Comments on: The Lean-Righters http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/ Sat, 22 Nov 2008 03:44:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: Untitled http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-204 Untitled Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:10:13 +0000 http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-204 I have to say I disagree with the closing lines of this post. "emphasize the tragedy that is every abortion, to promote a culture of life, and to try make abortions as rare as possible (an effort that must continue until they are never), while still maintaining, in the end, that the choice should be the pregnant woman’s." Sad-event? yes. Medical Procedure? yes. But abortions aren't tradgedys. Wars are. Tsunamis are. But abortions are terminations of a part of a woman's body, not a living person. If the fetus could live on it's own, it would no longer be a fetus. The very meam/frame of "culture of life" is one that Democrats need to not play into. If stopping abortions makes a culture of life, then the fetus must be a life and abortion must be murder. But we all know that the fetus is not a life, that abortion is not a murder, and while we do want them to be rare...we don't need there to "never" be abortions! Abortions will continue to happen as long as there are rapes, mistakes, and youth making really bad decisions. Now we should try to keep them from making those decisions, fight rape and incest, and promote safe use of condoms and such.... but those aren't included in the traditional definition of "culture of life." I find that this type of post more to be the type that plays into right wing views on abortions and the like. I like hillary, and agree with her stance that we all need to focus on the areas where our interests are the same...but words like "tradgedy, culture of life," and "never" will only hurt us in those goals. I have to say I disagree with the closing lines of this post.

“emphasize the tragedy that is every abortion, to promote a culture of life, and to try make abortions as rare as possible (an effort that must continue until they are never), while still maintaining, in the end, that the choice should be the pregnant woman’s.”

Sad-event? yes. Medical Procedure? yes. But abortions aren’t tradgedys. Wars are. Tsunamis are. But abortions are terminations of a part of a woman’s body, not a living person. If the fetus could live on it’s own, it would no longer be a fetus. The very meam/frame of “culture of life” is one that Democrats need to not play into. If stopping abortions makes a culture of life, then the fetus must be a life and abortion must be murder. But we all know that the fetus is not a life, that abortion is not a murder, and while we do want them to be rare…we don’t need there to “never” be abortions!

Abortions will continue to happen as long as there are rapes, mistakes, and youth making really bad decisions. Now we should try to keep them from making those decisions, fight rape and incest, and promote safe use of condoms and such…. but those aren’t included in the traditional definition of “culture of life.”

I find that this type of post more to be the type that plays into right wing views on abortions and the like. I like hillary, and agree with her stance that we all need to focus on the areas where our interests are the same…but words like “tradgedy, culture of life,” and “never” will only hurt us in those goals.

]]> By: Clause http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-230 Clause Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:42:18 +0000 http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-230 Dear Mr/Ms/Mrs Untitled How can you disagree with planning to disagree while finding some common term of aggreement. nay sayer Dear Mr/Ms/Mrs Untitled
How can you disagree with planning to disagree while finding some common term of aggreement.
nay sayer

