Could you elaborate some more?

"However, George seemed to overlook a few contradictory phrases that did not appeal to the Liberal taste for lexicon.  Take "Reproductive Rights" for example.  Don't they mean Non-Reproductive Rights?"

Actually, George did cover this topic, and he did it rather well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM

"Also, consider "Planned Parenthood."  Don't they mean Planned Abortion."

From wikipedia's page on Planned Parenthood:

"Services provided at locations include contraceptives (birth control); emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments; vasectomies, tubal ligations, and abortion."

Abortion services is about 2% of what they do.

"Supposing there was an pet abortion clinic.  Of course, they wouldn't call it an animal abortion clinic.  It would be called something like Puppy and Kitten Neighborhood Relaxation Center.  But lets just say there was such a thing.  What do you think animal rights people would do?  By that, I mean Liberals in Volvo station wagons.  I think they would have a fit that animals were being aborted.  Peta would be all over that."

Actually, there's a lot of people who care about the well being of animals that regularly provide abortions services for them. It's actually rather commonplace when spaying feral cats.

"The big payoff of this thread comes next.  If you believe that the people most likely to get an abortion are those that approve of the right to have an abortion, logically that would mean more liberals terminate pregnancies than other people."

Your logic is faulty. The reason being is that liberals are more likely to use birth control. A bigger indication of who will have an abortion than political affiliation is whether the woman in question is married. 80% of all woman who have abortions are not married. Why would that matter all much in this day and age? Because men are still the primary bread winners, and they're far less likely to marry a single mom.

"Over the past 40 years the Liberal population has been self-diminishing."

Actually, when you look at the numbers, the rural states, which are historically more conservative, have seen their numbers shrinking.

"Of course not all of their children would have grown up to be Liberals, but the fact that fewer and fewer children over time were robbed of any influenced by Liberal parents seems likely to me.  Ever since Row v Wade, Liberals seem to have dwindled in population and influence, and those that remain are hesitant to even call themselves Liberals.  A sharp contrast to the 60s, when Liberalism was a badge of honor."

That has more to do with right wing propaganda demonizing the word liberal.

"I have a theory that even though there have been times when we have had a pro-life President and a pro-life Congress — even though they could have changed the course of "reproductive rights" in this country — they never did, tried or will.  Not as long as there is a long term payoff for conservatives."

I think it's more about dangling the fruit for the fundies so they'll vote for them, without going through with it and making it illegal, which would incite a sharp reaction from the other side.

Man---frothing from the mouth over "union busting", then "planned parenthood funding abortions", taking away a woman's right to choose, etc. You KNOW the far right is going down when they start going off the deep end like this putz. Jesus---what an angry & bitter little man. You are SO far out of the mainstream, even among conservatives,that anyone trying to engage you in rational debate will find that an exercise in futility.

F_U, a perfect way to cheer up your day : cash your SSI check & go have that miniature golf game with Snow------



-- Modified on 3/8/2011 6:47:01 AM

"F_U, you're absolutely right-if you do put statistics in a post like that, many liberals are probably more likely to keep reading so they can look up other statistics contradicting your numbers, in the hope of having a satisfying "got'cha" moment."

There is a reason for this. Liberals like numbers, because numbers give us the truth. Conservatives like opinions because an opinion can't be proven false.

That Gallop poll is interesting, because it's from the very beginning of the Bush Presidency. That predates a few religious wars, and an incredible growth of atheism. It would be interesting to see what those numbers look like today.

I've discovered that the longer the left of center guys on this board read my posts, the more likely they are to eventually agree with me. Usually it also means that the right of center guys usually will at some point express how badly they want to kick my ass.

is HOW rabid & angry the far right is on this board. & THEY say WE're ANGRY ?----LOL. God-----------I know I have to bring up "Freudian projection" again but----it fits.

For folks who've racked up huge wins in last election,they're acting like they suffered massive electoral losses. The term "circular firing squad" comes to mind.

It'll be interesting to see how this mindset plays out in the 2012 elections.

-- Modified on 3/8/2011 6:54:29 AM

Hell--not even conservative. Jesus---your types will destroy "the cause". Edmund Burke must be spinning in his grave with the likes of nutjobs like you.

And thanks for the "compliments" which will cause me to comment on your pathology even further.---

Btw, do you work ?

Not exactly the algonquin round table in here---------

I'm a liberal, but because I judged from your first and last paragraph, you were not open to any real discussion. I don't waste my time reading garbage demeaning one group of people or persons.

You're much like Newt Gingrich, who others have remarked about as believing he's the smartest guy in the room, and often is. But, his smugness and condescension soon oozes out, and he starts patting himself on the back with both hands, because no one else will, soon enough for his tastes. Of course what he wants most, to be president of the United States, will always be beyond his grasp because of his impatience with others he deems inferior to himself. He doesn't seem to get is that the loathing he harbors for others, originates from loathing he has for some aspect in himself. So sad he can't be liberated from that, and live to his full potential.

If I were you, I would skip this thread.  Too many words here.  There's probably a post with a Photoshopped picture of George Bush in a donkey's anus, so check that out instead.  Which George Bush?  Does it even matter?  There might even be a link somewhere to order your picket line Dunkin Donuts online.  There no statistics here, or proven scientific fact, so I would ignore this topic.

OK, now that all the Liberals have left, I have a topic just for us non-Liberals.  To segue into this topic, I would like to conjure up the great Liberal icon George Carlin.  He perfected a method for entertaining Liberals by appealing to their political ADD,  George could reduced jokes down to 2 words, most famously Military Intelligence.  And who could forget Pussy Fart.  He had a pure genius command of language, I admit.  

However, George seemed to overlook a few contradictory phrases that did not appeal to the Liberal taste for lexicon.  Take "Reproductive Rights" for example.  Don't they mean Non-Reproductive Rights?  Is anyone really stopping someone from reproducing in this country?  Also, consider "Planned Parenthood."  Don't they mean Planned Abortion.  Or maybe you can get a unscheduled drop-in abortion these days with a coupon, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with parenthood.  

If you are still with me, lets take this one step farther.  Supposing there was an pet abortion clinic.  Of course, they wouldn't call it an animal abortion clinic.  It would be called something like Puppy and Kitten Neighborhood Relaxation Center.  But lets just say there was such a thing.  What do you think animal rights people would do?  By that, I mean Liberals in Volvo station wagons.  I think they would have a fit that animals were being aborted.  Peta would be all over that.  Even if it could be shown that the Mother animal chooses the abortion, I think they would not miss the chance to fling some red paint around.

The big payoff of this thread comes next.  If you believe that the people most likely to get an abortion are those that approve of the right to have an abortion, logically that would mean more liberals terminate pregnancies than other people.  Or in the very least, the percentage is disproportionately larger for Liberals.  Sure all kinds of people get abortions and it isn't limited to one political group.  But the fact that abortion is so political, perhaps the most politically divisive issue of all politic issues, is it really any surprise that one side is more likely to exercise those "rights" than the other?  Logically it seems true to me.  They don't gather that kind of statistical data while they have the woman in stirrups and there's a reason why, I think.

Over the past 40 years the Liberal population has been self-diminishing.  Of course not all of their children would have grown up to be Liberals, but the fact that fewer and fewer children over time were robbed of any influenced by Liberal parents seems likely to me.  Ever since Row v Wade, Liberals seem to have dwindled in population and influence, and those that remain are hesitant to even call themselves Liberals.  A sharp contrast to the 60s, when Liberalism was a badge of honor.

I have a theory that even though there have been times when we have had a pro-life President and a pro-life Congress — even though they could have changed the course of "reproductive rights" in this country — they never did, tried or will.  Not as long as there is a long term payoff for conservatives.  I mean mostly conservatives in the Republican Party, who are not really pro-life.  They are pro-self-administered-Liberal-holocaust.  Getting the Liberal to be both the Jew and the Nazi, while they pretend to care and rally those people who do actually care to act as their proxy on the front lines of a war they plan to never win.  But that all probably would not sound very good above a clinic store front for either side of the issue.  

So the next time a Liberal talks about Planned Parenthood and Reproductive Rights, just smile and nod.  You have a front row seat to the greatest Darwin Award of all time.  And whether you want it or not, you are the recipient too.  Congratulations.  Hug a Liberal today.  If you can find one.

I am in favor of the right for a woman to terminate her pregancy for any reason she sees fit, and I favor other women's rights as well.

I don't favor any special rights for women, just equal, the same as for men, gays, blacks, jews and even idiot libs like WW.

BTW why do you have to be a lib to support equal rights for women?

Now, where do I begin?  Your basic premise is interesting but I've never seen any data on relative birth rates of liberals and conservatives, let alone whether or not it was based on abortions.  But  mainly, the entire political dynamic of the past 25 years refutes your premise.  The political reality is that 40 percent of voters are conservative and 40 percent are liberal.  The 20 percent in the middle swing elections.  And they swing back and forth depending on a lot of factors, such as the quality of the candidates, the state of the economy, etc..  So I find nothing to support your amusing premise, but good luck with it.
PS:  I fully expect the liberals on the board to say I'm not a real liberal anyway.

possibly not that off either.

Let's face it, if the conservatives do in fact have all the money like the liberals claim, the mere economics might back your arguments.

With all the money, why would they need a government funded program? They wouls simply handle it with their own private doctors.

More proof where none is needed.

Eventhough you never mention Democrats, most people here will read that into it. There is really only two true believer Liberals left. Jerry Brown and Ralph Nadar. Neither is exactly a baby machine.

-- Modified on 3/8/2011 6:16:35 AM

I don't point this out to nit-pick but in your first stat re attitudes on abortion you say it's for the past five years, but the poll you cite is dated 2001.  Can you find stats dated 2010?  It would be more relevant.
Re the 40 million abortions, what this highlights is something you don't mention.  Pro-lifers and pro-choice people have a totally different moral view of abortion.  You can call it a holocaust but you're simply not going to get me or any other person who's  pro-choice to agree.  We simply don't believe that a fertilized egg is a person with a soul which has a "right" that is greater than that of the  person carrying it.  We believe you have a right to disagree with us, but not to have the government force us to behave according to your view of morality.
Last, re the abortion rates by race, the figures seem to demonstrate a very different reality than the OP's point about liberals aborting themselves out of existance.  Instead, it seems to clearly demonstrate that caucasians as a whole are aborting themselves out of their majority status, especially as compared to African Americans.

No doubt I am doomed!

Well, in terms of my agreeing with you, Willy, all I can say is "don't get used to it!"  LOL!

The reason I don't usually use statistics is anyone can prove anything with statistics.  Its a way to preach to the ignorant.  Nothing against anything you said, but honestly there is no shortage of statistical data on this board.  There is a huge shortage of original thought.  I attempted to write something that wasn't cut and pasted from someone else's ideas.  

Quite nearly a conspiracy theory, if it wasn't for the beauty of the natural selection process on our Eugenic believing friends.

Your post really blows mine away.

You are one of the reasons Liberalism is so vibrant and thriving.  I really respect that.  Thanks for your contribution and feel free to comment further.  I can't wait to read some more and I think I am sincerely speaking for everyone on the board.

Thanks again, good buddy!

I sense you are holding back something. Something that would be very pathologically interesting to all us conservative Jesuses.

I get kidded a lot because of the double meaning of "labor" in that context.  But its very satisfying work.

How about you?  Let me guess.  Were you recently fired from a popular TV sitcom?

What's your Zodiac sign?

I measured it!

If I were you, I would skip this thread.  Too many words here.  There's probably a post with a Photoshopped picture of George Bush in a donkey's anus, so check that out instead.  Which George Bush?  Does it even matter?  There might even be a link somewhere to order your picket line Dunkin Donuts online.  There no statistics here, or proven scientific fact, so I would ignore this topic.

OK, now that all the Liberals have left, I have a topic just for us non-Liberals.  To segue into this topic, I would like to conjure up the great Liberal icon George Carlin.  He perfected a method for entertaining Liberals by appealing to their political ADD,  George could reduced jokes down to 2 words, most famously Military Intelligence.  And who could forget Pussy Fart.  He had a pure genius command of language, I admit.  

However, George seemed to overlook a few contradictory phrases that did not appeal to the Liberal taste for lexicon.  Take "Reproductive Rights" for example.  Don't they mean Non-Reproductive Rights?  Is anyone really stopping someone from reproducing in this country?  Also, consider "Planned Parenthood."  Don't they mean Planned Abortion.  Or maybe you can get a unscheduled drop-in abortion these days with a coupon, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with parenthood.  

If you are still with me, lets take this one step farther.  Supposing there was an pet abortion clinic.  Of course, they wouldn't call it an animal abortion clinic.  It would be called something like Puppy and Kitten Neighborhood Relaxation Center.  But lets just say there was such a thing.  What do you think animal rights people would do?  By that, I mean Liberals in Volvo station wagons.  I think they would have a fit that animals were being aborted.  Peta would be all over that.  Even if it could be shown that the Mother animal chooses the abortion, I think they would not miss the chance to fling some red paint around.

The big payoff of this thread comes next.  If you believe that the people most likely to get an abortion are those that approve of the right to have an abortion, logically that would mean more liberals terminate pregnancies than other people.  Or in the very least, the percentage is disproportionately larger for Liberals.  Sure all kinds of people get abortions and it isn't limited to one political group.  But the fact that abortion is so political, perhaps the most politically divisive issue of all politic issues, is it really any surprise that one side is more likely to exercise those "rights" than the other?  Logically it seems true to me.  They don't gather that kind of statistical data while they have the woman in stirrups and there's a reason why, I think.

