After all the talk of nominating the U.S. Supreme Court’s first Hispanic and of replacing a woman with a woman (sorry, Laura), President Bush’s choice of federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. came as a bit of a surprise Tuesday night. At first glance, Roberts’ credentials appear to be as impressive as they are pure in their conservatism. Let the high court’s first confirmation battle in 11 years begin. Here’s hoping the debate takes the high road.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- gster on Open thread 11/23
- LonnythePlumber on Health care reform would save state money
- aldenrw on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- Politico on Too many exemptions
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Let immigrants run
179 Comments
Take from The Nation (no right-wing rag)”Top of his class at Harvard Law School and a former law clerk for Rehnquist, Roberts is one of the most impressive appellate lawyers around today. Liberal groups object to the fact that, in 1990, as a deputy solicitor general, Roberts signed a brief in a case involving abortion-financing that called, in a footnote, for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. But it would be absurd to Bork him for this: Overturning Roe was the Bush administration’s position at the time, and Roberts, as an advocate, also represented liberal positions, arguing in favor of affirmative action, against broad protections for property rights, and on behalf of prisoners’ rights. In little more than a year on the bench, he has won the respect of his liberal and conservative colleagues but has not had enough cases to develop a clear record on questions involving the Constitution in Exile. On the positive side, Roberts joined Judge Merrick Garland’s opinion allowing a former employee to sue the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for disability discrimination. He pointedly declined to join the unsettling dissent of Judge David Sentelle, a partisan of the Constitution in Exile, who argued that Congress had no power to condition the receipt of federal transportation funds on the Metro’s willingness to waive its immunity from lawsuits. In another case, however, Roberts joined Sentelle in questioning whether the Endangered Species Act is constitutional under Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The regulation in question prevented developers from building on private lands in order to protect a rare species of toad, and Roberts noted with deadpan wit that ‘the hapless toad … for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California,’ and therefore could not affect interstate commerce. Nevertheless, Roberts appears willing to draw sensible lines: He said that he might be willing to sustain the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act on other grounds. All in all, an extremely able lawyer whose committed conservatism seems to be leavened by a judicious temperament.”
Yeah, I agree, Jimmy. Seems to be bright-plus and very able. Nothing to really object to from my end.
And you’re right: if The Nation says don’t Bork him, then that’s probably about as high a praise as you can get from the left.
No knuckledragger, either. Good on President Bush!
Looks like if the far left wants to keep him off the bench, they will have to really dig in the closet to find something. Let’s hope the process is quick and clean so we can get back to real issues, like Karl Rove.
NARAL NOT happy. So much for the high road :-)
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/retirement/roberts_choice_highlights.pdf
Jimmy–That quote came from The New Republic, not The Nation. I subscribe to The Nation, I could tell it’s not the kind of thing they would say about this right-wing ideologue.
The radical fundamentalist right wanted to pack the court to overturn Roe v Wade.
Looks like they got their wish. Got your coat hangers, ladies?
Now the question is what are all those knocked-up religious fundamentalists going to do when they end up with an unwanted pregnancy on their hands?
Pray real hard, I guess.
The Weekly Standard (no left wing rag) said this about Roberts: “everywhere he goes, he proves a divisive influence. Bush must have been out of his mind when he nominated this guy.”
Oh, wait, that wasn’t the Weekly Standard. It was just me.
Wondered how long it would take before the “hanger” comment came out. Being a lib must suck these days. Win an election.
This bush nomination is so perfect, so predictable. Find a guy who toes the right wing nut line but has very little paper trail to prove it.I hope the Dems stand up and fight this guy.The analysis is simple. bush had a chance to try and unite. But he continues to drive the right wing bulldozer over worker rights, the environment, and women’s rights.Tonight the right wingnuts are happy. To them I say you are not the majority and you better start thinking on that.Or to quote John Lennon, “Ya say ya want a Revolution”
Actually, being a lib pretty much rocks these days, Jimmy.
For one thing, we know the difference between The Nation and The New Republic.
When we said, “don’t go into Iraq, they don’t pose a threat and it could be another Vietnam,” we were totally right and it turned out that everything the Bushiviks said was a pack of lies.
When we said, don’t cut taxes on the rich, it will wreck paying down the national debt (that Clinton/Gore had done for 8 years). Bush cut taxes on the rich and sure enough, the national debt ballooned back up to higher than it was before Clinton paid it down.
When we said that Bush’s social security plan was a perfect way to destroy it and turn an insurance plan built on broad based people-helping-people into a “everybody for yourself” grab bag, we were right. The more that Americans learn about the plan, the more they don’t like it.
I would take pride in our positions if it weren’t for the suffering that Bush has caused for all Americans and others around the world.
Bush has hurt you conservatives with his “damn the torpedoes” foreign policy and his energy policy that is comprised of the single word, “oil” as much as he’s hurt the rest of us.
I take no pleasure in that.
Mistertwister,
My fellow Christian. When does life begin for a child or when is life worthy of being protected?
Well, well. Twister makes obvious what conservatives already know — that the agenda of the left is largely driven by their “belief” that it should be legal to kill babies in the womb and even when they are mostly out of the womb. Period.
This “belief” is central to their view of the world, even though it leads to some devastating inconsistencies on their part.
To those of us who find no essential scientific difference in a baby between the moment of birth and the preceeding instant, the left’s belief in killing pre-born babies seems entirely arbitrary. The entirely human integrity of a pre-birth baby is good science — even better science than the science that supports evolution and the natural law, which leftists claim to love. Except science for them is no good when it comes to life, itself. Here, the left abandons science and declares, by some kind of secular leap of “faith”, that a baby in the womb is something entirely non-human at the instant before birth.
Of course, real women don’t buy any of that “it’s not a baby” crap. So, the left raises the coat hanger bogeyman. “Either make it legal to kill babies in the womb or your daughters will all be butchered in back alleys.”
Sounds a lot like the hellish harangues of Al Qaeda, doesn’t it? Don’t you think that the aborted babies should form a UN committee to find out why the baby killers hate them so? Clearly the babies must have done something to deserve it.
According to the baby killers, until the babies seriously look at changing their policy of being born, nothing is going to stop the violence against them. There are many up and coming coat-hanger abortionists in training, and the flow will not stop until babies quit sticking their noses where they aren’t wanted. Until they learn how to coexist with the irresponsibility of their parents, and without trying to change their parents’ lifestyles, nothing will change.
Can’t we all just get along, the irresponsible and absurdly impractical liberal asked?
No, because liberals and leftists will fight until the bitter end for their “right” to kill.
Washington Post raises the White Flag.
Judge Roberts is a conservative, but he has never been an ideological crusader; he has admirers among liberals. If confirmed as the successor to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, it is likely that he will shift the Supreme Court toward the right. But his nomination is not a provocation to Democrats — as some other possible nominees would have been. Mr. Bush deserves credit for selecting someone with the potential to attract broad support.”
I don’t see a problem with Roberts. Bush is a conservative, we knew he’d pick a conservative, it could have been much worse.It could have been Judge Moore (Bring back my 10 commandment rock!) or John Asscraft (annoint me with Crisco, cover up those vulgar statue boobies).We got a conservative, not a nut….I hope. I think I’ll sit back and watch the cons man the walls for a fight I hope doesn’t come.
Those who oppose the Roberts candidacy should focus on real, important issues, not false ones. Find out where he stands on the Patriot Act…overruling Roe v. Wade will never threaten your personal liberty like the Patriot Act will. Find out where he stands on the Commerce Clause…federal encroachment on the states should scare you far more than a cutback on Roe v. Wade. See how he feels about the First Amendment. Remember that overruling Roe does not mean abortion is illegal..it simply puts control back in the hands of the states. At the same time we may never regain the liberties lost under the Patriot Act and Congress’ expansive use of the Commerce Clause.
Great. A trial lawyer who made his reputation defending corporations.
A perfect fit for Bushco, I think.
If only you Libs had worked a little harder during the campaign. Deal.
Kathy, what do you believe the solution is to unwanted pregnany? I hate it abortion, also. In our society where everything from TV to music seems to promote irresponsible sexual behavior, unwanted pregnancy is a consequence. What is the solution? Do you think women should be forced to bear children they don’t want or can’t afford? What about the fathers? Where are they in all of this. I agree with you that abortion is wrong, but I’m interested in knowing what you think. Do you think abortion should be outlawed, or should exceptions be made in special cases? I would like to see more dialoge on what “conservatives” think the answer to this problem is and how to achieve a better outcome than aborting a child because it’s the easiest way to deal with the problem.
PS, I don’t understand your analogy comparing war with abortion, but how do you justify killing innocent children in war (it’s referred to as “collatoral damage”), but condemn abortion? What’s the difference? It’s Ok to kill children to gain political power and keep the oil flowing? The hypocrisy blows me away!
I don’t have any problem with a roll-back on abortion. However, I have serious problems with any law or ruling that doesn’t take the life, health, or mental well-being of the mother into consideration. Abortion should not be a tool of family planning or just-in-time birth control.
Okay, Kathy, you raise some good points actually.
I hate abortion with every fiber of my being. The word itself has become synonomous with something terrible.
