Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Those Evil-Doin' Liberals

"But if by 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind; someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reaction; someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad; if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal, then I'm proud to say I am a Liberal."

John F. Kennedy
September 14, 1960

I've always been somewhat hesitant about describing myself as a "Liberal". It's not that I'm running from the word - as so many Progressives seem to be doing these days; it's just that I've never been fond of labels. I like to think of myself as a measured thinker. In fact culturally I am very conservative. For example I don't care for obscene jokes or dirty comedians (Andrew Dice Clay didn't have a molecule of talent), I've never had a stomach for pornography, and I despise so-called "gangsta rap". Although I am dead-set against an amendment to the Constitution which would outlaw the burning of the flag, I've always felt it to be a stupid and infantile form of protest. And here's a fact that will probably floor you: My favorite singer is Bing Crosby. I always tell people in "the movement" if they really knew how conservative I really am they'd be surprised - and maybe even a little appalled!

But, politically - socially - I am an incurable, unapologetic Lefty. And why should I apologize - and to whom? Woman and blacks would not have the right to vote, the south would still be segregated, and the dying middle class would never even have come into being had the right wing had their way. Although I don't march in lock-step with the Liberals on every single issue, when push comes to shove I really am one of them.

I love America. I am compelled (even obliged) to tell you this because, as most of you are probably aware, people like me are always accused of hating their country. And the irony is that this judgment is usually rendered by people who lack even a remedial understanding of the history of the nation they profess to love so well. Whenever some fool implies that I am less-than-patriotic I always counter with a single question:

Tell me, who was president during World War One?

As of this writing, two people (out of a hundred or so) have been able to answer that question correctly. Geniuses. Being accused of "hating America" by people who are unable to give an accurate reply to such a basic, History 101 question is beyond amusing. It really makes me wonder.

Conservative writer Peggy Noonan once described Dan Rather - the scourge of most
right wingers - as the most patriotic man she ever knew. That shouldn't surprise anyone. Most people who would place themselves to the left of the center of the political map really do love America. We really are patriots. Honest!

I myself tend to get a little misty-eyed whenever I hear a really good orchestration of John Phillip Sousa's The Stars and Stripes Forever or America the Beautiful - which should be our National Anthem by the way. The Star Spangled Banner is a really stupid little tune and it is impossible to sing. Or maybe we can replace i
t with Irving Berlin's God Bless America. Given our obsession with the military industrial complex, references to "bombs bursting in air" is just a tad unsettling. That's just a subversive liberal thought on my part. Pay it no mind.

Many of us who tend to lean leftwards are sick and tired of being accused of disloyalty by some of our nutty friends on the extreme right. Sarah Palin loves to talk about "real Americans" and "real America". To her narrow mind, the fact that I come from the state of New York and that I believe that government has a responsibility to provide certain safety nets proves that my professed love of country is somehow suspect. I have no other choice but to quote Keith Olbermann "That woman is an idiot."

My uncle Ed Degan (photo left) was born in Brooklyn on December 23, 1920. He was a devout Liberal and a supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. He died in the Battle of the Bulge on December 15, 1944. Today his broken body lies in a military cemetery in France. I won't tell you how he felt about his country. I don't need to. Or do I....

Those on the extreme right who like to pretend that they've cornered
the market on patriotism need to be exposed for what they are - ideological snake oil salesmen. All we have to do is open our eyes to see the damage that their thirty-year domination of our national conversation has done to this country. I'm almost at the point of believing that the damage is irreparable. At this writing, every poll indicates that the electorate intends on putting the party responsible for most of the mess we're in back in power on Election Day. Isn't that nice? Have another sip, America.

This country is in dire need of a long-overdue lesson in history. The evidence is there and cannot be "refutiated". When the three branches or our government were being run by progressive leaders, we did very well. When it was controlled by conservatives, they ran the economy into the ditch - every single time. Look it up.

I love America. It's her so-called "leaders" that I loath with a passion I can't even describe.

Tom Degan
Goshen NY


Remembering America
by Richard Goodwin


Sorry it took so damned long for me to complete this thing. I am having computer problems. Time to call the Geek Squad, I suppose.


At 9:39 AM, Blogger Darlene said...

I am unabashedly liberal. Look up the definition in any dictionary and you will see that a liberal is progressive. Ergo; to be progressive is to be a liberal and vice-versa. A liberal is forward thinking and open to new ideas. What is so terrible about that?

A conservative is one who favors the status quo. And we all know how that works out.

