funjumper101

Some time ago, in a different thread, I brought up something that is the corollary "pro-chioce" agrument with respect to male involvement in un-planned pregnancies. I believe, and still do, that unmarried women who decide to take an unplanned pregnancy to term and raise the child themselves, have every right to do so. The male partner SHOULD have the ability to opt out all parental responsibility, including child support and educational expenses. The male equivalent of ending responsibility for an unplanned pregnancy, AKA male choice. This was not exactly a popular position. I came to this conclusion after reading about a guy in Colorado who got stung for well over 100K for a child that he had no knowlege of. He had a one night stand that produced a child. The mother never contacted him after the one night stand. He went on about his business until about 10-11 years later. The mother had filed for welfare/public assistance and listed the biological father as the father of the kid. The state paid the weasel woman, and went after the bio dad for support payments on a child he never knew he had. No shock that the state won and the guy was on the hook for the $$$. That was and is just flat out wrong. Morally, ethically, and totally wrong. It may have been legal. It was WRONG, in a major way. Male choice is as valid as female choice. It DOES work both ways, or at least, it should.

Hmm, you almost danced with the being responcible for your own actions here. There is hope!

Gotta love the righty world view. The world is black and whire. No shades of grey at all. If it done by white folks of northern European ancestry, its all good. Diplomacy is for pussies. "We kicked their ass in a war and took their land. We beat 'em fair and square. You got a problem wit dat? We're keeping what we took. Fuck off." A sure way to build lasting peace. You really should read up on the events of 1945-1950 and how what is now known as Israel came about. The folks that pulled it off were terrorists at that time. Then they became world leaders and their past was forgotten...

Nice to see that you are consistent and on message. An angry white guy who wants to impose his views of right and wrong on the female half of the population. Way to go, dude. You can't get pregnant. It is time for you and your kind to take a great big heaping helping of STFU. You have lived such a perfect life of moral purity that you never engaged in unprotected sex with someone who is not your wife. You NEVER EVER had sex without contraception. You are so perfect, you presume to make important medical decisions for women you have never met, and never will. It must a great experience, to be so far beyond the rest of the common rabble that you can decide such important matters for other people, for example, what a woman and her doctors decide is best for that woman, in that situation. The arrogance of the "pro-lifers" is astounding. You don't see a whole lot of WOMAN pro-lifers around. It must be something about having a really deep understanding of the issues that keeps them away. The MEN, on the other hand, know FAR MORE about women's health issues and what is good for the "precious vessels" that grow babies inside them. The MEN know what what is appropriate and good for those poor, weak creatures. No WOMAN is capable of making such a momentous decision. That MUST be left to the MEN. Women just don't have what it takes to make these kind of decisions on their own. MEN must approve, or it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! Women NEED a man to help them and protect them from making bad decisions. Eat that heaping helping of STFU and sign up to be a foster parent to one of the kids that WASN't aborted. There are lots around. The sick reality of the "pro-life" people is that you all don't give a rats ass what happens to the kids after they are delivered. Those types are also the ones that are adamantly opposed to the programs that offer free pre-natal care to poor women and the free and reduced lunch programs for poor kids in school. A "stinking waste of tax dollars" is how one of your "heros" put it. That would be Lush Rimjob, BTW.

And those thoughts show up in what documents? Quotes with no attribution are worthless. Take a note of how Marg post similar info. The quoted text is shown, along with the link to the source document. They make a fine fantasy, but reality is FAR different. According to the precepts laid out, a political litmus test for nomination to judicail appointments is wrong. Yet all judges are nominated on the basis of their political beliefs. Roberts, Scalia, Sotomayer, etc, etc. In other words, you believe in something that doesn't ever happen, and think that it should be applied anyway. Most illogical. Your rant about the Iowa decision is laughable. The court decided that the the ban was unconstitutional. The decison also was correct in forcing the state to start treating those that had been victimized by the ban to start being treated equally RIGHT NOW, not at some undefined time in the future. Why would they NOT make that decision? That isn't activism. That is equal application of the law to all, even those that some people don't like or approve of. They didn't leave time for folks like you to pressure the legislators to reinstate a ban on something that was found to be illegal. That was a damn good move on their part. As time passes and Iowa doesn't fall apart, the opposition to gay marriage will fade away, except for some extremist religious types.

You REALLY need to brush up on basic civics. I learned this stuff in High School. You must have missed that part of class.

What information source has led you to that conclusion? Do you think that the will of the people is parmount and should not EVER be overturned by a court? Before you answer this, please research Prop 14 in Caifornia. Note especially the overwhelming popular support AMONG VOTERS for this policy, which was overturned by an "activist" court. By your measure, what was done by the court was wrong. History shows that the court decison was, indeed, correct, in spite of "the will of the people". Overturning Jim Crow laws was highly unpopular in the south. Once again, history shows that the court decisons were indeed, correct, in spite of "the will of the people".