I agree it’s absurd to argue that it’s not a baby days before birth and that it is a baby moments after birth. But I think (and here’s where reasonable people differ) that its equally absurd to believe that a six week old embryo WITHOUT A BRAIN has the same rights as a fully developed newborn.
Obviously, a fertilized egg is life. A sperm cell is life. But when is HUMAN life?
That’s the question that can never be answered to everyone’s satisfaction. And so I prefer to let a woman and her doctor answer the question.
You prefer to let Jerry Falwall and the government decide for you.
That’s where we differ.
Kathy–One thing that we disagree on is that the agenda of the left is being driven by the abortion issue.
Probably no issue has hurt the liberals more than abortion. But it is just one small part of the liberal agenda, magnified a thousand times by conservatives who use it against us.
The primary goal of the liberal agenda is economic fairness: Giving everyone a real opportunity to have a decent standard of living in the richest country in the world.
The conservatives believe in a kind of social darwinism that the rich are better and more deserving.
Liberals reject that absolutely. Many wealthy people worked their way up (Warren Buffet for instance, who opposes Bush’s tax cuts). But many others become rich through luck of birth (George W. Bush being exhibit A).
One of his great-grandfathers was the largest steel producer in the Midwest. His grandfather was a US Senator. His father was a Senator, an Ambassador to China, and 41st President of the US.
Liberals like me believe that the Bushs’ have enough advantages already. They don’t need government helping them to get richer. We need gov’t to help those of us who don’t have so much.
Since an unwanted pregnancy is often a catastrophic economic disaster for poor moms or families, we support the right to choose abortion, even though we don’t particularly like that choice.
On last quick comment–since Bush declared war on the poor, abortions have gone up drastically.
One way to reduce abortions is to help poor families, but you’ll never see that idea floated by the “right to life” conservatives.
Mistertwister,
When did Bush declare war on the poor?
What has he done to them?
LBJ’s war on poverty/Great Society was such a resounding success. Twisty has his facts confused again. Remember when Republican designed and Clinton signed welfare reform was going to cause children and old people to starve in the streets?chortle
No, I don’t remember that, Jimmy. What I do know is that wealth inequality is increasing drastically since Bush took office and so are abortions.
Nathan, I’m not responding to you until you admit that you lied about signing up for the military.
Dear Mr. Twister,
Just for grins and giggles, how about a little gentleman’s bet?
I bet that Nathan has a DD-214 confirming that he has an honorable discharge.
I would recommend taking my wager or else quit defaming a man’s service to his country.
Put up or shut up.
Hank
Mister Twister,
I offer you the same bet Hank offered Hammer.
I will meet you for lunch and show you my DD214.
How much are you willing to bet on my being a liar about being a Marine?
Lets see you put your money where your mouth is.
Hey Nathan,
These deadbeats won’t bet us, they are probably sharing the same monitor in a public library in Texas somewhere.
Hank
Is it my imagination, or is this site rapidly becoming an unruly mutation of Opinon Line…but without editors to say what will be posted?? Geez.
One of the things I do is volunteer as a patient escort at a local women’s clinic. I see and talk to the women who come for abortions, and I can tell you that nearly all are at the end of their rope! It is not something they do for “convenience.”Abortion has been around for thousands of years; Roe v. Wade didn’t start it, and hasn’t increased it. All it’s done is put it in competent hands.I was around before R.v.W., and knew a local chiropractor who specialized in abortions, and it wasn’t pretty. When a D&C (the method in use at the time) goes wrong, immediate hospitalization is imperative, but usually, the woman would put off going in, fearing arrest, and many died. Abortions were being done by chiropractors, a few MD’s, RN’s, somebody’s aunt, etc. Being illegal, no medical standards applied, and women died as a result. The only thing Roe v. Wade did was to make abortion visible and safe, and fundie propaganda aside, it’s now safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.Now, I don’t like abortion any more than the fundies, but unlike them, I have to be realistic about it. Ending Roe v. Wade will not end, or even decrease abortion. All it will do is drive it back underground where regulation will be impossible again. As long as there have been unwanted pregnancies, abortion has been available, and always will be; the only question is, would you rather your wives and daughters get them in a clinic, or someone’s kitchen table?
Nathan and Hank–
I’m not defaming anybody. I honor and respect servicemen and women.
It’s just that Nathan doesn’t seem able to provide many specifics. For example, my son is in Korea in a camp about 45 minutes south of the DMZ.
Before that, he was in Iraq with his primary responsibility as repairing military vehicles. He had to ship out of Iraq because he developed severe asthma from breathing the dust.
Where did you serve, Nathan?
Good post, Jed.
Mistertwister,
Is it no longer a question of did I serve, but where now?
What next?
Did I get shot and wounded?
What is the standard I have to meet? It appears as if you keep raising the bar each time.
You have yet to even say that I am not a liar. Untill you say that I am not a liar and apologize for calling me one, I am not going to answer any more of your questions on my service as a Marine.
Well said, Jed. Everyone really is anti-abortion. No one LIKES abortions or think they’re GOOD. It’s just that some of us see that it’s unrealistic to think that if RvW is overturned, abortions will stop. Absurd to think that 13 year old pregnant girls won’t resort to crude botched backalley procedures. A woman and her doctor. It should be between them.
The reason why many pro-life people don’t see it the way Jed or you do Tara is becuase we look at it in principle.
The unborn child is a Human life worthy of protecting or it isn’t.
All these arguments are still about conveinence.
They can be applied to a 5 year old kid too.
If the unborn child is a human life worthy of protection then lets protect it.
Jed,I’m pretty confident that both my wife and daughter would NOT choose an abortion, but those are the only choices you seem to propose for a woman in a desparate situation. Before you start judging me as some stereotyped conservative, you don’t know me and you don’t know my past.
It does not make sense that a person who is “at the end of their rope” would continue their downward fall by snuffing out a life. She may have a difficult time at the time, but her life has a chance to get better. She would not have the chance to bring that life back again.
Hey Nathan,If you keep your bible permanently in front of your face, you miss seeing the world. The only thing your “principles” do is insure that the woman dies too! Real christian of you!Goodbye.
Jed,
How is my stance not Christian?
Jed,
Are you trying to say that if abortion were outlawed that there would be over one million women dead that first year?
Hey NoJoCo,Don’t be too sure- we’ve had patients who had been protesting two weeks earlier, and were back out there afterward. You wouldn’t believe the security they require!And yes, there’s a chance a woman’s life would get better, but there’s also the likelihood it could get much worse. It’s her life, not yours, so she gets to figure the odds and make her decisions, not you!
Hey Nathan,You’ll note I didn’t say your stance was unchristian; in fact it’s typically hard-core christian, and, in the end, doesn’t give a damn about people!There’s no real way to tell how many women died from botched abortions before RvW, since such deaths were usually covered up, but judging from the unsanitary conditions and lack of follow-up care at the time, I suspect the death toll was horrendous. You, of course, want that back, since you think it’ll discourage abortion, but it didn’t work then, and won’t work again if you’re successful in overturning RvW, and you know it, or should. So much for your “principles!”
Jed,You seem to have the answers for the safe and organized manner for which abortions can be taken care of, but do you have any ideas on how to dcrease the number of abortions? (Since you did say that you don’t like abortions)
Nathan–Okay, I’m just getting your information in bits and pieces from things you post.
There’s no way to know who’s telling the truth in little posts like this and who’s not. But you can sometimes get a feel if someone’s being truthful or not by how specific they are when they answer a question.
For instance, I have studied English literature at the graduate level. I can tell you that Shakespeare wrote 36 plays, several long poems, and 156 sonnets, that he was born in 1564 and died in 1616, that the four great tragedies were written on or after 1600.
This is specific information that would lead a reader to conclude that I am what I say I am.
You never seem to provide that even when questioned on it. You didn’t even mention the DD-124 form until Hank brought it up.
Asking for some evidence is not really too much to ask, unless you’re hiding something . . .
If you would just give me some evidence other than “I’m a Marine,” I would be the first to apologize for calling your service into question.
BTW, you are probably aware that there are a lot of rat-finks out there that claim to have been in the service, but weren’t.
Hey NoJoCo,Yes, I do, but since they involve much that the conservatives actively resist, I don’t hold too much hope for their implementation.First and foremost should be a comprehensive sex education program and available birth control for everyone. Of course we’d all rather teenagers didn’t engage in sexual activity, but beliefs have never trumped hormones.Secondly, we need to develop a system that makes it easier to be a mother and still earn a decent living. I’m including married women here too. Many such proposals have been made, and mostly shot down by businesses unwilling to change. Since that’s not likely, we need an improved, less bureaucratic welfare system that recognizes the value of raising children properly, and makes provision for it.Thirdly, a health care system that provides for universal coverage. We’ve had quite a few patients lately who had lost coverage due to layoffs, and had no money for delivery and attendent expenses. Charities seem overburdened and have offered only token aid.As far as big government goes, I really don’t care if it’s government or the business community that sets up these programs, as long as they get set up in a fair manner.If those programs were instituted, I think we’d see a substantial drop in abortions. Unfortunately, the anti’s have said they aren’t interested in cutting down the numbers, just in outlawing it. See, it’s the principle of the thing, not the reality that matters.
I see that Nathan and Hank are waving their “DD214s” in everybody’s face. My experience is, guys who brag the most about their service either didn’t serve, or they spent their tour someplace nice and safe.