Over the past 40 years the Liberal population has been self-diminishing.  Of course not all of their children would have grown up to be Liberals, but the fact that fewer and fewer children over time were robbed of any influenced by Liberal parents seems likely to me.  Ever since Row v Wade, Liberals seem to have dwindled in population and influence, and those that remain are hesitant to even call themselves Liberals.  A sharp contrast to the 60s, when Liberalism was a badge of honor.

I have a theory that even though there have been times when we have had a pro-life President and a pro-life Congress — even though they could have changed the course of "reproductive rights" in this country — they never did, tried or will.  Not as long as there is a long term payoff for conservatives.  I mean mostly conservatives in the Republican Party, who are not really pro-life.  They are pro-self-administered-Liberal-holocaust.  Getting the Liberal to be both the Jew and the Nazi, while they pretend to care and rally those people who do actually care to act as their proxy on the front lines of a war they plan to never win.  But that all probably would not sound very good above a clinic store front for either side of the issue.  

So the next time a Liberal talks about Planned Parenthood and Reproductive Rights, just smile and nod.  You have a front row seat to the greatest Darwin Award of all time.  And whether you want it or not, you are the recipient too.  Congratulations.  Hug a Liberal today.  If you can find one.

which is a completely discredited pseudo-science the intent of which was to weed out so-called weaklings from the gene pool.  People who have abortions don't do it because they think they or their offspring are/will be genetically flawed.  They do it simply because they don't want to have a child.

-- Modified on 3/8/2011 1:42:10 PM

.. of using euphemisms.  I, for one, don't shy away from saying I'm in favor of  abortion.  In fact, I am in favor of a parent's right to terminate a pregnancy until the 18th year after birth.
But, in a more serious vein, why do you assume that those of us who are in favor of abortion don't also favor other womens' rights?  I do, and I think most other liberals do, too.

The female fetus should have some basic human rights - same with the male fetus. Equal rights and protection.

-- Modified on 3/8/2011 2:06:17 PM

...the proposed right to terminate a pregnancy is a "special" right.  A man cannot get pregnant.  And if he terminates someone else's pregnancy, he would be charged with murder.  Unless, of course, he is a "doctor" in an abortion clinic.  Again, another special right.  

Lots of special rights there.

-- Modified on 3/8/2011 5:13:23 PM

You are right about one thing.  Carlin did catch the Planned Parenthood, though I am not sure he ever mentioned the Reproductive Rights in the same light.  I'm sure he was aware of it.  Though he clearly had an agenda, he was pretty funny sometimes.

You only using semantics to differentiate.  Abortion is also the weeding out of weaklings or the helpless in this case.  The genetic flaw is the pregnancy itself.  There is nothing simple about not wanting to have a child, after you have a child.  

Not to mention, abortion is way beyond discredited on so many levels.

No, it's not the same.  The purpose of abortion is not to weed out weeklings.  Anyone who believes that is really beyond logic.  Most women who have abortions are perectly healthy and there is nothing wrong with the pregnancy itself except it's unwanted.  So "genetic flaw" has nothing to do with it.  Also, the sentence "There is nothing about not wanting to have a child, after you have the child" makes no sense.  I literally have no idea what you're trying to say.  Finally, "abortion is beyond discredited on so many levels" is a mis-statement so vast it's actually incredible.  According to whom?  You?  I could understand it if you said abortion is morally indefensible.  I would disagree with you but at least I'd understand your statement.  To say it's discredited is so broad it's a statement without any credibility.

Oh, I see.  Its OK to abort perfectly healthy kids.  Just not Ok to cherry pick the defected ones.  Ok, I'm going back to the real world now.  Good luck with that credibility.

That's credible!  Who said anything about "cherry picking the defective ones."  My point was that people have abortions because they don't want ANY kid, not because they have a clue whether it's healthy or not.  At this point you should stop worrying about mere credbility.  You should worry about the fact that you totally lack any intellectual honesty at all.  You will twist anyone's words and turn any debate into a mindless waste of time. The sad part is you don't even realize how ridiculous you appear.
You are now on my "ignore"  list.

You sound like somebody peed in your sandbox. You don't know how ridiculous you sound looking for intellectual honesty here.  Take a look around sometime.   And try to have some fun.  Nothing here changes anything.  Except maybe your ignore list.

So what your saying is because of abortion lees people are "BROUGHT UP" as democrates...or...that you you are a democrat by virtue of your geneology.....or both.

I'll have to think about that...but not for too long..