Marc, in case you haven't figured it out yet, judges set policy from the bench all the time. When SCOTUS forced the end of the recounts and gave the 2000 election to Shrub, that was setting policy from the bench. When Plessy v Ferguson was decided in 1896, that was setting policy from the bench. When the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 14 in 1964, that was setting policy from the bench. That decision is also a fine example of the weakness of the "will of the people" argument about Proposition 8. What pisses you off, and liberals too, is when the "activist judges" gore your ox. You don't give a shit about the folks that get their ox gored when judges decide the way YOU think they should. When they don't, you call it "judicial activism", as though that was a bad thing. It is only a bad thing when it doesn't go your way.

The Rs have managed to get Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito confrirmed, in spite of their far right views on most issues. Roberts even ended up as Chief Justice. These folks have already swung the court way far to the right. To counterbalance these extreme views of these folks, Obama should have appointed a William O. Douglas type, instead of the centrist Sotomayer. The rightys squeal about how "liberal" Obama is. The reality is quite different.

here's the entire paragraph: "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." put in context, its still a racist statement. You would be wrong. Not a racist statement at all. You don't get the difference between "I would hope that" and "I am certain that"? The white males that are judges view the world through the lens of their experiences. A Latino woman would do the same. Expressing hope that a richer, wider experience life experience would produce better conclusions is pretty reasonable. Why do you think otherwise?

REALITY INTRUSION!!!! You should have NO expecation that anything that you write or send is going to remain private. If you write something that patently offensive, or stupid via PM, it may be publicly published by the recipient. Email, PMs, whatever. This is reality.

At one point the was a "Church of Monday Night Football" that got to a fair size on the east coast. Contrary to the notion of the "wide open spaces of the west", one of the first things that I thout was weird when I came to California is how small the house lots were, compared to the New England area. I would be not be too keen on having 15' between my house and my neighbor's when the neighbors have 15-20 people over every week carring on out loud about how great the lord is. Annoying noisy neighbors are annoying noisy neighbors, no matter if the noise is prayer, or loud opera music, or even worse, loud cRAP music. Contrary to some of the opinions here, this is not a clear cut issue of right and wrong. If you live in a residential neighborhood, you don't have the right to be constantly annoying your neighbors with weekly large gatherings at your place. No matter what the occasion is. Now and then, a gathering should be tolerated. This is an issue of zoning and parking, along with consideration for your neighbors. It appears that the pastor seems to think that annoying the neighbors is fine, as long as he is doing God's work. I don't consider that to a good example of christian values and morals.

That would be a party that I could wholeheartedly support. How do we pull this off?

There is a pretty major disconnect between what folks believe about the results of familial interbreeding and the reality. The Rothschild family in Europe restricted several generations to marrying cousins, on penalty of being being cut out of the family fortune. The resulting offspring had some minor issues, but for the most part, there weren't really terrible results of the inbreeding. In other words, it isn't a great idea, but doesn't have the results most people think it does.

Highlighted in bold is exactly the B.S. I'm talking about. Additionally, we can debate just the same (and we do) that in fact- YOU are the one(s) that don't get it. Makeithappen- thanks for fleshing it out again

One of the kids in my neighborhood was part of a Catholic family with seven kids. He was the oldest boy. His family was heavily involved in the local church. He was molested by the local priest many times. When he told his parents about it, he was whipped with a leather belt for lying about the priest, then shipped off to military school out west. The priest molested all three of his brothers as they were forced into involvement with the church by their parents. I ran into Dave many years later and got the story from him. The sick part is that his parents are still committed Catholics and go to the same church to this day. A fine demonstration of good christian values. Every victim of these sick fuckers and their protectors should be suing the Catholic church with the intention of bankrupting them and forcing them to close the doors forever.

It seems worth noting that I refer to conservatives and progressives. I do not refer to Republicans and Democrats. not by name, but I doubt I'm the only one that saw the associations being made. The associations may be correct in this era. Historically, not so much. Failure to understand history can lead to poor judgements now. Current righties are clear proof of this problem. You might want to brush up on your history regarding which party has had what values, over time. Dixiecrat is a search term that could get you started.

You can put words in other people mouths. Me? I ignore bull shit like that post. Of course I want the poor to starve, ignore the homeless, I want my kids and grand kids to die from polution, I want to kill all I can in any kind of war that can be drempt up and I think all democrates are evil socialist bastards that should be run out of the country on a rail. Hows that! Now, If you really want to ask a question, do so with out the screwed up premises you posted originally. Are you a poll taker for the libs? If not, you might want to think about it as asking those kinds of questions get predictable answers (in most cased) WFJ...... WOW. AN honest post from Marc that reveals his true values. I never thought I'd see the day. Is is really creepy how Marc can write as though he thinks he is being facetious, when he is really writing about the practical end result of the policies that he supports. And he has no clue that is what he has just expressed. It must be hard to live in Right Wingnut World on a full time basis.