]]> By: Scifi http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-231 Scifi Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:14:10 +0000 http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-231 Hillary is trying to get elected. I believe that every politician will say and do what they want in order to get elected. It is my belief that abortion should not be used as a means of birth control. But, to say that my beliefs should be applied to everyone is selfish. If Republicans and Democrats feel that it is important to only point out parts of the Bible that work for them, then I want to have nothing to do with either party. For this reason, I switched parties four years ago: from Republican to Democrat. The Supreme Court has found that it is not the responsibility of government to decide what women can and cannot do with their bodies. Scientific fact: a fetus less than six months typically cannot live on its own; therefore it cannot be considered a child. Spiritually; a fetus is an unborn child that is a life force created by god; therefore, it can be considered murder. There are two sides to every story. I believe in both sides of the issue, but, again, my beliefs are not always right. I once heard someone say, "this country is becoming dumber, but more opinionated." Leave faith to religion and let science dictate our laws. Laws are based on reason, not faith. If laws were based on faith, we would live in a pre-war Afghanistan-type of society (better yet, an England that defined laws according to one religion in the early 17th century, forcing the Pilgrims to travel to America, and eventually establishing a society based on freedom of religion with separation of church and state). No one is forcing someone who doesn't believe in having an abortion to have one, are they? Hillary is trying to get elected. I believe that every politician will say and do what they want in order to get elected. It is my belief that abortion should not be used as a means of birth control. But, to say that my beliefs should be applied to everyone is selfish. If Republicans and Democrats feel that it is important to only point out parts of the Bible that work for them, then I want to have nothing to do with either party. For this reason, I switched parties four years ago: from Republican to Democrat. The Supreme Court has found that it is not the responsibility of government to decide what women can and cannot do with their bodies. Scientific fact: a fetus less than six months typically cannot live on its own; therefore it cannot be considered a child. Spiritually; a fetus is an unborn child that is a life force created by god; therefore, it can be considered murder. There are two sides to every story. I believe in both sides of the issue, but, again, my beliefs are not always right. I once heard someone say, “this country is becoming dumber, but more opinionated.” Leave faith to religion and let science dictate our laws. Laws are based on reason, not faith. If laws were based on faith, we would live in a pre-war Afghanistan-type of society (better yet, an England that defined laws according to one religion in the early 17th century, forcing the Pilgrims to travel to America, and eventually establishing a society based on freedom of religion with separation of church and state). No one is forcing someone who doesn’t believe in having an abortion to have one, are they?

]]> By: Hannah http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-237 Hannah Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:55:10 +0000 http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-237 I think all of us need to think very clearly and heavily on one simple concept before going on with this debate: That we all need to buck it up and put our REAL names with the post!!! None of this mysterious 'Untitled' or 'Scifi' or random 'republican' bull. I'm not talking about Chief or Claus, because if you know who 'we' are, you know who 'they' are. But one needs to take responsibility for one's opinions, doesn't one. Ok - so next time, keep the debate going strong like you have been, but if you are afraid of persecution for your beliefs, get out of the political game! If you want to participate in a REAL political debates, I wont stand for anonymity!!! NOW GET BACK OUT THERE AND USE YOUR B***! (sorry chief) I think all of us need to think very clearly and heavily on one simple concept before going on with this debate: That we all need to buck it up and put our REAL names with the post!!! None of this mysterious ‘Untitled’ or ‘Scifi’ or random ‘republican’ bull. I’m not talking about Chief or Claus, because if you know who ‘we’ are, you know who ‘they’ are. But one needs to take responsibility for one’s opinions, doesn’t one. Ok - so next time, keep the debate going strong like you have been, but if you are afraid of persecution for your beliefs, get out of the political game! If you want to participate in a REAL political debates, I wont stand for anonymity!!! NOW GET BACK OUT THERE AND USE YOUR B***! (sorry chief)

]]> By: Ed http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-241 Ed Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:53:52 +0000 http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-241 Hannah: Who is Chief or Clause? Are they anonymous? I do not believe that a parent would give his or her child the name Chief" or "Clause" as a first name. So why should "they" have the option to remain anonymous, while the rest of "us" cannot? I am NOT Republican and could care less about the Republican party. Anonymity is an Internet commodity that allows one to express his or her own beliefs freely without scrutiny from the right, or the left. What does a name matter when ideas are expressed? Because "Clause" and "Chief" are still in hiding, I will take the first step and "come out of the closet," so to speak, and reveal my real name: Ed. Hannah:
Who is Chief or Clause? Are they anonymous? I do not believe that a parent would give his or her child the name Chief” or “Clause” as a first name. So why should “they” have the option to remain anonymous, while the rest of “us” cannot?
I am NOT Republican and could care less about the Republican party. Anonymity is an Internet commodity that allows one to express his or her own beliefs freely without scrutiny from the right, or the left. What does a name matter when ideas are expressed? Because “Clause” and “Chief” are still in hiding, I will take the first step and “come out of the closet,” so to speak, and reveal my real name: Ed.