Dagett,
What a double standard.
I only mention that I am a Marine here because someone said that I had no business talking about the war in Iraq unless I was willing to fight in it.
Then I have about 3 different people all call me a liar for saying I am a Marine.
I think that 95% of the time I even mention it now, it is merely in my own defense to those calling me a liar.
Then I get you saying that it is just bragging?
Give me a break.
Ah, Dagett my friend, why do liberals like you and Hammer insist on defaming someone without any evidence to your charges?
I am a lifetime member of the VFW (Read as a proud deserved brag), former Post Commander (Read as another porud and unashamed brag).
Just as an interesting aside, do you know the requirements for joining the VFW? Do you know what type of medal you have to have on your DD-214 when you wave it around?
If not, look it up before you call me a liar again. Please don’t embarass yourself further.
Your friend,
Hank
Thanks Hank.
I was not even thinking about that. I mean the part about bragging.
Why shouldn’t I be able to brag?
Being a Marine is an honorable thing. It is something I am very proud of!
I don’t think there is anything wrong with me saying it either.
Should I be ashamed of the fact that I am a Marine?
Hey Nathan,
I actually think its the opposite of what they say. When a man has served honorably all they need is a simple “Thanks for your service”.
Its only the liberal, cowardly deadbeats that are uncomfortable with another mans service. When they call you a liar with absolutly no reason or evidence, it says more about their character than ours.
I was Navy. Semper Fi buddy. Thanks for your service to your country!
Hank
You can thank me, Hank, for my son serving in Iraq in the Army.
Dear Twister,
Give me your son’s snail mail address or his email address and I’ll thank him for his service personally.
Hank
PS It was our army, wasn’t it?
Way to go Hank! You just slammed one of our boys in Iraq. Why do you hate our troops, Hank? Yeah man, you’re a real proud example, aren’t you?
“I am a lifetime member of the VFW (Read as a proud deserved brag), former Post Commander (Read as another porud and unashamed brag).”
Well goody for you Hank. I’m glad between that and your little dong, oops I meant dog, you have something to be proud of.
Hank, I can’t say as I ever gave any thought to the VFW. I’ve spent over 30 years trying to forget the war. Guess I never saw any reason to “blow” about it. I always figured to leave that to the guys that got their decorations at the PX.
Hank–thanks for your kind offer. I don’t want to divulge personal information to total strangers on the internet.
“Is it OUR Army?” Actually that was kind of funny. I enjoyed that.
He’s in S. Korea right now. Getting out in October, if they let him, heh . . .
But this whole thing of who’s more patriotic is getting a little bit nuts . . .
Conservatives, liberals, men, and women all support our troops. That’s one thing we all agree on.
I never served but I respect and honor the men and women who have. This is one liberal who says any serviceman has a right to be proud. You sacrificed to serve your country and the country should never forget that.
Henry, I just have to ask how low you’ll sink. You run down a soldier who served in Iraq after bragging about your VFW credentials. Henry, you just have no idea what honor and integrity are, do you?
Yeh Twister,
I aggree. I mentioned my medals only to make the point that I probably know what I’m talking about. I really don’t recall how many I have. But I got a few. One or two that I’m actually proud of!
Thanks for your kind words and thank your boy from an old grumpy veteran for his continued service to our country. I know what it’s like to have a son in the service and overseas.
I pray he comes home safe and sound in October.
Hank
Dear Hammer,
I’m a retired submarine sailor. It’s still classified as to how low I’ll sink.
Quit looking for insults where none are intended.
I remain,
Henry to you
Thanks, man.
I’m grumpy too . . . that makes two of us, heh heh.
Maybe three of us!
Hank
Maybe
I’m just loving the fact that the libs can’t even argue about Roberts as it’s clear he’ll be confirmed easily. Hank, Nathan, don’t worry about these little people.
I’m still waiting for your reply, Kathy. What ideas do you have to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?Jed, thank you for your input. I think your ideas make sense, the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to figue out the underlying causes and work toward prevention. It makes more sense to me than to try and totally outlaw abortion. I think more women would choose life if they actually had viable options. I know so many who aborted out of desperation and now live with regret. It’s such a difficult issue.With having said that, I can tell you all for sure that Nathan is a Marine. I can’t believe everyone spends so much time focused on whether or not he’s really in the service. Can’t we stick to the issues, please?
PS Thank you, Nathan, for your commitment to your country. It’s because of you guys (and gals) that we have the freedom to insult one another and the leaders of our great country on this blog.
Hey Damoon,Thanks!All outlawing it will do is create another black market, with all the crap that goes along that kind of thing. Any time you make a law to prohibit something, you need to have a very large majority (some say 90% or better) wholeheartedly behind it in order to make it stick. When you don’t, or your majority has been pressured into it, it’s bound to fail, as we’ve seen with liquor, drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc., all of which (with the exception of liquor, which is now regulated) are currently easier to get than a decent chocolate malt.When things are legal, even things you don’t want to be legal, you at least have the ability to regulate them.As far as abortion goes, we’ll never be abortion-free, simply because some of the reasons it’s necessary are beyond anybody’s control, but with compassion, understanding and meaningful help, and by leaving it a genuine option, we can reduce the need for it. Outlawing it may make some people feel morally superior, but that’s about all it does, other than demonstrate a complete lack of sensitivity for women in desperate circumstances.Sorry to hear Nathan really is a Marine- I suddenly feel so much less safe! Thought the Corps had more sense than that.
Jed,
I see that even when confronted with the truth you still have nothing but insults.
Damoon,
First of all, my previous comments (in the paragraph beginning with “According to the baby….”) are actually a precise copy of your sentence structure in a post on another blog. I was trying to use your words about understanding our enemy to get inside the terrorist mind. It didn’t really work, though. Here I will admit to occasionally using blogs to develop literary methods to help elucidate issues. Sometimes it doesn’t work or I run out of time to make it work.
Now on to your question of what to do about abortions.
I have always favored the idea that abortions should be stopped by a type of social justice, not by the law. If we depend on the law to stop them, we will certainly see no end of efforts to skirt the law. Worse, I’m sure that if abortion were made illegal overnight, the fallout would be ugly for several reasons, even if some states still permitted them.
In using the term “social justice” I do not mean the usual economic issues or a vague notion of political virtue. Instead, I mean living in accordance with our heartfelt belief that abortion is wrong, as you and others have said above.
The questions of when life actually begins, or when that life is truly a person, or when that life obtains a human soul are far beyond the scope of blogs, yet these questions are at the center of the issue. On one hand, there is no discernable instant, between the moment that egg & sperm unite and the moment of birth, when we can say with certitude that there is a definable difference that inarguably marks the infusion of humanity in a baby. That is, at no instant can we say that the fetus/baby is definitively more human than the previous instant. Indeed, the most definitive moments are when the egg & sperm unite, and when the zygote attaches successfully to the uterus and has a chance to grow.
After the egg and sperm unite, there exists a self-defined physical life with its own, unique DNA. It is set upon an irreversible process of growing and becoming, as long as it is nurtured and protected. This is just as true after birth as before. People develop physically, mentally, and psychologically for many years after birth. When, indeed, are we fully human? We don’t know. It is a true mystery that science may never resolve, certainly not in our lifetimes.
Philosophers maintain that this is not an issue to take lightly. In particular, to say that we can arbitrarily set the instant of humanity in any fetus/baby is to simultaneously admit that someone or some policy may someday set that instant at a different time. This is dangerous, in that there are already people who argue that parents have a right to kill their children at any age before full physical maturity. Clearly, there’s not much danger of that becoming policy any time soon, but the point is that the start of life must be considered a fact, not a policy, or someone will pervert the policy.
The only fact we have is that life is good.
We also have to consider the fact that a primary purpose of society is to protect the weak. Is there anything more in need of that protection than a baby? It seems axiomatic that a society that arranges itself to allow the killing of babies, for whatever reason, has a big problem in its very core. We used to kill by the millions on the battlefield while a few thousand innocent babies were killed by abortion. Now we kill millions of weak and innocent babies in the womb while a few thousand are killed on the battlefield. Is this America’s progress?
But what to do about it?
First of all, abortions happen because a woman got pregnant in the wrong circumstances. Unfortunately, pregnancies don’t always begin in the confines of a loving, committed marriage. They also begin in terrible circumstances — either willfully, accidentally, stupidly, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or against the woman’s will (rape or it’s close cousin, persistent and sometimes cruel pressure).
Secondly, abortions happen because a baby isn’t wanted enough by the mother, or because she is pressured by her parents or the father or a boyfriend or other “friend” to get an abortion, or because the mother is overwhelmed and undersupported by our culture and the father.
Third, abortions happen because of medical issues, real or not.
So the question of how to make abortion truly rare has to address all these problems; but how? The battle has so many fronts! How do we counteract the extraordinary drive in men for sexual pleasure and the extraordinary beauty of women? Probably not by law, wouldn’t you agree?
Obviously, “birth control” hasn’t worked. Indeed, the abortion epidemic comes on the heels of the “birth control” revolution. Talk about a failed policy! Even when it works, women who rigorously follow the regimens of “birth control” later find themselves unable to conceive, because either their reproductive system has quit working or they have contracted STDs that limit them.