At 10:20 AM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

I am like you-- living mostly conservatively (with a few exceptions) but supporting most liberal issues (although not all). I took a test recently that showed me as very liberal on social issues but conservative on economic ones and I'd say that fits pretty well. I don't believe in a free lunch but do believe in paying for other people's lunches sometimes when they need the help. Whenever I get frustrated with Democrats, I only have to listen to Republicans for awhile to know I don't have a voting choice.

At 10:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, someone who is anti-abortion – are they conservative or liberal ?

At 11:32 AM, Anonymous boltok said...

I find it interesting that people need to label themselves or define their value by membership in a group. I also wonder how this tendency limits one's ability to think objectivity.

Many years ago I was into reading philosophy. This is one of the pieces I liked more the the rest:

At 12:46 PM, Blogger Bennett said...

So, someone who is anti-abortion – are they conservative or liberal ?

That's pretty much a straw man question isn't it? Like most people, I'm anti-death. I abhor death and if I had my way no one would ever die.

I'm anti-starvation too, and encourage all those who like to proclaim their beliefs about abortion to climb on the much bigger bandwagon of anti-starvation.

The best part is, you will be doing the Good Work without trying to impose your personal beliefs onto other people. Hardly anyone is pro-starvation these days...

At 2:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wasn’t making an argument for or against, therefore not sure I understand your straw man assertion. I was making a point regarding the labels of liberal vs. conservative. Your post is a bit of non-sequitur in that respect.

What I find amusing though (and this is not unusual) is that you are concerned about me not imposing my viewpoint on others. The reality, if you go re-read both posts, is that YOU are the one making an argument for how I should think or act. I, on the other hand, did no such thing in mine.

At 4:52 PM, Blogger Bill_in_DE said...

The question isn't who is 'pro' or 'anti' abortion, that's misleading, or just outright dishonest.

The question is, who is for or against the right of an informed adult to make their own choice, whether we agree with it or not.

At 5:26 PM, Anonymous boltok said...

The question is, who is for or against, and under which circumstances, the right of an informed adult to take out a viable human life.

At 5:49 PM, Blogger charles moore said...

Seems to be a lot of going around in circles that does not really address the question: someone who is anti-abortion – are they conservative or liberal ?
Actually, they could be either. Being for or against abortion does no make one a conservative or a liberal.

At 6:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Charles illustrates my point. The words conservative and liberal have lost their subjective usage and gained more objective meanings in common vernacular. Actually, freedom to abort a baby is the law of the land. To support the status quo would be more of a conservative stance on abortion.

As for the issue itself. It is wrong for informed adults to choose to kill their babies. It is wrong for informed adults to choose to sleep around on their wives. It is wrong for informed adults to choose to punch their grandmothers. To precede a verb with “choose to” is repetitive. Any action we take, we choose to do. The “choice” argument is sophistry – and is a clever technique. It is meant to cloak the real issue by installing the inert word “choose” that has no specific meaning. There is much we are not allowed to choose to do. Don’t skirt the issue – deal with it.

At 7:17 PM, Blogger Bill_in_DE said...

Sorry, but 'viable babies' is an attempt to redefine the argument to fit your preconceptions.

Most abortions are done long before the fetus is viable. If you're going to define a fertilized egg as a 'viable baby', you're just trying to impose your chosen belief system on society as a whole.

No one is required to subscribe to that belief.

At 8:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have preconceptions as well. Are you saying you are making an argument devoid of preconceptions? That is tantamount to foolishness. You cannot come to a conclusion rationally without preconceptions. Again, empty sophistry that doesn't add to the argument.

"Most abortions are done long before the fetus is viable." Ok. So what is "viable"?

At 9:03 PM, Blogger Monique said...

It's interesting that this comment section turned into a question about abortion. I'm wondering why. Because it's the one thing that conservatives can point to and say is a blemish on an otherwise spotless record of progressives doing the right thing? Because perhaps more progressives are pro choice than against it, somehow this hurts our lily white image as do-gooders? Just wondering. Or am I missing the point of Harley's decision to bring up the topic? Not that I think being pro choice is evil.

At 9:24 PM, Anonymous boltok said...

Given my feeble reasoning abilities, Bill_in_De please help me out.

A fetus is viable outside the womb at week 24 of the term. Fetus clearly resembles the human form at around weeks 7-8.

