[chris v]

Originally Posted by auto_immune 

what does the \ do?

It escapes the space character. (that sounds amusing in the context of this thread).

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Having finally gotten rid of him 8 years ago, let me be the first to say we don't want him back. I think/hope he's moving to Paraguay -- one would suspect because of their lax extradition policies. May he get forever lost in the high pampas grasses.

Sorry Chris V, I meant no harm. I agree, Paraguay sounds wonderful.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by auto_immune 

what does the \ do?

it's the escape character, it is used fairly universally within Unix to indicate whether a particular character is intended to be interpreted literally or simply being a part of a "phrase", if you will... Hard to explain.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Nice deflection. Do you or don't you still support President Bush? Do you approve of the job he's doing? (*pro tip -- this question does not involve your opinion of either the House of Representatives or the Senate)

Yes, I do still support President Bush. He gets an A for the war on terror, a D on vetoing spending bills, and an F on border security.


Unlike those on the the left who refused to even recognize W as POTUS, and those on the right who will do the same with BO, he will be my POTUS when he is sworn in. I may not approve of his agenda, but once sworn in, I will give him my support. What I worry about is BO being pulled too far to the left by Pelosi, Reid, MoveOn, and the unions. He did not answer the question during the last press conference if he plans on letting the Bush tax cuts expire, he instead fell into campaign mode and gave his bit about 95% etc.

[The Crook]

What the heck is your "support?"

[besson3c]

Yeah, just what is "support" anyway? To me that just seems like generic patriotism.

Chongo: are you a three issue guy, or would you care to grade Bush on more issues, just to satisfy my curiosity?

[The Crook]

It's definitely generic patriotism. Great way to put it!

It's really off-putting, too. I don't throw my support behind leaders who I disagree with. That's what dissent is for. I support the candidate of my choosing, not every candidate who comes to power regardless of any of the factors we use to decide who to vote for.

What I think conservatives mean when they say they will "support" the President is that they hope he'll have a successful Presidency. But who cares if he does? That's a little authoritarian-worship heavy for my tastes. I want specific policies enacted that I think are good for the country. I don't "support" a President who will not enact those policies, or who will do worse. It's just ridiculous.

[Big Mac]

President Bush has been a mediocre president overall, but I believe he's done a better job than Gore or Kerry would have done, and his policies have prevented follow-ups to 9/11. I suppose I'd say I'm a tepid supporter.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Yes, I do still support President Bush. He gets an A for the war on terror, a D on vetoing spending bills, and an F on border security.


Unlike those on the the left who refused to even recognize W as POTUS, and those on the right who will do the same with BO, he will be my POTUS when he is sworn in. I may not approve of his agenda, but once sworn in, I will give him my support. What I worry about is BO being pulled too far to the left by Pelosi, Reid, MoveOn, and the unions. He did not answer the question during the last press conference if he plans on letting the Bush tax cuts expire, he instead fell into campaign mode and gave his bit about 95% etc.

Thank you for an honest, sincere answer. Please feel free to exercise your constitutional right to dissent, as We The People are wont to do, when we disagree with our publicly elected representatives, and as I did during Bush's administration. We have to defend that right for one another, even when we disagree on issues.

Cheers!

[shabbasuraj]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Surely there must be,?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

President Bush has been a mediocre president overall, but I believe he's done a better job than Gore or Kerry would have done, and his policies have prevented follow-ups to 9/11. I suppose I'd say I'm a tepid supporter.

I'm always amused when I read that people believe he actually did something to prevent follow ups to 9/11, when DHS has consistently been underfunded since its inception, and when it's a fact that our borders are wide open over most of their length, our police forces are being downsized, and a miniscule amount of freight coming in to the country is even inspected, at our ports and over our highways, and when our chemical factories, sports stadiums, and almost any place one can think of are completely vulnerable.

Of course, what you don't want to admit is that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were a small splinter group, and that the actual number of terrorists worldwide are a minute fraction of the Muslim world, who have been busy since then killing each other, and attacking people in countries much closer to them than the U. S. If the terrorists had wanted to attack us after 9/11, they would have been perfectly free and able to do so. Bush deserves no credit; there are even those who contend that we are at more of a risk today because of his imbecilic urge to play cowboy on the world stage.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'm always amused when I read that people believe he actually did something to prevent follow ups to 9/11, when DHS has consistently been underfunded since its inception...

...as compared to? Has there ever been a government department that got enough funding? Didn't require big increases every year?

Of course, what you don't want to admit is that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were a small splinter group, and that the actual number of terrorists worldwide are a minute fraction of the Muslim world, who have been busy since then killing each other, and attacking people in countries much closer to them than the U. S.

...and have been busy running from rockets and shrapnel from U.S. forces in the middle east. It's hard to organize these "splinter groups" when their leaders have to hide in caves and worry whether or not they are going to be bombed and dead within the next 24 hours. Of course, had we left the middle east sooner, these splinter groups could go back to worrying about what they were going to do IN the U.S. instead of how they were going to cover their asses at home.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

President Bush has been a mediocre president overall, but I believe he's done a better job than Gore or Kerry would have done, and his policies have prevented follow-ups to 9/11. I suppose I'd say I'm a tepid supporter.

Originally Posted by placebo1969 

Of course I support President Bush. Just as I have supported Presidents Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, etc. Well at least as much as a 7 year old can support Carter or an infant with Nixon.

.....Yes, I support President Bush. Just as I will support Barack Obama when he is sworn in.

These two replies express my sentiments as well. I'd rather have Bush than Obama, but will make due with the hand I'm dealt.

ps. Kido - Awesome replies.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

These two replies express my sentiments as well. I'd rather have Bush than Obama, but will make due with the hand I'm dealt.

ps. Kido - Awesome replies.

Awesome, indeed..perhaps a link or two to verify ANY of these outrageous claims? I claimed Obama is the new messiah, surely you don't believe that...or do you?

[Ted L. Nancy]

Bush has been a huge letdown for true conservatives. However, neocons love the guy. I have not yet doubted his good intentions any more than I doubt his stubbornness. As a conservative, who voted for him twice, I grade him as follows (in alphabetical order):

Abortion: B
Attire: A-
Debt: F-
Education: F-
Energy: B+
Environment: B+
Foreign Policy/Foreign Relations: C-
Health Care: F-
Homeland Security/Terrorism: B+
Honor/Dignity in Office (i.e. relations with interns): A
Husbandry: A-
Immigration: D-
Israel: F-
Leadership: D
Monetary Outlook: D-
Parenting: B+ and D+
Social Security: D+
Spending/Size of government: F-
Taxes/Fiscal Policy: B
War: F-

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Ted L. Nancy 

Bush has been a huge letdown for true conservatives. However, neocons love the guy. I have not yet doubted his good intentions any more than I doubt his stubbornness. As a conservative, who voted for him twice, I grade him as follows (in alphabetical order):

Abortion: B
Attire: A-
Debt: F-
Education: F-
Energy: B+
Environment: B+
Foreign Policy/Foreign Relations: C-
Health Care: F-
Homeland Security/Terrorism: B+
Honor/Dignity in Office (i.e. relations with interns): A
Husbandry: A-
Immigration: D-
Israel: F-
Leadership: D
Monetary Outlook: D-
Parenting: B+ and D+
Social Security: D+
Spending/Size of government: F-
Taxes/Fiscal Policy: B
War: F-

Interesting categories... What makes one good at "attire", "abortion", "war", and "husbandry"?

[SpaceMonkey]

He's a snappy dresser and knows good livestock?

[Ted L. Nancy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Interesting categories... What makes one good at "attire", "abortion", "war", and "husbandry"?

Good question. To be good in these categories, one has to:

attire: drape oneself in full velvet

abortion: make policies against it

war: avoid it

husbandry: not cheat on one's wife is a good start

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Ted L. Nancy 

Good question. To be good in these categories, one has to:

attire: drape oneself in full velvet

abortion: make policies against it

war: avoid it

husbandry: not cheat on one's wife is a good start

Well, I guess by your joke your "attire" category is not a terribly serious one. As for abortion, how is this the government's business? Who made them a moral authority on the matter? Isn't this at odds with the idea of expanding our civil liberties and the government not interfering with our private lives? How is this a federal issue? Are you for other forms of government intervention such as wiretapping?

As far as husbandry, isn't that an overlap with your dignity in office category? Are these just categories you came up with on the top of your head, or are these the ones you care most about?

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by Ted L. Nancy 

Bush has been a huge letdown for true conservatives. However, neocons love the guy. I have not yet doubted his good intentions any more than I doubt his stubbornness. As a conservative, who voted for him twice, I grade him as follows (in alphabetical order):

Abortion: B
Attire: A-
Debt: F-
Education: F-
Energy: B+
Environment: B+
Foreign Policy/Foreign Relations: C-
Health Care: F-
Homeland Security/Terrorism: B+
Honor/Dignity in Office (i.e. relations with interns): A
Husbandry: A-
Immigration: D-
Israel: F-
Leadership: D
Monetary Outlook: D-
Parenting: B+ and D+
Social Security: D+
Spending/Size of government: F-
Taxes/Fiscal Policy: B
War: F-

I disagree about the parenting... I would bet that most parents have kids who drank too much during college.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As for abortion, how is this the government's business? Who made them a moral authority on the matter?

Certainly you understand the nature of the disagreement some have with current law on abortion. It is an extremely large industry that exploits women (particularly in poorer, less-educated neighborhoods) for a buck and leaves them at greater risk for a host of complications up to and including breast cancer. It is an entity that by the same standards applied to almost any other industry begs Federal oversight. They've indeed made a moral judgment that the unborn child is not worthy of the same constitutional protection as the rest of us. After all, some position of authority moral or otherwise, is assumed in any law.