]]> By: Ed http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-242 Ed Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:58:15 +0000 http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-242 error: "Chief" and "CLAUS" (I am formily known as Scifi) error:
“Chief” and “CLAUS”

(I am formily known as Scifi)

]]> By: Daniel http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-248 Daniel Fri, 04 Feb 2005 23:45:16 +0000 http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-248 If you read the other posts, you would know who clause is. The nickname chief just makes sense, i bet you can guess who that is. -Clause If you read the other posts, you would know who clause is.

The nickname chief just makes sense, i bet you can guess who that is.

-Clause

]]> By: Mike http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-317 Mike Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:44:36 +0000 http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-317 Ok back to Hillary, all the stories that i have read lately about that speech she gave was to start her 2008 presidential run, and appear more moderate. What do u all think about this? If she did run, and she got the nomination, do you think she would be able to win, or do u think there is a better candidate? Ok back to Hillary, all the stories that i have read lately about that speech she gave was to start her 2008 presidential run, and appear more moderate. What do u all think about this? If she did run, and she got the nomination, do you think she would be able to win, or do u think there is a better candidate?

]]> By: Hannah http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-319 Hannah Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:17:04 +0000 http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-319 Better candidate? Hardly. But I don't think this is the year for her. I do think that she will be our first woman president. (Yea!) I think she is playing it safe because there seems to be a large flux in the wrong direction. She NEEDS to play both sides. But I think she should wait a cycle. Maybe she doesn't. And I am pretty conservative as far as when to make a move. I also want Obama to run. But again - not this year. Maybe Edwards will be a good candidate. When he's done with his two terms, Hillary can run and when she has sufficiently changed the world, Obama can take over! Its practically in the bag!!!!! Better candidate? Hardly. But I don’t think this is the year for her. I do think that she will be our first woman president. (Yea!) I think she is playing it safe because there seems to be a large flux in the wrong direction. She NEEDS to play both sides. But I think she should wait a cycle. Maybe she doesn’t. And I am pretty conservative as far as when to make a move. I also want Obama to run. But again - not this year. Maybe Edwards will be a good candidate. When he’s done with his two terms, Hillary can run and when she has sufficiently changed the world, Obama can take over! Its practically in the bag!!!!!

]]> By: Daniel http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-322 Daniel Tue, 08 Feb 2005 05:28:28 +0000 http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-322 I think it is too early to start making predictions on who will be able to win, George still has more things to ruin. But i do agree that Obama needs to get a few more years under his belt. Does anybody know of any Govenors that could be boosted up in the mean time. (besides Vilsack) I think it is too early to start making predictions on who will be able to win,
George still has more things to ruin.
But i do agree that Obama needs to get a few more years under his belt.
Does anybody know of any Govenors that could be boosted up in the mean time. (besides Vilsack)

]]> By: John Owens-Ream http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-324 John Owens-Ream Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:23:00 +0000 http://www.unodemocrats.com/blog/2005/01/31/the-lean-righters/#comment-324 Janet Napolitano from Arizona has two advantages: she is from Arizona, a red state, and in no way represents "north east liberalism" or "washington politics," plus her nomination would help make Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and maybe Colorodo better swing states. But she's not very attractive, and she's a woman no one has heard of. There's also the Gov. of New Mexico who people are putting a lot of buzz around. He might just run, but his name is skipping me for a second. Vilsak I don't think I would support. We might win the Gov. seat's back in Col. and NY in 06, but that won't do us too much good for 08. Janet Napolitano from Arizona has two advantages: she is from Arizona, a red state, and in no way represents “north east liberalism” or “washington politics,” plus her nomination would help make Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and maybe Colorodo better swing states.

But she’s not very attractive, and she’s a woman no one has heard of.

There’s also the Gov. of New Mexico who people are putting a lot of buzz around. He might just run, but his name is skipping me for a second.

Vilsak I don’t think I would support. We might win the Gov. seat’s back in Col. and NY in 06, but that won’t do us too much good for 08.

]]>