don't agree with their stance on gun control. I do, however, agree with their stance on most civil liberties, which, to me, is more important than money. I didn't choose my party because I agreed with everything they say, I chose it because I agree with what they say on the issues that are important to me, and I've taken the time to make sure that I am very well informed on these issues.

I've been accused of many things, but I think this is the first time I've been accused of allowing someone else to tell me how to think.

[wmw999 2,514]

Quote

That is what is wrong with politics. No one thinks for themselves.

Do you think for yourself? Or are you too busy telling others how they think, and poking holes in them? And how could we tell the difference anyway? I doubt you'd believe me if I were to say that I think for myself. Am I therefore supposed to believe that you do?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

Do you think for yourself?

Yes.

Forty-two

[wmw999 2,514]

Why should someone believe that you, alone, among so many sheep thinks for yourself?

You've accused an awful lot of people here of being sheep. Not by name (that would, after all, violate the rules), but certainly by implication.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[tunaplanet 0]

1. I don't care if anyone believes me or not.

2. Most people (including the vast majority that post on Talk Back) are sheep.

Anyone that believes a party 100% of the time and has every belief that the said party does 100% of the time is blind and doesn't think for themself. A sheep.

Just my humble opinion.

Forty-two

[stuffit 0]

Quote

1. I don't care if anyone believes me or not.

2. Most people (including the vast majority that post on Talk Back) are sheep.

Anyone that believes a party 100% of the time and has every belief that the said party does 100% of the time is blind and doesn't think for themself. A sheep.

Just my humble opinion.

Coming from someone who agrees with Bush's war.

[livendive 8]

Quote

That's an interesting liberal view on the act.

Not wanting a new law is liberal?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[andrewstewart 0]

Quote

1. I don't care if anyone believes me or not.

2. Most people (including the vast majority that post on Talk Back) are sheep.

Why do you post here then? Narcissism?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

the premise that harming an fetus against the will of the mother should have a harsh penalty....

Tough point - so if the mother gave the thug in the hypothetical situation permission to kick her in the stomach until the fetus is dead - Then that's OK?

edit: how'd this get from Ditka to abortion in less than one page

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

my own personal thoughts are more in line with libertarian, but I find that the libertarian party takes too extreme a position on several issues, to the point where I would be uncomfortable joining them, but have voted for libertarian candidates several times.

I do not agree with a lot of the tax and spend stuff democrats tend to do. I also don't agree with their stance on gun control. I do, however, agree with their stance on most civil .....

You previously said you weren't this way and threw out a dictionary definition of "liberal"

"Civil Liberties is more important than money". Interesting - regular law should be sufficient to guard civil liberties without special laws so that should be covered unless someone is trying for some kind of unfair shift. But the government's only real role is to spend our money. So if you want to pick a party, why not on the money?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

the premise that harming an fetus against the will of the mother should have a harsh penalty....

Tough point - so if the mother gave the thug in the hypothetical situation permission to kick her in the stomach until the fetus is dead - Then that's OK?

edit: how'd this get from Ditka to abortion in less than one page

Nope. that's still legally wrong. by law, a person cannot consent to their own assault.

[dbattman 0]

Okay. Ditka versus John Ashcroft.

[Nightingale 0]

I didn't pick a party based on their financial policies because their social policies are more important to me.

I'd rather vote for a party that will tax me more, but:

support civil unions
protect a woman's right to choose
maintain separation of church and state
protect the environment
fund public education and oppose school vouchers
oppose government funding of discriminatory groups ("faith based")
oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation

IF I could find a party that did all of the above, and didn't spend money on things that I don't think money should be spent on, yet didn't take extreme, unpractical positions, I'd be a member. However, there isn't, so I have to choose based on what's most important to me, which is the above list of issues, and pick the party most in line with how I feel about those issues.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Nope. that's still legally wrong. by law, a person cannot consent to their own assault.

obfuscation/distraction from the actual question

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants