Skip to main content

View Diary: Getting It: Interstate Commerce & the New Deal (290 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, I don't agree... (none)
    ...all the prominent Democrats I've ever seen and all the Democrats I know basically support abortion.

    Also, I just checked Harry Reid's Senate website.  He favors a reduction in unwanted pregnancies, but does not prominently mention (or mention at all, for that matter) that he is pro-life.

    Where are your Democratic leaders who will say, unabashedly, and in public, that they oppose abortion and that they think their party's position is wrong?  Where is your "loyal opposition"?

    "He serves best the party who serves best the country". Rutherford B. Hayes

    by Thinking Republican on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 06:29:02 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  aoeu (none)
      Do you think Democrats support abortion on demand?

      Yes or no.

      no haikus now,
      join your local democratic party.
      There are fights in 2005 coming up.

      by TealVeal on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 06:30:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes... (none)
        ...at least the ones I know.  Carolyn Maloney is my Representative in Congress, though. ;)

        "He serves best the party who serves best the country". Rutherford B. Hayes

        by Thinking Republican on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 06:45:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  aoeu (none)
          Well as a party it's not the case.  The party line is to support Roe, which does not make for drive through abortions.

          no haikus now,
          join your local democratic party.
          There are fights in 2005 coming up.

          by TealVeal on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 06:58:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe not... (none)
            ...but that's not the message that comes through.  The message that comes through is that the Democrats support abortion, period.

            I oppose Roe in the sense that it requires states to permit legalized abortion, even where that notion is anathema to the overwhelming majority of the people who live there (e.g., Wyoming.) I think most Americans would agree with that view: don't force it on us.  If New York wants to do it; fine, but don't force those of us in MS and SC and WY and the Dakotas and KS to buy into it.

            I guess all this goes back to some of my earlier posts on states' rights; that is, the federal government shouldn't overstep it's authority to impose it's will on people where the Constitution does not clearly allow it.  It's one of the fundamental differences between the GOP and  Democrats (and from some of the more rabid replies to my posts, one of the most deeply divisive.)

            Cheers!

            "He serves best the party who serves best the country". Rutherford B. Hayes

            by Thinking Republican on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 07:15:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  don't force it? (none)
              "I think most Americans would agree with that view: don't force it on us"

              And for those in Wyoming who do want the right to an abortion, what then is the response to them saying this same thing to their fellow Wyomingans?  

              Just curious.

              •  aoeu (none)
                Use a coat hanger.

                no haikus now,
                join your local democratic party.
                There are fights in 2005 coming up.

                by TealVeal on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 07:31:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Go to New York... (none)
                ...or California, most likely. Or, preferably, think about keeping the baby or giving it up for adoption.  It's really not vital that it be killed, you know.

                What if they're poor and can't afford the ticket?  Hey, I would have liked to have Wintered in the Florida Keys when I was younger and seen if those "Girls Gone Wild" were for real...but it ain't gonna happen.  Just because I have the right to do something doesn't mean I have the ability to do something.

                You have to respect the local culture and the local community and it's right to govern itself as it sees fit; otherwise, you're arrogant,obnoxious and undemocratic.   Here in New York, a lot of people are opposed to the Iraq War; but, if you're drafted (assuming a draft were reinstated), you have to go. That's simply the reality.

                "He serves best the party who serves best the country". Rutherford B. Hayes

                by Thinking Republican on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 07:43:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  this is the sticking point, right here (none)
                  What if they're poor and can't afford the ticket?  Hey, I would have liked to have Wintered in the Florida Keys when I was younger and seen if those "Girls Gone Wild" were for real...but it ain't gonna happen.  Just because I have the right to do something doesn't mean I have the ability to do something.

                  Speaking of standing on principle, this seems like the reverse example.  This is the "hey, sucks for you dummy" republican principle that always repels me everytime I feel myself agreeing with some Republicans.  It always boils down to this.  