Isn't this at odds with the idea of expanding our civil liberties and the government not interfering with our private lives?

I'm assuming since there are laws regarding seat belts, prostitution, drug use, and a host of other liberties; the idea isn't much at odds with anything. Particularly precedent.

How is this a federal issue? Are you for other forms of government intervention such as wiretapping?

Many believe that abortion is murder and murder is not a reasonable liberty. Assuming you're not for anarchy, where would you draw the line at government intervention? Why?

[Ted L. Nancy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As for abortion, how is this the government's business? Who made them a moral authority on the matter? Isn't this at odds with the idea of expanding our civil liberties and the government not interfering with our private lives? How is this a federal issue? Are you for other forms of government intervention such as wiretapping?

Well, for that matter, how is regulating theft or murder the government's business? No one will win an abortion argument here. Nonetheless, at about 4000/day in the US alone, it is understandable why many consider abortion the most important political issue of our time.

The government is never a moral authority. However, a government's laws should mirrors morality.

No, I don't agree with wiretapping. Yes, I do agree with keg tapping.

Anyway, back to topic... Bush's "legacy"...

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are these just categories you came up with on the top of your head, or are these the ones you care most about?

Just off the top of my head. I wouldn't take them all too seriously. (I refrained form making it obvious which ones I care most about.)

My overall point is that Bush is a disappointment.

[Ted L. Nancy]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

I disagree about the parenting... I would bet that most parents have kids who drank too much during college.

Yeah, like mine.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Ted L. Nancy 

Bush has been a huge letdown for true conservatives. However, neocons love the guy. I have not yet doubted his good intentions any more than I doubt his stubbornness. As a conservative, who voted for him twice, I grade him as follows (in alphabetical order):

Abortion: B
Attire: A-
Debt: F-
Education: F-
Energy: B+
Environment: B+
Foreign Policy/Foreign Relations: C-
Health Care: F-
Homeland Security/Terrorism: B+
Honor/Dignity in Office (i.e. relations with interns): A
Husbandry: A-
Immigration: D-
Israel: F-
Leadership: D
Monetary Outlook: D-
Parenting: B+ and D+
Social Security: D+
Spending/Size of government: F-
Taxes/Fiscal Policy: B
War: F-

I would agree with most of your assessments but I would give him a C- in the Homeland Security category. Knowing a few people who work in the national defense/security sector of the Federal government, I have heard stories that confirmed most of my suspicions that homeland security is as much (if not more) about the "appearance" of security than actually improving our domestic security systems.

(And this sentiment regarding his homeland security initiatives is separate from my feelings about TSA. Is making people strip off most of their outer garments in a long line at the airport really the best way to increase security when airport workers get to sail right past the TSA inspection points? With all checked luggage being x-rayed, whose got the best chance to put a bomb on a plane now, someone putting something in their baggage or the person who has almost un-restricted access to the baggage loading system at an airport? )

[chris v]

On policy, all of it, I give him an F-.
On execution of policy, I give him an F+.

I like the coinage I picked up from someone at Metafilter -- his unique combination of malice and incompetence can best be summed up as malcompetence.

[Ted L. Nancy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I would agree with most of your assessments but I would give him a C- in the Homeland Security category. Knowing a few people who work in the national defense/security sector of the Federal government, I have heard stories that confirmed most of my suspicions that homeland security is as much (if not more) about the "appearance" of security than actually improving our domestic security systems.

Of course, the best homeland security is to give people some reason not to hate you (like staying out of their business).

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

(And this sentiment regarding his homeland security initiatives is separate from my feelings about TSA. Is making people strip off most of their outer garments in a long line at the airport really the best way to increase security when airport workers get to sail right past the TSA inspection points? With all checked luggage being x-rayed, whose got the best chance to put a bomb on a plane now, someone putting something in their baggage or the person who has almost un-restricted access to the baggage loading system at an airport? )

Complaints about airport security never get old. I don't know what's worse in the public's eye: attorneys, CID agents from the IRS, or some overweight airport security guy waving a wand around the chest and hips of the old lady who was in line in front of you.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Ted L. Nancy 

Of course, the best homeland security is to give people some reason not to hate you (like staying out of their business).

Why do you hate America?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

(And this sentiment regarding his homeland security initiatives is separate from my feelings about TSA. Is making people strip off most of their outer garments in a long line at the airport really the best way to increase security when airport workers get to sail right past the TSA inspection points? With all checked luggage being x-rayed, whose got the best chance to put a bomb on a plane now, someone putting something in their baggage or the person who has almost un-restricted access to the baggage loading system at an airport? )

Originally Posted by Ted L. Nancy 

Complaints about airport security never get old. I don't know what's worse in the public's eye: attorneys, CID agents from the IRS, or some overweight airport security guy waving a wand around the chest and hips of the old lady who was in line in front of you.

If you fully comprehended my complaint you would realize it is not so much about the inconvenience of a TSA security check-point but the fact that such security measures simply serve to reinforce my opinion that Bush's new domestic transportation security measures are more about show than substance.


For all the security a typical airline passenger has to go through, airlines crews get NO scrutiny and airport ground crews get NO scrutiny as well. If the purpose of TSA is to improve the overall security environment at airports it would be good if they checked every worker who works in or around an airplane as well as every passenger who gets on an airplane. You ever fly out of JFK airport on an international flight? There could be several hundred un-inspected ground crew working around the airplanes during peak take-off and landing hours. Think about how easy it would be for one of them to add an extra piece of bomb-laden luggage to the loading ramp of a trans-Atlantic flight.

That is what I find so frustrating about the hassles of TSA security check-points. They are much more about giving the flying public the appearance of security than they are about actually providing an overall safer air-travel environment.

</rant>

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Certainly you understand the nature of the disagreement some have with current law on abortion. It is an extremely large industry that exploits women (particularly in poorer, less-educated neighborhoods) for a buck and leaves them at greater risk for a host of complications up to and including breast cancer. It is an entity that by the same standards applied to almost any other industry begs Federal oversight. They've indeed made a moral judgment that the unborn child is not worthy of the same constitutional protection as the rest of us. After all, some position of authority moral or otherwise, is assumed in any law.

Right, but then you get into all of the "when does life begin" arguments, and we're back to my original question of who assigned authority to the government in such matters? Until we have some scientific proof of this, why not leave this up to the individuals to decide?

I'm assuming since there are laws regarding seat belts, prostitution, drug use, and a host of other liberties; the idea isn't much at odds with anything. Particularly precedent.

Each of those things has potential ramifications on me - your medical costs, etc. If any, not having an abortion and delivering an unwanted child has more ramifications for me (i.e. costs) than having your abortion. This is sort of in the same category of the issue of who you marry - I don't give a **** either way, and nor should you. It has NO effect on me, so as far as I'm concerned this is a private decision with no cost to the tax payer (assuming the procedure is not covered under Medicare) that the government does not need to become involved in.

Many believe that abortion is murder and murder is not a reasonable liberty. Assuming you're not for anarchy, where would you draw the line at government intervention? Why?

And this is exactly the stopping point over this issue, except I would argue that the people that say this are arguing with their heart and not their brains.

[besson3c]

Of course, there are also a whole host of other arguments involving the health and safety of the mother, what happens in the event of rape, the legitimacy of religious involvement in this issue - the so called "sanctity of life" issues, etc. What if you're atheist and look at this from purely a biological perspective and don't see life as being sacred in the same way that some devoutly religious person does?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Ted L. Nancy 

Well, for that matter, how is regulating theft or murder the government's business? No one will win an abortion argument here. Nonetheless, at about 4000/day in the US alone, it is understandable why many consider abortion the most important political issue of our time.

Again, when your decisions affect me, then we can talk about legislation. Your private decision as to whether or not you want to abort your baby only affects my heart if I share the same opinion as you, and my brain if I had knowledge of your situation enough to form my own opinion (each individual case is going to manipulate your feeling on the legitimacy of abortion as an option - e.g. whether or not the woman was raped, when abortion was performed, etc.), but since we don't have access to other people's private lives this way, we should respect their individual decisions like we do many others.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by chris v 

On policy, all of it, I give him an F-.
On execution of policy, I give him an F+.

Shortsighted. It's clear your partisan hatred has effected your judgement. Here's my list, with some alterations:

Social Issues: B
Debt: D
Education: C
Energy: C
Environment: B
Foreign Policy/Foreign Relations: B
Health Care: C
Homeland Security/Terrorism: B
Honor/Dignity in Office: A
Immigration: C
Israel: B
Leadership: B
Monetary Outlook: D
Social Security: D+
Spending/Size of government: F
Taxes/Fiscal Policy: B
War: Sometimes F, sometimes A. Of late, A.

As a comparison, here's how I'd rate his predecessor (this is based on how things ended up in his administration, not necessarily that he was directly responsible for the end results, which is the same for Bush):

Social Issues: D
Debt: A
Education: C
Energy: D
Environment: B
Foreign Policy/Foreign Relations: C
Health Care: D
Homeland Security/Terrorism: D
Honor/Dignity in Office: F
Immigration: C
Israel: C
Leadership: D
Monetary Outlook: C
Social Security: F
Spending/Size of government: A
Taxes/Fiscal Policy: C
War: D

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Right, but then you get into all of the "when does life begin" arguments, and we're back to my original question of who assigned authority to the government in such matters? Until we have some scientific proof of this, why not leave this up to the individuals to decide?

Often a person may decide their liberties are more important than someone else's and seek to take those liberties from someone else out of their own convenience. There are laws to protect the vulnerable in a wealth of ways. Sometimes the government acts as an authority on what behaviors it deems distasteful like tobacco and alcohol by placing a higher tax on it. They heavily regulate pharmaceuticals and food distributors and a great deal more industries for which it has been given authority. Which of course only returns to my original question of why the government would be an authority on any of these matters. They are an authority on drug abuse, they are an authority on prostitution, and even seat belt use, but they are not an authority on an industry that exploits poor women for a dollar leaving them at higher risk for a wealth of complications that we'll likely fund through our tax dollars only to have half of them return for another abortion?

Each of those things has potential ramifications on me - your medical costs, etc.

Abortion costs me on both ends. It costs me for the first procedure and approximately 47% of the time for a second procedure, then for the subsequent complications of it.

not having an abortion and delivering an unwanted child has more ramifications for me (i.e. costs) than having your abortion.

I'm not sure I agree with this. For one thing, there is absolutely nothing to suggest the children who exist today are any more "wanted" than they were prior to Roe V Wade. Abuse statistics certainly don't indicate it. Statistics regarding children born into poverty, single-parent families, or any other number of issues used to justify abortion aren't indicative of improvement either.

This is sort of in the same category of the issue of who you marry - I don't give a **** either way, and nor should you. It has NO effect on me, so as far as I'm concerned this is a private decision with no cost to the tax payer (assuming the procedure is not covered under Medicare) that the government does not need to become involved in.

By using my tax dollar to help fund abortions they are in fact making a moral judgment that this is good use of my money and as such are already involved. They are likewise involved in drug use, prostitution, cigarettes and alcohol and while these are all private matters of others the government has been given authority.

And this is exactly the stopping point over this issue, except I would argue that the people that say this are arguing with their heart and not their brains.

You've already admitted that the "when life begins" argument is still waiting for the affirmation of science. Why do you assume that one is using more of their heart than brain on this issue and default to "not life at all"? Because you are a thinker and they are just emotional? I could likewise say that the people who argue from your perspective are arguing from their genitals and not their brains, but this probably wouldn't be fair either.

[Ted L. Nancy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Again, when your decisions affect me, then we can talk about legislation. Your private decision as to whether or not you want to abort your baby only affects my heart if I share the same opinion as you, and my brain if I had knowledge of your situation enough to form my own opinion (each individual case is going to manipulate your feeling on the legitimacy of abortion as an option - e.g. whether or not the woman was raped, when abortion was performed, etc.), but since we don't have access to other people's private lives this way, we should respect their individual decisions like we do many others.

Golly, I find myself responding to multiple posts here. Making statements like "whether or not the woman was raped" only entice responses like "whether or not the baby felt pain." They don't address the crux of the issue. Although I am extremely offended by people who tell me that killing an unborn child/fetus/whatever is a private decision, I nonetheless won't be dragged into an abortion argument here. For the sake of illustrating to you that I am not thinking just with my heart, but with my brain as well, I will recommend a book: Three Approaches to Abortion. It has a decent summation why I see things the way I do. The advantage to the book is that it is short and you could get away with reading it in a night.

[Ted L. Nancy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Shortsighted. It's clear your partisan hatred has effected your judgement.

Partisan? What makes you think I'm partisan? I'm not a liberal. Nor am I a Democrat. So classifying me as a partisan on the grounds that I am very critical of Bush is obviously a mistake. I am a conservative. On conservative principles, I think I gave W. the ratings he deserved.

[Ted L. Nancy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

That is what I find so frustrating about the hassles of TSA security check-points. They are much more about giving the flying public the appearance of security than they are about actually providing an overall safer air-travel environment.

I agree, but what I was implying was that I think that they fail to even give an adequate appearance. (Evidenced by so many people complaining and making fun of them.)

They fail on both fronts: actual safety and perceived safety.

[besson3c]

Abortion costs me on both ends. It costs me for the first procedure and approximately 47% of the time for a second procedure, then for the subsequent complications of it.

I'm not sure I agree with this. For one thing, there is absolutely nothing to suggest the children who exist today are any more "wanted" than they were prior to Roe V Wade. Abuse statistics certainly don't indicate it. Statistics regarding children born into poverty, single-parent families, or any other number of issues used to justify abortion aren't indicative of improvement either.

Yeah, but Medicare doesn't cover abortion, does it? It has to be paid for out of the pocket of the person wishing the procedure, correct? If not, everything I've said here is obviously wrong, but then the solution would be to change things to be as I've described. This way, you can have your abortion and it doesn't affect me in terms of how my tax dollars are spent.

As far as all of those other things you've listed that are regulated or controlled (cigarettes, drugs, etc.) isn't the prospect of regulating something to make it more expensive different than banning something outright? The only exception is illegal drugs... I'm actually for legalizing pot, but I'm comfortable with keeping the synthetic drugs banned because they serve no real productive purpose other than to potentially create more costs for the tax payer in treating people addicted to and/or sick from using these drugs.

However, this is not generally what the argument ends up being about. The argument almost always ends up being about abortion as a moral issue. This is where I have the most difficulty... If you want to frame abortion as an argument as we are here, that would be fine, but I still maintain that the government has no place making these sorts of choices for us purely on moral territory so long as our choices are private, and do not impact others. Are you for or against gay marriage, ebuddy?