When is it a good time to put an end to that inconvenience or, euphemistically, to exercise choice?

a) t < 8 weeks (still looks like an alien, no problem here)
b) t < 22 (significant chance wont survive if born here, still free and clear)
c) t < 23-28 weeks (a primi, it might need a respirator at this point, too expensive for ObamaCare, still no problem)
d) t < 36 weeks (this is so gross, might turn mom's stomach, don't show the mother the video, she may change her mind)
e) any second prior to birth (no problem here, it is the baby's fault that mom is a procrastinator)
f) the kid's a survior, survived the abortion attempt (you can now kill it because the mother didnt want it in the first place, Obama likely to agree with you)

Harley, you cant reason with that fool.

At 9:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, I was honestly just trying to illustrate how the meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" are used these days - found it interesting . Abortion was the first thing that came to mind - an idea which is the legal status quo yet labelled "liberal". Honestly didn't think it'd start down this path.

At 10:59 PM, Blogger Bill_in_DE said...

Sorry boltok, I'm not going to play the absurdest argument game. My point was that no one is actually pro-abortion, it's just that some of us are pro allowing people to make their own decisions, and some aren't.

It's funny how the same 'small government' crowd that opposes any form of government control everywhere else in life is all for enforcing their belief that nobody is allowed to make that decision for themselves in this one instance.
Exactly how far do you propose taking it? When a woman has a miscarriage, will she be required to provide proof it was natural? Are you really for forcing the victims of rape and incest to carry their babies to term? Do you really have a clear, well thought out objection to the entire practice, or just in the instances you, and only you, enumerate?

At 6:54 AM, Anonymous boltok said...

I never once stated my view on the circumstances supporting an abortion decision.

You however stated the following:

Most abortions are done long before the fetus is viable. If you're going to define a fertilized egg as a 'viable baby', you're just trying to impose your chosen belief system on society as a whole.

When are most abortions done?
When are the remainder done?
Where do you place the line between viable and not? And why?

PS How's Maxine doing???

At 7:56 AM, Anonymous boltok said...

On a different note, republican/democrat civil rights history:

At 11:49 AM, Blogger Bill_in_DE said...

"I never once stated my view on the circumstances supporting an abortion decision."
"When is it a good time to put an end to that inconvenience or, euphemistically, to exercise choice?"

I'd say you stated your view clearly.

And as far as Maxine Waters goes, she's still not in any danger of being charged with anything remotely criminal that would result in jail time, or anything resembling embezzlement.
Keep trying to connect the dots(after you've made them up) though. It's funny to watch.

At 1:15 PM, Blogger Tim said...

Tell you what, why don't we worry about getting our troops out of overseas conflict and getting people employed before we devote all of our attention to abortion. Likewise, I am pro life and am against abortion, but there are bigger fish to fry at the moment. Only a fool fights in a burning house.

At 1:21 PM, Blogger Tim said...

Furthermore Tom, current Republicans, and Teabaggers are not conservatives at all. They are radical reactionaries who have no interest in governing this nation cooperatively. Their mission is to obstruct, block, and cripple the efficient business of governing this country until they can co-opt the ignorant in great enough numbers to return them to power so that they can plunder as much as possible for the plutocracy that finances their nefarious agenda. Plain and simple. A vote for a Republican is a vote to rob from the poor and middle classes and give it to the rich. Reverse Robin Hood all the way.

At 1:25 PM, Anonymous botlok said...

Would JFK be considered a liberal today? Perhaps a teabagger.

At 8:31 PM, Blogger LCS said...


Well said.

Nobody is pro abortion.

The difference between conservatives and liberals regarding abortion is how society deals with or manages abortion:

Liberals believe abortion should be legal and it's occurrence minimized through comprehensive sex education, availability of contraceptives and health services especially for poor women. All of which have been proven effective in reducing the number of abortions and all of which conservatives oppose.

Conservatives believe abortion should be illegal in all cases and situations period.

At 9:14 PM, Blogger P M Prescott said...

Funny how a post about being liberal turned into a debate on abortion as if that is the only issue that conservatism and liberalism is based on.

At 10:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Laneman, if abortion should be legal then why should its use be minimized?

At 11:51 PM, Anonymous gmom23 said...

To Harley + Botlok - For some time, I thought of myself as "pro-life." The women I knew (mostly Catholic) who had had abortions, regretted their decisions. The pregnancies were mostly the result of "Don't worry, hon, I'll take care of you if something happens."

Then I learned about some other individuals - women who would have lost their ability to have children had they not aborted the fetus they were carrying.

Even in the much hyped "third-term" abortion, I read of situations where the babies would not have survived, and woman's health irreparably harmed, perhaps her life. Who is the government to put the life of that child above the life of the woman? That might be your religious belief, that doesn't mean it should be law.