Evidently, life won’t be denied. So, we need to take it seriously and stop pretending that the reproductive act can be used only for fun. It’s a terribly compelling seduction to believe in sex without consequences, but a seduction it is.
The solution is in our hearts. To some extent, it includes turning back a few of the pages of history to a time when a woman’s vulnerability to being used was protected by society, when sex was kept in the bedroom, and when boys were taught from early on to respect women, when girls were taught to be modest and wary of men’s advances. No it wasn’t perfect. But, in this respect, it was better.
Can we get there from here? Yes, if people want it enough, if society renews its acquaintance with the concept of discipline and demands it, if the media are made to promote the highest in mankind instead of the lowest.
There are only two mechanisms I know of for making this kind of turnaround happen. First, we must all actively do something to help. Join Big Brothers and Sisters. Become a foster parent. Adopt a child, especially teen children who desperately need guidance and love. Insist on discipline in our children. There are dozens of other possibilities. Second and most importantly, if you are a person of faith, then pray. Pray hard, pray often. Pray always.
Doing nothing is not an option. Please, do something.
We know we currently have a huge social problem at our core, and all of us are skirmishing around the edges of many issues, some meaningful, some not, in an effort to make a difference in the world. Bloggers care, sometimes too much and sometimes with fury. But this issue, abortion, is a core human issue. It is at the center of life, itself. It needs a solution, not a blogwar.
Unfortunately, I am out of time and won’t be able to get back to the blogs for a few weeks.
Kathy, that was awesome. Thanks!
Kathy–
It all boils down to “personal responsibility” to you conservatives, doesn’t it?
Here’s a quote–”How do we counteract the extraordinary drive in men for sexual pleasure . . . ” And what? women don’t have any drive in the same way?
Anti-abortionists aren’t about stopping “baby killing”–they’re about stopping sex. Conservatives wouldn’t give one damn about abortion if it didn’t involve sex.
Evidence–infertile couples go to clinics where ova are removed from the potential mom and fertilized in a “test tube” (not literally) with the father’s sperm. A fertilized ovum is then implanted in the mother’s uterus.
What happens to the other “fetuses” that were made in the lab. They are destroyed–aborted–but does the anti-abortion community get all concerned about those fetuses? Does it picket those clinics and throw themselves in front of the cars?
Not at all.
It’s the sex these people want to stop, not the abortions.
Hey Nathan,He who lives by the sword….!You say:”The reason why many pro-life people don’t see it the way Jed or you do Tara is becuase we look at it in principle.
The unborn child is a Human life worthy of protecting or it isn’t.”
Then you say:”Being a Marine is an honorable thing. It is something I am very proud of!”Over my computer is a picture of a child of about two, full of bullet or shrapnel holes, from Fallujah. It was one of several dozen similar pictures from that area.Maybe I’m wrong, but there seems to be a major disconnect here. You say human life is worth protecting, yet you chose the infliction of death as a profession to be proud of. Either that kid is a human life worth protecting, or he isn’t. That’s the principle.Now I’m not arguing the honor of the Marines, or your respect for life, but there’s an awesome conflict of viewpoints here that you need to come to terms with, at least with yourself!
Twister: Didn’t anyone teach you about the birds and the bees?
You post is a joke, right? Please tell me it is.
The issue of what to do with fertilized ovums (ova?) is a hot one among those who understand it. Most people don’t, so it hasn’t become a major public concern for most conservatives or liberals. Nevertheless, to say that conservatives or anti-abortion people don’t care about the issue is wrong.
One can only read your post to mean that you are contemptuous of the notion of responsible sex and contemptuous of anyone who suggests it, especially if it’s a conservative suggesting it. Your position seems entirely callow and unsupportable, something along the lines of: “If it feels good, do it.” You need to explain yourself further before getting into the ring with Kathy with such an irresponsible position.
In addition, if you need someone to explain to you that the sex drive in men is different from that in women … well, you’re becoming laughable. Go ask your mother.
Personal responsibility is at the core of the issue because people who aren’t responsible about guarding their sexuality are also too irresponsible to use “birth control” properly. The explosion in abortions as “birth control of last resort” proves this point. And don’t try to claim that there were always huge numbers of abortions. Go research it. There were not.
I have had some experience with sex, some of it casual when I, too, was a callow young man, and some while trying to have a baby in covenant with my wife. They don’t compare at all. One is entirely selfish and I very much regret ever doing that because of some bad consequences; the other is a true act of love that no casual sex can ever approach in terms of complete human pleasure and efficacy.
Twister, I have read enough of your posts to know that you are difficult to convince, but not impossible. Think about it.
Jed,
I have said this in a past blog here:
It is the sanctity of life I am protecting.
There is no conflict in my views.
I stand by my post. The conservatives want to control people’s sexuality through their (the conservatives’) moral code, especially women’s sexuality.
If they can’t stop people from having sex (except for procreation only), they can MAKE THEM PAY by having to raise an unwanted child–that’s what abortion is all about.
It’s not saving the child–it’s punishing the woman for “immorality.”
The same people that throw themselves in front of cars going into abortion clinics are the people who petition the local high schools to stop sex ed, they’re the same people who support Bush’s “abstinence only” sex ed policy (actually Bush developed this to placate the far right).
They’re the same people who want to pass a “save marriage amendment” that discriminates against gay couples who want the rights and respect that hetero couples have.
The common element is sex . . . conservatives want to control what your and my private lives and feel all morally superior about it while they do it.
If they were really interested in saving babies, they’d be protesting the war in Iraq where we routinely drop bombs on families. But since that doesn’t involve controlling someone’s sex life, they’re not interested.
Pro-lifers = the American Taliban.
Hey Nathan,”I have said this in a past blog here:
It is the sanctity of life I am protecting.
There is no conflict in my views.”
If that’s the case, what are you hanging around all that ordnance for? Guns, mines and bombs seem pretty disruptive to the sanctity of life to me! If you don’t see the conflict, you better grope your way to your optometrist fast. Of course, if you mean the sanctity of YOUR life, and to hell with the rest, I see your point, even if I don’t agree with it.
Jed,
It is simple.
Do you support your local Police force?
When someone is trying to klll you and you call 911 would you want the cops to stop the person by any means needed?
In order to protect life, life must be taken sometimes.
In order to stop Hitler from invading all of Europe and Russia, life had to be taken to stop him.
It is a rather simple concept.
No Lyle,I have researched it, and while abortion dates back to early Roman times at least, the numbers started increasing with the shift from an agrarian to an industrial economy, when large families became a liability instead of an asset. Birth control became an issue here in the 1870’s when it, and abortion, were first outlawed. Birth control of any form was illegal in Kansas up until 1948.Casual sex? Does that imply formal sex? Gee, I don’t wear much of anything when I do it. The fact that you get your jollies with one particular form of sex doesn’t mean everybody else has to, too. If there is one defining human characteristic, it’s the degree with which we find uses for what we have, the computer you’re using right now is a prime example, and sex is no different; we have many uses, some highly noble, some as evil as evil gets, and a vast neutral field between. To set up your personal fetish as the only one acceptable is just plain arrogant, and to imply that the only valid reason for sex is reproduction is to go against the whole of human experience, and reduce us to the level of an invertibrate! Need I remind you that reproduction was just what the christian soldiers in Bosnia had in mind when they raped all those Muslim women?Regarding your comments on women’s sex drives, most of the unwarranted christian persecution of women derives from the belief that “It is the intemperate passion of women that leads innocent young men into a life of sin.” Let’s get our stories straight here.Abortion, as difficult as it is, is birth control. We have other means, and they are good, if not completely effective and universal, so abortion, legal or illegal, will be around for a long while yet, as the “birth control of last resort.” Your own story speaks to the impracticality of abstinence. So, what’s your solution? Everybody be just like you?
Hey Nathan,You know what? You’re right! Problem is, you just negated any absolute sanctity of life. See the conflict yet?
Jed,
You and I must be operating on different definitions for the “sanctity of life”
There is no conflict with mine.
Oh great Nathan! Once again by your great wisdom, you have shown us the way! Could we all bow down and kiss your pinky?
Wow Nathan you really are all over the map! So far you are an active marine (even though the lack of any local marine posts as mentioned by other bloggers would seem to dispute that). Or you are a discharged marine with a form to prove it,(this blog) or you are again an active marine (also this blog)You are a liar bud. The whole blog knows it except maybe for Hank, who I originally respected but am now beginning to see as just another blinders-on-flag waver.Here is a challenge for you right-to-lifers: I defy you to present me one, just one case where a partial birth abortion was perfomed on a healthy woman carrying a healthy baby. I refuse to believe a woman would endure 9 months of pregnancy (one of the single most health altering conditions that there is) and suddenly change her mind!How about another challenge? It is posted above that those who are pro-choice differentiate between a baby minutes pre birth vs. post birth. Of course the ruse of the RAMPANT, UNNECESSARY (George Tiller did I think, 3 of them last year) partial birth abortion provides the ammunition for this lie. But let’s stick with this minutes before and after birth theme.It is strange to me the concern of the right for the unborn as opposed to the born! The right seems willing to strap a woman to a gurney and force her to gestate. That fetus is a LIFE!!!! But once the gestation is complete, once that baby is born, the love and concern for life by the right seems to evaporate away! Welfare for single mothers or poor families? NO! National health care for the mother and child? NO!! Head start education? NO!!! School lunch programs to feed the poor child? NO!!!!Interesting the dichotomy there!The right is NOT interested in life. If they were they would have some small concern (or any concern) for QUALITY OF LIFE.So right-to-lifers? Instead of harassing women at abortion clinics, get out your wallet! Give them some cash or take them into your home. Advocate national prenatal and postnatal care, or provide it to a girl in trouble. Adopt a baby, any baby, regardless of race.Unless you adress these challenges, your “right to life “crusade is, as other posters have stated, nothing more than your attempt to punish what you see as “naughty immoral sex” with the responsibilities of parenthood. Or to put it another way, you proclaim every child as a blessing from God, that is until it is born; at which point you see it as divinely inspired curse for YOUR concept of sin.