It seems worth noting that I refer to conservatives and progressives. I do not refer to Republicans and Democrats. If Barry Goldwater were alive today, he would be a called a RINO by the current crowd. I view that as a very clear demonstration of just how radically right the Rs have gone. The American Taliban Party is a reality. Freedom FROM religion is the flip side to freedom OF religion. The whinging righties clearly don't get how fucked up their party has become. No center at all. Strictly against freedom and individual rights. Grew the goverment more than any adminstration, ever, from 2001-2008. Violated the Constitution and the GC, and righties see nothing wrong. The party of smaller government? Yeah, right. Fiscal Responsibility? Yeah, right. Responsible government? Not even close. It is clear to me that the USA will become like the UK after WWII. The Rescumlicans have led the charge to the bottom. The UK is a former world power, left to suckle at the teat of the USA. We'll be needing to teach Chinese and the various Indian dialects in the public schools.

What point were you trying to make? There must have been something. Conservatism is all about maintaining the status quo and limiting rights. No change is a good thing. If conservative philosophy was implemented as was attempted, blacks would still be slaves, women would not be able to vote or own property, and discrimination on the basis of skin color and race would still be codified in law. All of these social changes were bitterly opposed by the conservatives of the time. Can you make a case that the USA would be better off if Conservative philosophy had more successful in the past? Didn't think so... It has been bad for the country when conservatives have been in power. Every single time the country has ended up worse off. In some ways, I have a progressive political philosophy. Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion. Laws should generally expand freedom for responsible citizens, not limit freedom. In some ways I have extremely conservative views. Taxes should be high enough to pay for the services as we go. More taxes should be paid by those that can pay more. Income taxes should be abolished and consumption (sales) tax should apply to all purchases. Everything. Goods, services, food. Everything. You get back the first 10000.00 you paid out at the end of the year. Beyond that, no refunds or writeoffs. Those that buy more, and more expensive stuff will pay more. Fair and square. Poor folks will have fun with their refund checks. A handy involuntary savings arrangement for them. All citizens should be taught how to use and care for firearms in public school. Every law abiding adult over 18 should be required to maintain at least one firearm in their home. Kind of odd from a "liberal", as it were.

You have experienced the phenomenon known as "the reason for birth control, live and in person". Or "Birth control, on the hoof". It takes a village to raise a child. If I am in a public area, or resturant, where children are behaving inappropriately, I'll ask the parents nicely to control their kid(s). If the parents blow me off, I'll yell at the kids myself. It never fails to get the parents off their lazy butts and start dealing with their satan spawn. The kids usually take it well. They know they shouldn' tbe acting up and want to be told to stop. The mouthy parents get the "It takes more training and testing to get a drivers license than to have a kid. Put some effort into learning to be a parent. From what I can see, you have a lot to learn." speech. It helps to be 6' tall and 200 plus lbs. I like kids, the well behaved ones, quite a bit.

The story that came up was what the governator is going to have to do since the voters shot down the creative financing attempted. WTF does this have to do with Obama? Are you saying that we're fucked if we borrow money to fix up the economy, but borrowing money to fund a pre-meditiated war of aggression was REALLY STUPID? Are you saying that cutting taxes while engaging in a pre-meditated war of aggression was REALLY STUPID? Are you saying that cutting taxes in a time of record budget deficits IS REALLY STUPID? Did I guess right as to the point you were tring to make? Do you disagree with any of what I wrote? Why?

If you can't tell the difference between traing that one volunteers for, and torture conducted by our government, you have established that rational thought is a hopeful concept for you, not a reality.

You sound just like Clinton except he was referring to not have "sexual relations" with his intern. Clinton was full of shit when he said this and was trying to weasel out of admitting he was doing wrong by arguing the meaning of sex. Bush/Chaney/republicans are doing exactly the same thing with regards to waterboarding and like a good republican follower you believe it and defend them to the same degree that devout democrats defend Clinton. Your party must be proud of you. Funny how the right wing scumbags pull the CDIF crap. For those that don't have a clear grasp of the FACTS, at the time Clinton received a blow job and ejaculated into Monica's willing mouth (a consensual act between adults, by the way), "sexual relations", in terms of the law, was defined as intercourse, as in. penis to vagina action. However annoying it may be to the ignorant, the statement "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." is a legally true statement. Morally, not so much. Given that Clinton was constantly being hounded by the scumbags, his legal parsing is completely understandable. Given that y'all have supported the most heinous presidency of all time, AKA ShrubCo, IMO, it is time to STFU. Waterboarding is torture. No amount of weaseling, waffling, bullshit legal justifications, etc, change that simple fact. Marc, if it was done to you, you would consider it torture. Yes or no? No weasel words, a simple yes or no.

Did you happen to run the numbers related to property taxes? Do you have kids? How about the quality of schools and state colleges/universities? Other taxes? Energy costs for bug control (inland) and air conditioning 8 months of the year? How about the percentage of high school starts compared to high school completions? If I remember correctly, Florida has one of the lowest rates of HS graduation in the country. Do you really want to live in a state full of un-educated folks? Taxes are only one component of costs. Direct and indirect costs must be considered. Lots of folks moved from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to avoid the onerous state income taxes. Then they found out that it takes a long while for the snowplows to come around. The schools are old, along with the textbooks and the teachers. Class sizes are enormous. The roads don't get repaired. Property taxes are extortionate. An on, and on, and on. All those taxes not paid = all those services not delivered. Best of luck to you in your new state. I am sure you'll love it.