By using my tax dollar to help fund abortions they are in fact making a moral judgment that this is good use of my money and as such are already involved. They are likewise involved in drug use, prostitution, cigarettes and alcohol and while these are all private matters of others the government has been given authority.

Couldn't you say that about anything? That funding war is a moral or immoral thing? That funding certain tax breaks, environmental regulation, etc. is a moral choice? When you start conflating morals with good legislation based on sound economics you embark on a slippery slope. When you talk about morals, you need to do so through a separate lens involving religion, spirtuality, a broader set of beliefs, etc. When you talk about abortion as the government should be you get into economics, civil liberties, the constitution, etc.

The most noise made about abortion in terms of the tenor of the debate surrounding it involves morality, and the government is not in the morality business.

You've already admitted that the "when life begins" argument is still waiting for the affirmation of science. Why do you assume that one is using more of their heart than brain on this issue and default to "not life at all"? Because you are a thinker and they are just emotional? I could likewise say that the people who argue from your perspective are arguing from their genitals and not their brains, but this probably wouldn't be fair either.

Sure it would be fair, because people who define when life begins whether in favor or against abortion are still talking from their hearts - we do not know this. Whether life begins at conception, delivery, or any time in between nobody actually knows, they just think they do.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Ted L. Nancy 

Golly, I find myself responding to multiple posts here. Making statements like "whether or not the woman was raped" only entice responses like "whether or not the baby felt pain." They don't address the crux of the issue. Although I am extremely offended by people who tell me that killing an unborn child/fetus/whatever is a private decision, I nonetheless won't be dragged into an abortion argument here. For the sake of illustrating to you that I am not thinking just with my heart, but with my brain as well, I will recommend a book: Three Approaches to Abortion. It has a decent summation why I see things the way I do. The advantage to the book is that it is short and you could get away with reading it in a night.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was looking for a knock down sort of fight as opposed to a healthy debate, but I can see how I came across a little too strong with the language I used.

If you or anybody else can make a rational and compelling argument to me, even if I disagree with it I will be happy to adjust my position that this is yet another gut feeling vs. rationalism sort of issue. I don't wish to come across as an arrogant, unrelenting ideologue...

[chris v]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Shortsighted. It's clear your partisan hatred has effected your judgement. Here's my list, with some alterations:

Okay, I'll do it point by point, and this is based on my individual feelings about these issues, as opposed to Dem. party platform(s).

Social Issues: F
Debt: F--
Education: F
Energy: F
Environment: F+
Foreign Policy/Foreign Relations: F-
Health Care: D
Homeland Security/Terrorism: D-
Honor/Dignity in Office: C-
Immigration: F
Israel: D
Leadership: F-
Monetary Outlook: F--
Social Security: F
Spending/Size of government: F-
Taxes/Fiscal Policy: F-
War: F-

That's my gut reaction to things he's actually accomplished/ignored/wrecked/broken, and not some ideological view based on any party affiliation.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah, but Medicare doesn't cover abortion, does it? It has to be paid for out of the pocket of the person wishing the procedure, correct?

Unfortunately not. As of 2001, Medicaid funds approximately 13% of abortions. On top of a reported record profit of more than $882 million dollars in 2005, Planned Parenthood receives more than $305 million in Federal funding per year. Their abortion services outnumber all other services combined by 10 to 1. For example, there were approximately 108 abortions performed for every one referral to an adoption agency. It is big business with a big lobby.

If not, everything I've said here is obviously wrong, but then the solution would be to change things to be as I've described. This way, you can have your abortion and it doesn't affect me in terms of how my tax dollars are spent.

If it were ever placed to a vote of the people, this is exactly what would happen.

As far as all of those other things you've listed that are regulated or controlled (cigarettes, drugs, etc.) isn't the prospect of regulating something to make it more expensive different than banning something outright?

While there is no official term for it, the above are generally regarded as "sin" taxes. Some view it as taxing people into submission. One complaint I've had is actually similar to yours; what makes the government a moral authority on tobacco and alcohol, but not something as blatantly obvious as the abortion industry? If taxing tobacco and alcohol are an acceptable means of collecting tax revenue to discourage behavior, why does the abortion industry get a pass and why on earth are federal funds going into the venture when they are so profitable on their own? As I've mentioned before (and I get a lot of flack for it), I think we've gone too far down the abortion road for an outright ban not unlike tobacco and alcohol. After all, we saw how effective prohibition was. Instead, I think the procedure should be taxed at a much higher "sin" tax rate and the repeat abortion made illegal. That way, this tax can go back into aspects of the procedure without using my dollars, but theirs.

The only exception is illegal drugs... I'm actually for legalizing pot, but I'm comfortable with keeping the synthetic drugs banned because they serve no real productive purpose other than to potentially create more costs for the tax payer in treating people addicted to and/or sick from using these drugs.