                  I'm talking about solutions.  Taking away abortion in Wyoming and then leaving it at that and wiping your hands and saying "well, it looks like we're done here.  Anything else that happens is not our fault nor do we give a rat's ass" ...this kind of callous mentality is absolutely unacceptable to most democrats.  I don't know what your dad learned working for JFK, but the idea that we just cut certain people off--the people who can least afford to be cut off--and then be on our merry way, this was not Jack Kennedy's vision of America.  I would be more inclined to listen to Republicans if they could prove to me that they cared about the women and the child rather than just scoring a political victory and lording it over unfortunate teenagers who get mixed up and are in a boatload of trouble.  Instead, you just get some weird abstract thing about winter in Florida.  Go tell that to the people whose lives are going to be devastated when Wyoming does in fact outlaw abortion (don't worry, Roe will be overturned, just  be patient)

                  •  Jack Kennedy knew... (none)
                    ...foremost what was politically possible.  That's why he didn't want to end the war in Vietnam before the 1964 election.  He would have gotten killed by people accusing him of "being soft on communism".

                    He also knew what was politically possible with civil rights in the South, and he frankly didn't want to go there...but he knew he had to to assuage the Democratic base and he knew that he could effect the change and still maintain power -- even though he handed the South to the GOP for the next 30 years.

                    Jack Kennedy was a pol and a damn good one.  And while you're right to revere him, as I do, you need to recognize that he got to be a great man by knowing how to acquire and maintain power. He was no weeping willow; he was a tough, smart, nuts and bolts pol. (I can't imagine him saying, "Gee, Dad, I really don't think we ought to have Giancana's guys help us out in Chicago..he's Mafia, you know?"  He would have said, "Gee, Dad, what does he want..and how can we get it to him without getting nailed?")

                    Some poor 15 year old girl gets pregnant in Wyoming?  It's a tragedy -- for her and the baby.  Can you change it?  NO!  Can you provide incentives so that the baby is adopted into a loving home? Yes. Can you provide contraception to her so she doesn't get pregnant in the first place? Probably.  Can you get her an abortion if she's been raped by her dad?  Probably.

                    But you can't do any of those things if you don't have a place at the table.  You surrender it all up to the extreme elements.  Time to grow up and smell the coffee.

                    Cheers.

                    "He serves best the party who serves best the country". Rutherford B. Hayes

                    by Thinking Republican on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 06:38:07 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  aoeu (none)
                      You do realize there are not enough people currently willing to adopt?

                      no haikus now,
                      join your local democratic party.
                      There are fights in 2005 coming up.

                      by TealVeal on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 08:37:31 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes.... (none)
                        ...because they can do it in China without all the delays, nonsense, and "maternal rights" we impose on them in the United States.

                        "He serves best the party who serves best the country". Rutherford B. Hayes

                        by Thinking Republican on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 09:58:57 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  aoeu (none)
                          That "red tape" helps protect against baby selling.

                          no haikus now,
                          join your local democratic party.
                          There are fights in 2005 coming up.

                          by TealVeal on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 10:34:30 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  And it prevents adoptions... (none)
                            You know, sometimes there really is too much regulation.  I know half a dozen married couples with decent incomes that were forced to adopt overseas, even though they were willing to adopt any race or sex infant and two of them were even willing to adopt special needs children.  Given the time, expense, and hassle of complying with regulations "protecting babies from sale", and the risk that the mother might show up on their doorstep with her lawyer looking to assert parental rights, they simply went abroad.

                            On the other side of the coin, here in New York, a woman can keep her kids in foster care even though she's gone through re-hab half a dozen times; has a criminal record; abandons them repeatedly and is clearly unfit, at least to any sane mind.  But the state punishes the kids by shifting them from foster home to foster home (and school to school) unless she willingly surrenders her parental rights.

                            But you can't even talk about changing that situation.  The Democrats call you a "racist" because the overwhelming majority of children who would be rescued - and the women who would lose their rights - are black.

                            Go figure.  You tell me that your party makes sense on this issue.

                            "He serves best the party who serves best the country". Rutherford B. Hayes

                            by Thinking Republican on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 03:26:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site