Who is the government, really just made up of other people, to tell any woman she HAS to bear a child she and someone else - a lover? a husband? a rapist? an abuser? a deceiver? an "I just can't deal with this now jerk" - has conceived.

I have changed my mind. Even if I do think babies should be had early and often. It ultimately has to be her choice because she has to do the work of carrying the child, and bear the physical changes carrying that child mean for the rest of her life.

At 12:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

gmom23 - I've been waiting for the appeal to the legitimate exceptions argument. Goes something like this... Can I break the speed limit if I'm rushing someone to the emergency room? If my wife is in labor? If a carjacker is holding a gun to my head? Of course. Well, that's too messy, so let's just do away with the speed limit laws. No, we deal with legit exceptions. The vast majority of abortions are matters of convenience - you know that. Also, you know (if you know anything about it) that the procedure is by no means safe. It is invasive and often does irreparable damage to the woman (physically and emotionally) - though they rarely have the risks explained to them. I'm done. As important as I find it to debate this topic, I will leave off in deference to Tom. Don't want to hijack the blog. Not where he was headed with the topic...

At 8:52 AM, Anonymous boltok said...

+1 Harley A

BTW: I also through in comments regarding why people need to classify themselves and jfk the tax cutter. No one took interest in those topics.

At 8:56 AM, Anonymous boltok said...

For the blogging grammarians, I know it's threw not through. Coffee didn't kick in yet.

At 10:21 AM, Blogger LCS said...


Are you trying to argue that liberals believe abortion should not be minimized? Really?

And by that you are inferring that by outlawing abortion (you know because it's bad and it's wrong) that abortions will cease? Is that the argument you are trying to make?

At 11:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Laneman –

Reread my post – carefully. I am not making any generalization about what “liberals” want. I have never once in any of my posts cast a generalization about a group of people with a meaningless label. I’m not interested in doing that.

I was trying to understand the tension in the fact that you want it legal yet desire to minimize it. Begs the question…

Regarding your second point, of course not. You’re point? Are YOU implying that the validity of a law depends on the willingness of people to adhere to it? If so, you just invalidated every law in existence.

At 12:50 PM, Blogger Amolibri said...

"Honestly didn't think it'd start down this path." Really, Harley?
The descriptions of Lib. & Cons. have many issues and levels...for you to bring up that issue, is going NOwhere.

Tom, great job, as always!

At 2:09 PM, Anonymous smartalek said...

Facts I did not know (caption under the JFK photo):

"-John F. Kennedy
September 14, 1060"

Dang, but the man looked mighty good for his age!

At 2:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amolibri –

Yes, really. Doesn’t mean I’m not willing to respond to the (poor) arguments that are lobbed at me.

Let me start over. So, is someone who is pro social security a conservative or a liberal? The point is the same as it was originally. What is meant by the terms “cons” and “lib” – are they objective or subjective terms? Neat little observation, I thought. I can’t help it if folks didn’t catch on to the original point…

At 4:35 PM, Blogger Tom Degan said...


Thanks for pointing that out, smartalek! I need to hire a proof reader!



At 5:21 PM, Blogger LCS said...


Why do you think there is a tension between wanting to keep it legal and a desire to minimize it? Unless you believe in the lie that liberals are "pro abortion".

So you agree that making abortion illegal will not end it then? You want to make it illegal and that's it?

Of course the validity of a law depends on the willingness of the people to adhere to it! We are supposedly a democracy of, by and for the people. So the laws should come from us. Most people agree that stealing, killing, or speeding are wrong so we have laws against those things and most people obey them because they agree those laws are good for society. Unjust laws are rightly not obeyed and eventually are overturned. Prohibition laws were invalidated because nobody obeyed them. The people disagreed with them and they were overturned. A big part of the civil rights movement was about overturning unjust segregation laws.

In the case of abortion. If it becomes illegal, the people who disagree with abortion would not have one anyway. Of those who are not against abortion, most of them will still try to get one even if it is illegal. This does not help babies or girls. So it is just bad public policy. It does not address the issue.

Since we are supposedly a democracy, our laws should come about through vigorous debate. We are having that debate now over abortion. But the important point of the debate and any laws that come about from that debate should be about creating good public policy that addresses the issue of concern. Often simply making something illegal and leaving it at that does not address the problem as we have seen with prohibition, the war on drugs, and abortion.

At 5:34 PM, Blogger Darlene said...