I see little difference here quite frankly.

However, this is not generally what the argument ends up being about. The argument almost always ends up being about abortion as a moral issue.

That's because the advocates of abortion want to frame this in a way that's been historically most effective for them. Many otherwise "pro-lifers" are conflicted in cases of rape, incest, and health of mother. This is why pro-lifers have had little traction on this issue. They've been drawn in to the wrong debate. While these aspects of abortion constitute less than 5% of all abortions combined, this has become the rallying call of the movement. There is so much more information available regarding the wealth of complications caused by this exploitive industry both physical and mental that to argue from the moral standard is only going to work on those who agree with your moral position; an increasingly stale argument that has only served to increase the industry.

This is where I have the most difficulty... If you want to frame abortion as an argument as we are here, that would be fine, but I still maintain that the government has no place making these sorts of choices for us purely on moral territory so long as our choices are private, and do not impact others. Are you for or against gay marriage, ebuddy?

Several things here;
A) The government has already acted in the capacity of moral authority on a host of issues including prostitution, seat belt use, killing a certain type of bird, and many more as I've mentioned. All private issues. You can have a problem with it I suppose, but I guess I'd reply with the same argument eventually given me by the abortion advocate; it is law, deal with it. Personally, I'd much rather they use this already-granted moral authority on more profound issues like this most obvious opportunity of protecting life.
B) You assume there is only (or "purely" in your words) a moral component to this issue when again, there is a wealth of information on the complications posed by the procedure both mental and physical. While I don't think 'DNA rights' are going to go anywhere, I've even seen the argument from disenfranchised men who don't appreciate that they must be available for child support should they be called on, but no say on the life or death of the baby.
C) The "impact others" comment from you above is the crux of the debate IMO. It impacts some in debatable ways, others in non-debatable ways, and all of us in some way. Worse, the procedure is addressing absolutely none of the issues it is supposedly designed to address such as "wanted children", less poverty, etc... In fact, it can be shown quite the opposite.
D) I believe the Federal government should acknowledge civil unions for all. Gays should have the exact same spousal rights as straights. The churches can "marry" whom they deem fit according to their doctrine. Because the overwhelming majority of abortions involve a specific behavior and a subsequent choice, I think it marginalizes the plight of homosexuals to equate them with abortion in this context.

Couldn't you say that about anything?

Your focus has been the moral aspect of this issue, not mine. I'm just responding to your points.

That funding war is a moral or immoral thing?

... or that the war itself has a moral cause for which it should be funded; that the outcome is worth the expense etc. I don't think the debate should be framed around morality because it isn't really a solid foundation for discourse. i.e. someone says "your action is wrong" and someone else says "it's wrong to judge people's actions"; both are making some statement on morality.

That funding certain tax breaks, environmental regulation, etc. is a moral choice? When you start conflating morals with good legislation based on sound economics you embark on a slippery slope. When you talk about morals, you need to do so through a separate lens involving religion, spirtuality, a broader set of beliefs, etc. When you talk about abortion as the government should be you get into economics, civil liberties, the constitution, etc.

My initial points had absolutely nothing to do with morals in any sense other than those consistent with the current capacity of our government. There are aspects of civil liberty, economics, and the constitution at risk with abortion as it stands today. No matter what you do, someone will be disenfranchised. My dismay on this point is the focus of our legislative powers and the inconsistency for which they're applied.

The most noise made about abortion in terms of the tenor of the debate surrounding it involves morality, and the government is not in the morality business.

This does not mean morality is the only argument to be made nor does this mean the government is not in the morality business solely by virtue of the fact that you say it isn't.

Sure it would be fair, because people who define when life begins whether in favor or against abortion are still talking from their hearts - we do not know this. Whether life begins at conception, delivery, or any time in between nobody actually knows, they just think they do.

If you're saying that both sides may be using their heart to decide on this issue; there is really little disagreement here. IMO however, most people if placed in any other situation and with the same limited degree of information, would default to a more precautionary stance than termination. I'll let you decide if that's the heart talking or just common sense.

[Zeeb]

I think its somewhat faulty to judge a President while he's in office or even shortly thereafter. There have been a few cases where a President who was very unpopular while in office is held in a much higher esteem once the full effect of the decisions he made play out. I think many things Bush did will certainly stain his legacy regardless of how much time passes though.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I think its somewhat faulty to judge a President while he's in office or even shortly thereafter. There have been a few cases where a President who was very unpopular while in office is held in a much higher esteem once the full effect of the decisions he made play out. I think many things Bush did will certainly stain his legacy regardless of how much time passes though.

In Bush's case, not enough good pub and lots of bad pub. For a man in his position it's a shame really because he could've controlled this element of his legacy more effectively. IMO of course.