Hey JR,Good post!I do sometimes wonder if the intent of making a sin of something everybody does, and is necessary to survive is to manipulate people. After all, the church found out centuries ago that people who feel guilty put more money in the plate.
Hey Nathan,Sanctity of life means sanctity of life- it doesn’t get more simple than that. Unless, of course, you are defining it as “I only blow away the people they tell me to,” in which case, your moral code is seriously lacking integrity!
JR,
Damoon has also vouched for my being a Marine too. It is more than Hank.
I even think Mister Twister has agreed.
If you thought long and hard about it, you might be able to figure out how there is no contradiction in what I have said so far.
I wouldn’t want to ruin it by just giving you the answer…
Jed,
Is it ever ok to kill someone to protect the life of another?
Hey Nathan,Yeah, it probably is, depending on the circumstances, but in essence, you’re choosing to put the life of one over that of another, and so any talk of a blanket “sanctity of life” becomes sheer hypocrisy. Is that simple enough for you to see, or do we have to get out the crayons?
Jed,The answer to whether Nathan is a Marine seems obvious. Consider the evidence. He has a lot of info about the Marines, but he seems to have a lot of time on his hands. As pointed out previously, there are no active Marine posts any where near Wichita.
Nathan is a reservist.
He claims to have a DD214. If he’s been in the reserve for almost 8 years, he’s on his second, possibly third enlistment. You get a DD214 at the end of each term. I’m not positive how it is now, but used to be, you got a DD214 at the end of active service, served a period as active or inactive reserve, and when your time was up, you got a real Discharge.
Nathan is guilty of a lie by ommision.
He’s proud of being a Marine, but doesn’t have the guts to come right out and say he’s a reservist.You never know (and Nathan obviously won’t say), Nathan may have served an active duty hitch, and then re-enlisted in the reserves. Just by listening to him, I kind of doubt that, but I don’t know. If he’s always been a reservist, you can just forget the image of Nathan standing steely-eyed in our nation’s defense. I’m not sure about now, but there used to be a thing called a “6-month reservist” in the Corps. They were generally looked down on and didn’t get a lot of respect from members of the “real Corps”. They got 6 months of training, and spent 6 years in the active reserve.Nathan says his “MOS” isn’t needed in Iraq. MOS is Marine Corps language that means “Job”. Every Marine, and I mean absolutely every one, is trained as a basic rifleman (infantry). The majority of Marines are classified 0311 which is infantry (or, oh, say 8651. Look that one up, Nathan, and then think about it for a while. Might have some bearing on whether you REALLY want to meet me for lunch). Now granted, those numbers may have changed, but I doubt it. Nathan has obviously found an MOS where he’s not going to be shot at (brave little fellow). In his case, I’d guess he’s a “Flute Player”. Pretty cozy, wouldn’t you say? He gets to brag about being a Marine without taking near as much risk as an active duty Marine.
But it’s like I said in a previous post. Guys who spout the most about their military service are usually the ones who have done the least. I’d venture a guess that Nathan has never been shot at. Consider the people on this blog that holler the most about being in the service, and I’ll show you a group of people who may have been in, but didn’t do much. Consider Hank, proud submariner, chief whoop-de-do of his VFW post. How many fire-fights do you suppose he saw in his submarine? He brags about his ribbons/medals. It’s salad that everybody in his unit got at the same time, probably mostly “Unit citations”. Not imposible, but I doubt if Hank has anything like a “cross” or a “CUF”, (personal citations). As I said, if they’re long on talk, they’re short on action.
Back to the issue at hand. Kathy, thank you for the reply, I agree with what you’re saying. I’m not sure that arguing about when life begins or not is relevant, the bottom line is, when a woman has an abortion, a human is denied the right to his/her time on earth. To the ones who seriously want to do something to stop abortion, there is a facility called “Choices Medical Clinic” right next door to George Tiller’s abortion clinic, that offers alternatives to abortion and all the support, including free medical care, that a woman needs if she should choose not to abort an unwanted pregnancy. They need volunteers and money to do their work. So far, since they opened their doors, literally thousands of babies have been saved from abortion. If you really feel that women need alternatives to abortion, then please, consider donating time and/or money to them. They are a wonderful group of people who actually offer positive solutions to women who may be feeling desperate due to an unintended pregnancy. They are located at 538 S Bleckley and the phone number is 687 2792. If you want to know more, they also have a web site at http://www.choicesmc.org
Thanks for your clarification, Hammer. It explains a lot.
Not having served in the military myself, I don’t have the luxury of distinguishing between the ones who put themselves in harm’s way and the ones who served in some non-combat role. I think they are all worth of respect, but not when then pass themselves off as something that they are not.
That’s what was so appalling about the Swift Boat Liars. They didn’t do half of what Kerry did in Vietnam–Kerry pulled a man to safety, saved his life, and took a bullet in his shoulder for it, and these POS’s talk about how he didn’t earn his medals.
For shame . . . and shame on the Republicans for embracing these slime-balls and their tactics . . .
Dear Twister’
Why doesn’t Kerry sign a DD-181 form so the media can do a rectal exam on him like they did Bush?
You might get a copy of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s book, Unfit For Command. Then get a copy of John Kerry’s book, Winter Soldier. Decide then which of these decorated veterans are the real patriots.
Keep sticking with Hammer. He has an amazing crystal ball that allows him to disparage a Marine without any facts at all. Out of all of the possible circumstances that could apply to Nathan’s duty status Ol’ Hammer decides Nathan is a liar and then cherry picks a few of the possibilities (again no proof) that support his assumption. Maybe if you two get tight enough he will give you some stock market tips or lottery numbers.
Since you have accepted Hammer as your military medal expert why don’t you ask him why all veterans can’t join the VFW?
Sincerely,
Hank
Twister, I never cared much for Kerry, but he didn’t deserve what he got, especially when you consider the service record of his opponent, who served in the “Rich Boy Regiment”. Personally, I’m a lot more comfortable being led to war by a combat vet. A combat vet knows all the reasons why you don’t go to war. If a combat vet does lead us to war, you can bet he has a damn good reason.
Oh, and by the way, more than half of my medals are ‘personal citations’. Ol’ Hammer probably can dial my record up in his crystal ball and confirm that for you.
Hank
PS Was it Mark Twain that said, “A liar will never believe you and a thief will never trust you.”?
Henry/Hank,I honestly have no idea why all vets can’t join the VFW. I never had enough interest to ask what the qualifications are. I know you’re going to have a hard time believing this, but a lot of vets don’t give a crap about the VFW. This may come as a shock, but a lot of veterans went, they did their duty, and they came home. No parades, no speeches, no BRAGGING, just got on with their lives. Henry/Hank, If you need the VFW, I’m glad it’s there for you. A lot of people got over playing soldier when they were young.
“Medals”, Henry/Hank? I thought before, they were ribbons. Your story seems to change a lot.
“The truth need only be told once,It’s the lie that bears repeating”
Poor old John Kerry. Even though he lost the election, he gets picked on.
Henry/Hank, why are you so interested in Kerry’s rectum?
Well Hammer,
I think that the big “lie” I told before was that I have more ribbons than medals. Which I do. I think that you later had to admit that certain citations are a ribbon with no medal. It might have been the Twister, I get you two Bozo’s confused.
I’m not interested in Kerry at all anymore. He is the typical democratic presidential nominee. The best man for the job, one time. Never good enough for a second try. Who remembers Algore?
Sincerely
Henry to you
Hammer,
There are over 30,000 Marines in the reserve.
Many have been called to serve in Iraq and others have not.
Regardless of who got shot at and who did not they all play a role in the operational success of the Marine Corps.
Those Marines who load bombs on the FA-18’s, Cobra’s, and Harriers and are never shot at served and do continue to serve just as honorably as those brave infantrymen who are on the front lines getting shot at.
Without those bombs being loaded more of those infantry would be killed by the enemy.
The Marines who do nothing more than fill out paperwork serve just as honorably as those who are shot at.
I think it is extremely honorable that there are Marines who do nothing more than ensure that those who are fighting on the front lines getting shot at are getting paid. That their families are recieving the money they need to survive while their loved one is fighting.
I suppose since none of those Marines were shot at or served on the front lines Hammer would have us believe that their service is not as honorable or worthy?
What was it you said Hammer?
“If he’s always been a reservist, you can just forget the image of Nathan standing steely-eyed in our nation’s defense.”
I would like to see you tell that to the other 30,000 reservists.