I wasn't going to get into this subject again but I just read a neat column titled "Proud to be a Libersl" The conservatives should check it out so they know what a liberal is and what a liberal stands for. Tom, would you please turn this into a link? Thank you.

I don't know why the abortion discussion is gong on in a post on liberals, but since it is I will put in my 2 cents worth.

No one has mentioned the fact that abortions have always taken place. The only difference is that when they became legal women stopped dying or being made infertile by botched abortions. I had a friend who was pregnant at the age of 17. Her boyfriend dropped her fearing the wrath of his parents. She aborted with a coat hanger and nearly bled to death. If her sister hadn't found her, she would have died. This is just a tiny example of what went on before Roe-v-Wade. The law was not passed to make for more abortions; it was passed to protect women from death or damage when they did have abortions.

At 6:29 PM, Anonymous boltok said...

Liberal: one who observes the Constitution when a Republican is President.

At 6:43 PM, Anonymous boltok said...

A good liberal:

Given abortion remains the theme of this board, search "Margaret Sanger and the Negro Project"

At 7:13 PM, Anonymous gmom23 said...

what Laneman said

At 12:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, Darlene, you now favor the status quo? Does that make you conservative on the issue of abortion? That was my stinkin' point to begin with. It is interesting when you consider it - language is interesting.

I am biting hard on my tongue to resist continuing to argue but I'm going to end it here. You and whoever else have the last words on the issue. I pray it will become a non-issue someday.

At 7:18 AM, Anonymous boltok said...

Darlene also believes that the Social Security system is solvent. She strikes me as very well intended but less than well informed. I think many liberals are inherently good people with many irrational biases and poor problem definition skills. They view the world in terms of how they believe it should work, not how it actually does work.

Read her link on proud to be a liberal. Much fertile ground for discussion there. These people sit in a drum circle of their own. They tell each other that they are smart and that their ideas are important, while non liberals are dumb and without ideas. Many history books are missing from their libraries. Math books are not to be found.

They ignore the often heinous ramifications of liberal programs (e.g., What party has governed, with nearly no interruption, the 10 most murderous cities in America? Which states are closest to bankruptcy? Who killed the Washington DC charter schools program?). Financially, many of the programs mentioned in her link are bankrupt to the point that the unfunded future liabilities are greater than the dollar equivalent of all existing, US plus foreign, currency in circulation times a multiple. Not sure how those programs are going to end, but when gravity takes over it will be bloody. That is not a problem for a liberal. Usurping other peoples property based on faulty assumption, either by taxing or borrowing, and thus their future freedoms is not a problem either. Bernie Madoff is chump change compared to how future US populations have been sold down by the river.

From what I can gather, liberals believe in four natural freedoms: coitus, abortion, drug use and government's (as a natural being) right to usurp and regulate. Every other aspect of your life is to be subject to government control.

I'm ambiavalent towards any religion or anyone's view thereof. Many of these people are agnostics/atheists in need of a deity. Government bureaucracy fill this void and is their god. Why else would one labor for reasons to be classified as part of this group? Why not take on politics an issue at a time? Why not analyze each problem independently? Their criminals are the GOOD people because they are the idols of the religion.

I like this blog because topic selection is very good. I do attempt to understand the author's views. I gave some thought to what I would consider to be unAmerican. The US Constitution as written and if applied according to original intent is a near perfect government form. This construct has allowed us to survive for over 200 years. This document also has a method for ammendment, which allows voters to alter it over time. The republic it forms allows for a more fair representation of the broader population over time. Given that construct, I believe in the power of the ballot and one person, one vote. Any individual is entitled to their views. That construct allows us to be American. What would strike me as unAmerican are methods employed to circumvent the power of the voter.

Bonus Question:
How many liberals believe that their mother would have been better off had she had an abortion? Strangely, I think this number could be greater than zero.

At 9:19 AM, Blogger Tim said...

Biltok, we could say the exact same thing about Republicans. Your attitude is one of my way or the highway. The other side is always wrong and no compromise is therefore possible.
What are the Republican's four freedoms? No taxes on anything, treating minorities as third class citizens, spewing pollution onto others public and private property without being held responsible for its clean up, and endless wars because it's easier than actually sitting down and talking out your differences with those countries that we have disagreements with.

Another thing that just makes me want to puke about Republicans is this extreme reverence to "the Founders" as if they were some body of Christlike saints that could never be wrong. Please.

At 9:33 AM, Anonymous boltok said...

Captain America,

I do not maintain the views you ascribe.