[besson3c]

It's hard to control the bad publicity with limited ability to make a sound argument to win over the masses. A smooth talker he ain't, and an intellectual type he ain't, or at least he hasn't demonstrated that. He may have already won over the converted, but he ain't winning over anybody new.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's hard to control the bad publicity with limited ability to make a sound argument to win over the masses. A smooth talker he ain't, and an intellectual type he ain't, or at least he hasn't demonstrated that. He may have already won over the converted, but he ain't winning over anybody new.

I agree. Still... our new President may not age much better.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Planned Parenthood receives more than $305 million in Federal funding per year. Their abortion services outnumber all other services combined by 10 to 1.

I don't buy this. What constitutes a "service"?

If you're broke, you go to PP to get a routine gynecological checkup, or to get a prescription for BCPs. They do more abortions than pap smears by a 10 to 1 margin?

Likewise, IIUC, because of the Hyde amendment, the federal funds and the abortion funds don't mix. I could be wrong here, and I'd personally consider that to be little more than creative bookkeeping, but it's not exactly irrelevant either.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Ted L. Nancy 

Bush has been a huge letdown for true conservatives. However, neocons love the guy. I have not yet doubted his good intentions any more than I doubt his stubbornness. As a conservative, who voted for him twice, I grade him as follows (in alphabetical order):

…And you really voted for Bush twice? Do you hate our country?

Debt: F-
Education: F-
Foreign Policy/Foreign Relations: C-
Health Care: F-
Homeland Security/Terrorism: B+
Immigration: D-
Israel: F-
Leadership: D
Monetary Outlook: D-
Social Security: D+
Spending/Size of government: F-
War: F-

[thechidz]

The bush administration has been a complete mess starting with 9/11 and everything subsequent.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

There have been a few cases where a President who was very unpopular while in office is held in a much higher esteem once the full effect of the decisions he made play out.

This is not one of those cases.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't buy this. What constitutes a "service"?

Some of the ones you mentioned for starters;

If you're broke, you go to PP to get a routine gynecological checkup, or to get a prescription for BCPs. They do more abortions than pap smears by a 10 to 1 margin?

* First of all, many of these gynecological checkups, packets of BCPs, and pap smears directly relate to their abortion services. Abortions account for more than a third of PP's profit.
* Prenatal Care; There were 96 abortion patients for every four receiving prenatal care at PPFA clinics in 2006.
* Adoption; In 2006, abortions outnumbered adoption referrals at Planned Parenthood by a 120 to 1 margin.
*Infertility; There were only 316 infertility patients at Planned Parenthood in all of 2006, or less than one infertility patient for every 2.7 clinics that PPFA operates.
PPFA 2006-7 Annual Report

In these reports you'll also find where the majority of this money goes;
* "Medical Services"; $520.8 million, which include abortions, abortionists' salaries, etc.
* "Sexuality Education", $45.4 million
* "Public Policy"; $41.2 million,
* "Services to the Field of Family Planning", $25.2 million
* "Services to Affiliates", $26.3 million
* Marketing their services; "Real Life. Real Talk" social marketing initiative, Planned Parenthood's web sites, www.plannedparenthood.org and www.teenwire.com, which allow surfers to set up appointments at Planned Parenthood clinics; and programs of PPFA-International in 23 countries "to move the reproductive rights agenda forward."
PP 05-06

Likewise, IIUC, because of the Hyde amendment, the federal funds and the abortion funds don't mix. I could be wrong here, and I'd personally consider that to be little more than creative bookkeeping, but it's not exactly irrelevant either.

*As an interesting aside, Obama opposes the Hyde amendment.
RHRealityCheck.org

They Hyde Amendment allows for Federal funding in cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother. 47% of abortions are repeat abortions. IMO it is not intellectually honest to kid ourselves here. The appropriation of your tax dollar is entirely contingent upon the reporting of an entity wrought with well-documented reporting abuses up to and including outright fraud. When you contrast the reasons given by women for having an abortion with the number of those abortions covered as rape, incest, and health of mother alone, you quickly find out that this amendment continues to be abused. One such example is an investigation that exposed Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside counties for over billing the government more than $5.2 million. Worse, Planned Parenthood faces a wealth of lawsuits over knowingly concealing sex abuse crimes captured both on video and by numerous ex-employee testimony. Unlicensed practitioners, unsterile clinic conditions, failure to report sex crimes, funding report abuses, and illegal abortions performed + hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, record profits, and medical care given to thousands of women = an industry in dire need of public attention, not funding. As the number one provider of abortions in the US, if your tax dollar goes to PP, it's most definitely going to abortion. Period. The only thing to stop it would be the reporting of the PP and frankly, they're as corrupt as it gets. In short, the Hyde amendment is a cruel joke and entirely irrelevant IMO.

[icydanger]

Not a supporter http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7782422.stm

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Some of the ones you mentioned for starters

I just wanted to be sure someone wasn't playing fast and loose with the definition of a procedure.


From page 4 of your link:

Pap smears in 2006: 1,070,449
Abortions in 2006: 289,750

Seems to me abortions do not outnumber all other services by 10 to 1 as you initially claimed. They do not even outnumber this one service.