You don’t just try to insult me, but you insult the many others who serve their country.
For someone who is constantly saying that I am threaten you with lunch, do you think I am threatened by your MOS when you try to threaten me?
Hammer, I don’t know what your problem is, but every Marine is a Marine and serves our country proudly.
You might think you are just trying to insult me, but you are really showing nothing more than your complete and total lack of respect towards all the other Marines serving this country.
You don’t know anything about the VFW.
You didn’t know about ribbons/medals.
Yet you are still sitting here attacking both Hank and my service to our country?
Grow up.
Hey Hammer,Truth to be told, I really don’t care whether Nathan is or isn’t an active duty Marine. As I’ve said, there are many ways to serve, and military service is only one of them. They’re all honorable!What I’m trying to get at is that Nathan has stated, in various posts, ideas that are so irresolvably contradictory that he has to either be stringing us along, is dangerously conflicted, or some of both. In any case, it scares me to think of him in connection with weapons systems, I’ve had to deal with well-armed loons and ideologues, and it’s no fun, to say the least.
Agreed, Jed. Nathan’s a confusing guy, but I’m not going to dwell on his military status anymore.
Hank has got to be ex-military because he sounds ex-military, heh, so I can’t get too steamed at him even though I disagree with him on a lot of political positions.
He earned the right to his opinion.
I read “Unfit for Command” at Dillon’s grocery store in about 35 minutes (I’d never BUY it) and I found it utterly unconvincing. It was a pack of lies from start to finish.
Kerry saved a man’s life under fire. That man is a life-long Republican and says that everything that Kerry said about the incident is true.
The snot-pukes that wrote “Unfit for Command” never even saw Kerry in action in Vietnam, most of them weren’t even there at the same time–when they say, “I served with John Kerry” that in itself is a lie, because it implies that they were in his unit or something. They never even heard of him until years later.
The vets who attacked Kerry attacked him because he came back from Vietnam and told the truth, it was unwinnable and every man who died there was dying for a lie.
The gung-ho true believers still think to this day that there’s no problem that can’t be solved by dropping a bomb at it or shooting it with a gun.
And that’s why we’re in Iraq.
Nathan, Hank,It’s almost enough to make you sympathize with John Kerry, isn’t it?
Jed,
Who told you I was well armed?
I am actually taking my pastor out to the range this Saturday morning to teach him how to shoot.
In case you were wondering (my military fans here who keep a running track record on what I say) I am also an 8531. For those who don’t know it is a Marksmanship Instructor.
It is one of my many passions, teaching others how to safely handle and fire different weapons.
Anyhow…
I don’t know what “ideas” I have that are contradictory. I can only think of one idea which Jed and I have been discussing.
I am open to hear all of these ideas of mine which are “so irresolvably contradictory that he has to either be stringing us along, is dangerously conflicted, or some of both.”
Since you are dragging this over to this blog, why don’t you tell me what all of these ideas are you are talking about.
Hey Nathan,They’ve been pointed out to you by many people here and you’ve so invariably failed to get the point that you have to either be posing or more in denial than a crocodile! If you are really being up front with us, you really ought to consider getting some help before you get any further down McVey’s and Rudolph’s path. We don’t need any more of them.
Jed,
When you are prepared to actually support your case with facts let me know.
Nathan, I’d think you’d be singing my praises. After all, I’m not doing anything the Swift Boat Vets didn’t do to Kerry. Do you think they insulted all Navy vets because they denegrated Kerry’s record? Why do you think I’m insulting all Marines because I question your service? As I recall, you seem to think highly of the Swift Boat vets.
You are not questioning my service Hammer. You are generically questioning the service of anyone in my supposed posistion:
“If he’s always been a reservist, you can just forget the image of Nathan standing steely-eyed in our nation’s defense. I’m not sure about now, but there used to be a thing called a “6-month reservist” in the Corps. They were generally looked down on and didn’t get a lot of respect from members of the “real Corps”. They got 6 months of training, and spent 6 years in the active reserve.”
Looked to me like you are questioning the service of all reservists with that, not just me.
Hammer,
I also let you little comment about my chosen job slip by:
“Nathan has obviously found an MOS where he’s not going to be shot at (brave little fellow).”
Really? How would you know that? How is it so obvious?
You dont have a clue about what I do.
If it is so obvious, then please look into your crystal ball and tell me what I do…
No Nathan, I’m questioning YOUR service. As for the rest of your post, I’ve many times seen and heard Drill Instructors slam 6 month reservists. That’s not a judgement, merely an observation. Drill Instructors are generally the cream of the Marine Corps. I learned to respect their opinion.Don’t hide behind the Marine Corps Reserve Nathan. This is just about you.
Gee Nathan, the Swift Boat Vets felt that just because they served in Viet Nam at the same time Kerry did, they were qualified to vilify his record.
I really don’t care what you do. I have a pretty fair idea what you DON’T do.
How do I know you haven’t been shot at? I don’t know 100%, but I have a pretty good idea.
Hammer,
I will tell you I have not been shot at. You accused me of choosing a job because it would keep me from being shot at.
That is what I am saying you have no idea about.
You are merely scraping at whatever you can to try to attack me. I still don’t know why…
When was the last time you even talked to Drill Instructors?
I have two friends who are Drill Instructors.
I will tell you that last time I checked no one taught that reservists were any less of a Marine.
All Marines go to the same bootcamp and same Infantry training school and Marine Combat Training School.
All Marines go to the same MOS schools whether they are reservist or not.
Nathan, I expect that at one point, John Kerry wondered why. I notice you don’t respond to the part about the Swift Boat Vets.
I don’t care about the specifics of your job. But being shot at tends to give ona a totally different aspect about war. I’m not saying that everybody that gets shot is against war…just makes them think about it a little harder.
You think I’m attacking you and you don’t know why?
Lets just say I don’t like bullies.
Nathan,The facts have been supplied! I’m not going to repaste this whole effing blog here for your convenience, so get over it!
We have gotten way off topic here but I think it is telling in a way. The side arguements of the “pro-lifers” reveal a great deal about them.Nathan? The few the proud? Remember that? Why so cagey about just who or what you are or what it is that you do? Is shame at work here? Now I don’t pretend to know alot about the military (there are others here who clearly do) but everything I do know says that a Marine heads toward the sound of gunfire. Apparently your concept of heading toward the gunfire involves teaching others to shoot (so they can go insead of you?) and taking your minister to the skeet range. Now Nathan I don’t exactly know your stance on the current “war”, but given the balance of your posts, I have to conclude that you are a bush supporter and all in favor of the “war”. And so I gotta ask, what are you doing here? There are a great many national guard personell and others who never dreamed they would be on the front line. And yet they are there. But you are here. And much as bush does, you proclaim the mantle of service without ever (by your own admission) having faced the highest calling. Worse yet, you and such as you diminish the service of true veterans such as John Kerry. I have to wonder in this if there is not some brotherhood in cowardice where the creed is “we served but don’t ask us to much about how and where”. I could say more but frankly Nathan, you aint worth it. Suffice it to say it is perfectly understandable that you are a bushie.Hank? Sorry guy. I did respect you. You did a good job acting I’ll give ya that. Hard to dislike the old VFW guy. Until your last post. You referred to Al Gore ( who did serve in Viet Nam while g.bush did not) as Algore an aphorism to Igor. That particular derogatory moniker for Al Gore ( a true Viet Nam vet, advocate for the environment, and the driving force behind the creation of the internet over which we now can debate one another) is the territory of Rash Laimbrain er I meant Rush Limbaugh. Your use of it demonstrates that you are a ditto head (one who nods yes everytime Rush spews lies)). As such you can not be counted on as the source of any intelligent or relevant debate.How is this relevant to the topic we got away from? Well we have Nathan, a known evader of the truth. We have also hank who is told everyday what to think and say by a blustering lying megalomaniac.Not great cases for the voracity of either of these two “men” their crusade or their party at large.
JR…..Well spoken.
JR,
What truth am I evading?
I have no business telling you guys what I do here.
This is an internet blog. Do you want my Social Security number too?
I have yet to see what any of you do, yet you sit here attacking me?
Give me a break. Get a life.
Nathan, give you a break?Why? You don’t give anybody else a break.Indeed, this is an internet blog. You have a right to submit your opinion, and there’s where the problem starts. You stifle that right to others. You deny anyone free access to this blog who’s opinion is anywhere left of yours (or at least, you try).
Nathan, you’re a bully.
I read one time where you said you were only seeking “truth” and “answers”. That’s a lie. You seek to censor. I don’t think there’s any submitter left of center on these pages who you haven’t tried to brow-beat. I know, it’s all in the intrest of “accuracy”. But I note you never worry about accuracy when the submitter is conservative.I’ll give you credit. You’re a top debater and you’re very good at pushing people’s buttons. But you use your skills to deny others a voice on these pages. Your style is classic. You ridicule. You use snide remarks and an agressive method to put your victim on the defensive, and as we both know, once you put a person on the defensive, you’re on your way to victory. You find one weak part of someone’s opinion, and you tear them apart. You bear down on someone because they haven’t answered your “questions” but you run away like the little coward you are when somebody nails you.
Nathan, I “discovered” this blog when I got an email from a friend. My friend thought this blog was the best thing since popcorn, because it allowed an outlet for the free expression and exchange of ideas. A couple of days later, I got another email from the same friend. He said he’d never submit on this blog again. You trashed him and humiliated him, all because his opinion didn’t match yours.
How does that make you feel, Nathan? You denied a fellow American the right to freely voice their opinion. You ran somebody off this blog. His ideas were just as valid as yours, but you intimidated him and forced him off this forum.Granted, blogs can get rough, but you take it way too far. You take an exchange and turn it into a street-fight. Most people just aren’t prepared for that kind of tactic and recoil. You take advantage of that.
But I notice it’s not working so well anymore. More and more, submitters left of center are standing up to you and refusing to let you push them around. They treat you with the disrespect you so richly deserve. You win fights, but you’re loosing “the war”. Even the other conservitaves aren’t so quick to support you anymore. Unlike you, they’re good people for the most part, and are here to voice their opinion and debate the issues, not to destroy their oponents.You’re right. You have no business telling us what you do. But you just can’t help it because you can’t pass up an oportunity to brag. But you’re the one that put the information out, so don’t complain when it gets used against you.
You have yet to see what any of us do? Unlike you, we aren’t stupid enough to put that info out. You tried to attack my military background, but you didn’t get any traction, because I don’t brag about it and you don’t have anything to go on, do you? You seize on the tiniest detail, ribbons/medals, Knowledge about the VFW, etc. You have no information to build your case on.
Silly little snipe.
You’re an arrogant and mean-sprited little man, Nathan.
Think hard, Nathan. I expect your usual avalanche of leading and loaded questions.”When did I…..?”"Where did I….?”"Show me how I….?”
Nathan, I can give you one answer to all your questions:
Can you guess how many fingers I’m holding up and which one?
Ah yes, Algore, everyman’s Viet Nam hero. Went to Viet Nam because his daddy made him for political reasons. Served as a journalist on the front lines. Had an attachment of 6 full time body guards to insure he came home safe and sound.
Where is this great hero today? The man that got more votes than GWB? This hero of the democratic party? Oh, Yea, I forgot. He didn’t come up with the electoral votes. The Supreme Court didn’t elect him, instead they followed the constitution. As a democrat you only get one bite at the apple. One chance to be president. Then they nominate the next ‘best candidate’ for the job.
Algore was so very proud of his military service that he too had to protect discovery of the facts by refusing to sign his DD-181. But then loyal constituents need not know the truth, just the latest BS from the DNC.
Sincerely,
Henry to you
PS I also get my marching orders from Sean Hannity!
Hank, there you go with that DD-181 thing again. Do you also want to examine All Gore’s rectum?
Best wishes, you old teddybear, you.
Hammer
Well Hammer, my intellectually challenged friend. This whole signing of a DD-181 was one of the requirements of the liberal MSM for a presidential candidate with a military background. Oops, I meant Republican presidential candidate. It seems we must examine pay stubbs, dental records, flight physical and every mundane little detail of a Republican presidential candidate. Then if they can’t find any damning evidence that would disqualify the candidate to be the Commander-in-Chief they can always make something up.
They don’t seem to be to curious about the democrats DD-181. No, of course I am not interested in Algore’s rectum. I’m just curious why educated nitwits like you aren’t interested in the reasons why your war hero’s won’t share their military records with the voters.
Hank
PS You got me so scared that I checked, 118/78, 62 bpm. I’ll live for years yet!
Nathan, Nathan,You come on this blog full tilt, spoiling for a fight, and when you get in over your head, you scream that everyone’s attacking you! Is that any attitude for a Marine to have?
Hello my fellow liberals.
I see you still have little to offer on the subject. When you are ready to actually discuss the issue I will be here.
Run away, Nathan, run away!
Damn Hank, you old warhorse, with numbers like that, you may live forever!
Hank, I want you to know that “intellectually challenged” remark just cut me to the quick. And here when I was just starting to think you and me might get to be buddies. You and that temper, tisk, tisk.
Have you signed a DD-181?I know you tend to be a little “Anal” but do you need to sign a form to examine your own rectum? Why are you so interested in rectums?
Just a question, Hank. Where are you on gay rights?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Buga-Buga, Hank
Hammer
Oh, Hank? I really don’t care about DD-181s. I’m not at all interested in rectums.
Pleas don’t be getting any funny ideas, and don’t be coming up behind me.
Anybody who listens to Rush Lamebutt and takes what he says for fact is a fool. That would be like me basing all my opinions on what Michael Moore says. They’re nothing but entertainers with specific agendas, not serious journalists.
DearHammer,
Another intelligent post! Way to go. However, you seem to be the one that is hung up on rectums.
Gay rights? How are ‘gay rights’ different from heterosexual rights? Do they have a different constitution that I do? Just wondering.
DD-181? Pretending ignorance is a good ploy when you can’t debate on substance. However, when you use that tact it is a little hypocritical to fake outrage when someone assumes you are stupid.
So, you are either disengenuous or stupid. Which is it, phoney or fool? Enquiring minds want to know.
Watch your back,
Hank
Hammer,
I admit it. If saying I am a Marine because someone was saying that I had no right to talk about the war unless I was willing to serve makes me a bragger, guilty as charged.
As far as your friend goes: I did nothing to them. I have only expressed my opinions and questioned others.
If you are not able/willing to accept debate on your opinions and ideas then don’t post them here.
Hey Nathan,
Some people when bested in the arena of ideas run away and whine, others break out in an attack of homophobia.
Hank
Nathan, I never said “I” was not able or willing. I thrive on bullies. Bring it on, sonny. And don’t tell me where I can post; I won’t be censored by you.
Hank, glad you enjoyed my post. I just have a hard time coming up with negative answers for someone who makes me laugh as much as you do.
Love the insults, but could you please be a little more creative?
I don’t have to watch my back. I have people who do that for me.
Your Pal,
Hammer
Hammer,
I guess you can add my supposed threat to censor you with my supposed threat to beat you up at lunch.
*Childish 2nd grade voice*Don’t tell me not to tell you where you can post… na na na na
Do you feel better now Hammer?
You have stood up to the great and powerful Nathan. Your liberal friends will respect you in the morning now.
Oh come on Nathan, you can do better that that.
“I guess you can add my supposed threat to censor you with my supposed threat to beat you up at lunch.”
Ok, I will.
“*Childish 2nd grade voice*Don’t tell me not to tell you where you can post… na na na na”
“na na na na”?!?!? How very mature. Nathan, I don’t think I have a comeback for that. Would you feel better if I said something like “nany, nany, boo, boo”? (I hate it when I have to sink to your level)
“You have stood up to the great and powerful Nathan.” You betcha, Bub. Better get used to it. By the way, didn’t you steal that line from The Wizard of Oz? Or in your case, The Wizard of Odd? By the way, quite an opinion you have of yourself. “Great and Powerful”? I think you’re kind of a mouthy little Wus. But that’s just a personal opinion. Nothing personal (figure that one out, bright boy).
You suppose my liberal friends will respect me? Heck Nathan, I don’t know. They sure don’t respect you anymore, do they? Seems like every where you turn, one of us is down your throat. Eventually, that’s what happens to bullies. People stand up to them. Notice I don’t have that problem? Just you and Hank, and as we all know, Hank is your little lap dog.
At any rate, bring it on, boys. I love the smell of fresh meat!
GOTCHA HANK! I pegged you as a ditto head and “HANNITIZED” I also go a rise out of you I think. Now the whole blog knows that Hank is not the kindly old soldier VFW vet. In fact I begin to question whether hank is a veteran at all.But whether hank WAS a vet or not is no longer relevant. What is relevant is that he is a mindless drone for Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, two of the most evil men in America. I bet Hank won’t hit back til sometime Monday afternoon, after he gets his programming from his talk radio masters. Oh and Hank? I gotta take back any and all respect I may have afforded you. To wit hank, you are dirt.Nathan? done said my peace and Hammer did it way better than me.So witness again my friends the RIGHT. They are “right” because someone tells them they are! (Hank) Or, they are right because they have constucted such a web of self deluding lies, which they enforce for themselves by arguing with others, that they have no idea what truth even is anymore. (nathan) Oh and a side note to nathan: You invited me to lunch I believe. I don’t think you threatened me, but if you are threatening posters, I’ll accomodate ya son! I’d like that! As I said before, these side arguements are productive in understanding the “pro-life” right. See I was once pro -life. Then I became a parent, and later, a single parent. I’m gonna peg nathan again here. I suspect Nathan is “keeping his powder dry” if you take my meaning. I suspect this has little to do with Nathan’s morality and more to due with his lack of opportunity. AH but I gotta wind this up. Bottom line? Abortion is NEVER going away. The issue affords the GOP way to many ill-informed voters for themto allow it to be settled
Oh this is off topic too but I can’t leave some posts off topic un-adressed. Fact: Al Gore got more votes than bush.Fact: Gore was “in country” in Viet Nam. Now some posters say he was there for his father. Interesting! bush was NOT THERE because of his father!Comparison: John Kerry volunteered to serve in Viet Nam.g bush…..evaded service in Vietnam Dick Cheney ……..had “more important things to do”
JR, thank-you for your support. I admire the way you’ve stood up to Nathan and I think you have old Hank pegged. Man, did he ever change when he got busted. I have this mental picture of a tired, wild-eyed old looser in front of a spit-drenched monitor, trying to figure out what to say next. That was sad, because I think we all liked and respected Hank until he identified himself as a “Fox Zombie”, a “Ditto-Head”, and Nathan’s little puppet.
I throughly agree with your assertion that abortion is never going away. If it did, the GOP would loose a major tool in their mind control arsenal.
Take care, my friend.I got your back.
And let’s not forget, Rush didn’t serve because he had “anal warts”. How utterly Republican!
Ah JR, I don’t have to wait until Monday to get my marching orders from Rush, I’ve got Rush 24/7!
Let’s see, Algore LOSER. Lurch LOSER. What hero will be the next LOSER the dems put up to rule the world?
Now, in your crazy little left wing world its an insult to call someone a ‘ditto head’. You don’t even know what that term means. Actually Rush is a little to the left of my way of thinking and Hannity is a moderate.
Be careful, I hear Hammer has ‘got your back’.
Hank
Just one question, are all these insults flying back and forth “Christian” behavior? You guys get so ugly, if Jesus were here today, I don’t think he’d approve of your verbal abuse. Why don’t you all practice what you preach? No wonder there is so much war.
Damoon,
For someone who doesn’t believe in Jesus you sure do like to talk about him and what he would do.
It does get ugly, doesn’t it? You raised a couple of boys, Damoon. You know how we are. };=)
Thanks Hammer!It is interesting to see Hank de- evolve isn’t it? Talk about a meltdown! Hank seemed such a nice guy til he was outed, and my previous posts prove that I too was fooled.Pity poor Hank. I mean that! It must be truly sad to get your marching orders from Rush (and then claim that you are right of him) and be”Hannitized” (while you proclaim Hannity as a moderate.) Throw in Bootz and Michael Savage and Hank must get real confused! Wow Hank you poor B……. you don’t know what to think do ya? I am honestly sad for you. I do intend to continue to monitor your posts and communicate with you. I’d call you an experiment into what is truly wrong with America.Nathan is already a dead duck here. The whole blog knows it. Nathan is not worthy of further research. But I think the Phelps folks are looking for members. Perhaps Nathan could devote his time there….while he is not being a Marine!Make no mistake here. I love intelligent debate. I value reasoned opinion. But as nathan and Hank have shown us, their opinions are suspect because they themselves are suspect.
I couldn’t agree more, JR. Hank and Nathan have both rendered themselves meaningless, more’s the shame. Hank was a likable sort, but he’s all venom and no substance now, and Nathan…. He was effective at first, but everybody figured out his tactics pretty quick, and he’s just too narrow-minded to be able to switch. I used to enjoy arguing with him, but it’s not even worth the effort now, because the guy is so predictable. You know before he starts what he’s going to say (”show me where”, “explain to me how”, “prove to me”, me,me,me,me,me,me). Nathan is lame, and he’s not any fun anymore. I think it’s time to ignore both of the pathetic creeps. That’ll kill Nathan. He’s got to be the center of attention. Care to take bets he was an only child? Funny, Nathan tried to run this blog…looks like he’s the one who is rendered nonsequitor. He and Hank will hang around for a while, but eventually they’ll get tired of being ostracized.Nathan is a bully. When you stand up to bullies, they go away. Bye, Nathan.
Nathan, I quote Jesus because I believe he was a great teacher, too bad most Christians don’t follow his instuctions, but prefer the “ala carte” type of belief system, “I’ll have some of this and some of that, but I don’t want any of that”. Whatever is conveinent, easy, and suits their fancy is what they believe.
Damoon,
You are absolutely baffling.
On one hand you are telling me that Christians pick and choose what Jesus said yet you are the one who completely disregards him saying he is not only the son of God, but God himself!
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t sit here telling me that Jesus was a good guy and teacher yet ignore what he says about himself.
I have told you once before:
Jesus is either the Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.
Which is it?
Jesus didn’t write the bible, Nathan, and you and I obviously interpet it differently. To me it is a book of metaphors, not to be necessarily taken literally. I’m not a Christian, but that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the wisdom I have found in it. I’m not sure who Jesus was, all I know for sure is that his example had one heck of an impact on the world.
Damoon,
So who is picking and choosing now?
You can say we interpret it differently, but you are only picking what you want to read and rejecting what you don’t like.
You can call it a “book of metaphors” but then you want to pick out things Jesus said and preach it here to me?
Nathan, do you believe that the Bible is the literal word of God?
Why yes I do.
Hey Hammer? Hank has scurried away. (Rush is on vacation this week) High five! Nathan just lobbed you a a grapefruit and I think you know it or you would have just ignored him. You put me onto him, knock him out!At your back,
Nathan,Prove that the Bible is the literal word of God.
Hammer,
Prove to me that Jesus Christ is the son of God sent to die for our sins.
Nathan, you said the Bible is the literal word of God. Don’t change the subject. Prove it.
I answered your question.
If you are too slow to understand then you are beyond my help.
What do you think the Bible is Hammer?
I didn’t ask you to answer any question. I asked you to prove your assertion. What are you waiting for?
Now watch how easy it is to give a straight answer:I believe the Bible was written by men inspired by God.
So do I.
I don’t take it as literal.
You still haven’t proven your point.
When do you determine what is literal and what is not.
What parts of the Bible are not truth to you?
Nathan, why are you trying to twist things around?
Lets clarify things then.
What is your definition of taking the Bible as the literal word of God and how is that different than saying it is inspired by God and written by men.
Perhaps if I knew what the difference was we could get somewhere.
I’m not the one who considers the Bible as the literal word. You define it.
I don’t see the difference in those two statements, yet you claim otherwise.
So what do you mean when you say “literal word of God?”
You said it was the literal word of God. You tell me.
I told you, exactly what you said:
“inspired by God and written by men”
I guess you think it is the literal word of God too then!
That what the Bible says is true.
Go back and re-read it till you get it right.
Nathan, you take the New Testament literally, what about the Old Testament? Do you believe that the earth was literally created in 7 days and it’s only 7,000 yrs old?
Yes I believe the Earth was created in 7 days (6 if you don’t count the rest) and I am not sure on the 7,000, but somewhere around that number…
Let’s watch nathan squirm.
Nathan? Who was Cains wife?Nathan? Do you eat bacon, shrimp, lobster, or shellfish? Do you think that women should be shunned and secluded during their menstrual cycle and after giving birth? nathan do you know Leviticus?Hey nathan? If I took your coat would you come find me and offer me you shirt as well?
Ok what am I doing? I’m debating nathan.
Hammer? nathan provokes me too. You were right when you said ignore him. (notice the absence of hank?)Nathan has been demonstrated as dis-honest. As such, anything he posts is not relevant in the realm of intelligent discourse.Nathan your words are unimportant and we do not hear them. Rant away as you will and as is your right, but you will find no further encouragement here. encouragement for your f
Just to let you know that Nathan practices what he preaches, last week I’m pretty sure I saw him sacrificing a bull to God in his backyard in order to cleanse himself. He might have eaten shrimp for dinner or something.
Damoon,
I thought that someone who has studied the scripture as much as you would know that what you said is preposterous.
In the New Testament the reasons are clearly given for why sacrifice is no longer needed.
You love to qoute Jesus when it suits you, don’t you know what happened to him and why?
Damoon you continue to show me with every post your motives of attacking Christianity and Christians.
You say you know the scripture, but you dont.
You say you have read the scripture, but you sure don’t understand it.
JR,
First you ask me a bunch of questions then you say you are going to ignore me?
LOL
If you are going to ignore me, just do it. You don’t have to tell someone you are ignoring them, you just do it.
LOL
Nathan, you confuse responses to your gibberish as attacks on Christianity. What total conceit! How can you consider yourself to be a defender of the faith when you can’t even discuss the faith without starting a fight?
I know you don’t care who you make mad. You need to really consider where that attitude comes from. You quote scripture as well as anybody I know, but all you can do is start fights. You don’t see a problem here?
Nathan, I hate to say it, but as talented as you are, the faith would best be served if you kept your mouth shut.
Let’s watch nathan squirm.
Nathan? Who was Cains wife?Nathan? Do you eat bacon, shrimp, lobster, or shellfish? Do you think that women should be shunned and secluded during their menstrual cycle and after giving birth? nathan do you know Leviticus?Hey nathan? If I took your coat would you come find me and offer me you shirt as well?
Ok what am I doing? I’m debating nathan.
Hammer? nathan provokes me too. You were right when you said ignore him. (notice the absence of hank?)Nathan has been demonstrated as dis-honest. As such, anything he posts is not relevant in the realm of intelligent discourse.Nathan your words are unimportant and we do not hear them. Rant away as you will and as is your right, but you will find no further encouragement here. encouragement for your f
Was that you ignoring me JR?
Nathan, please answer JR’s questions, I’m interested in what you have to say about Leviticus, do you take it literally, or do you “pick and choose” what to believe about that particular chapter?
Damoon,
If you had actually read the New Testament it explains why those verses are no longer valid.
On top of that, leviticus was not written for Gentiles. It was written for a particular people during a particular time.
Just like anything else you read, the context is very important.
Has nothing to do with picking and choosing it has everything to do with actually reading the Bible and studying it.