Your ability to live the life you do is a direct byproduct of the genius of the US Constitution. Without it, would your life have been better?

At 11:17 AM, Blogger Tim said...

I am not saying that the Constitution and our form of government are bad. I am saying that it is not perfect and that the Constitution was written by flawed men who could not predict how the human race and society would evolve in the 21st century. The fact that it has been ammended several times attests to this fact.
In fact, the Constitution has elements of Greco-Roman political and legal theory as well as English traditional law thrown in. It is not a unique document that was thought up from scratch, but a fusion of many political schools of thought, with a few new ideas added. A cut and paste job, if you will. Certainly the current inertia in government today and its inability to solve the most pressing needs of today bear out this fact. While China and India are eating our lunch we receed from the world stage much as the United Kingdom did in the days following WW2.
WHile others argue about the rights of the unborn, others (like myself) are more concerned with the Americans who currently exist and are crying out for a government that works in their best interests.

At 11:20 AM, Blogger Cirze said...

Love you, baby! Me too.

Sorry it took me so long to read it.

And responding to the confused thoughts of one of your commenters, I'd like to reply that the 'thugs are doing this every day in the unnecessary wars they wage murdering innocents.

the right of an informed adult to take out a viable human life

So don't lecture me on an individual right's to control her own body.


Although I don't march in lock-step with the Liberals on every single issue, when push comes to shove I really am one of them.

At 11:30 AM, Blogger guy said...

Why abortion?... Is this the equivalent of the "race card"?

Is this really the first thing that comes to your mind? I'm very liberal but I'm also Pro-life and an atheist...

But here's the funny thing... Most liberals can justify their pro-choice stance reasonably. We all know where prohibition would lead. They aren't afraid to admit their stance...

I remember something someone said, that there is no right or wrong side when it comes to abortion. I can respect both sides. But its clear to me which side is using logic and which side is powered by faith and emotion.

Faith is a funny thing... Emotion can lead to funny things. Or rather, a funny way of thinking. You never hear about any pro-choicer shooting up or bombing a pro-life protest... A pro-choicer dedicating their life to convincing others to get abortions. Id wager that most pro-choicers don't do a heck of a lot to "support abortion".

At 11:42 AM, Anonymous boltok said...

Pro-choicer shooting up James Pouillon. I wonder why you never hear such stories?

At 12:25 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Not exactly the way you intended the discourse to flow, huh Tom? ;-)

At 3:32 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

The term pro-life is as meaningless as pro-abortion. Nobody really likes abortion and nobody is suggesting forcing all women to have one under any set circumstance. Pro-life should mean pro health care for all, anti-death penalty, pro-food for kids; pro-education and we know it often does not.

In today's world being anti-abortion doesn't tell you anything about whether someone is conservative or liberal. The issue is who will decide if a woman can have one-- her and her doctor or the government. So to be liberal means the woman and her doctor and to be conservative means the government. The word conservative though has lost all meaning.

At 4:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you folks will read the third post in this string (mine) and understand what point I was trying to make, you will understand that I honest-to-goodness was NOT wanting to start a discussion on the abortion issue. I was using it to start the discussion on what do we mean by liberal and conservative. As I recently pointed out, we might consider Darlene(or any number of you) conservative and myself liberal on the question of abortion (see Darlene's first post). No? I was really just trying to be clever with language. I've stated this as clearly as I can - I don't know what else to say.

At 5:29 PM, Blogger guy said...


Sorry if Im a bit off, I just finished applying a layer of lacquer to a chest I am working on... Fumes bleh...

I read that article and no where does it say, as you put it "Pro-choicer shooting up James Pouillon." I haven't bothered researching the incident any further but as far as I can tell, your claim is mere speculation...

Try again...

At 9:15 AM, Anonymous boltok said...

Guy, I will try again:

Anti-abortionist shot dead in front of teenagers as they arrive for school

By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 3:13 PM on 11th September 2009

An anti-abortionist has been shot dead in front of horrified teenagers as they arrived for school.

The man, identified locally as Jim Pouillon, was shot and killed outside the Owosso High School in Owosso, Michigan, at about 7.30am local time today as schoolbuses dropped youngsters off for class.
Owosso High School in Michigan, where an anti-abortionist was shot dead today.

Owosso High School in Michigan, where an anti-abortionist was shot dead today (file photo)

The teenagers had to remain on their buses as police worked to secure the area.

Some reports claim a second man was shot dead shortly afterwards elsewhere in the town, however it was unclear if that shooting was related to the first attack.

However officers did arrest a man 45 minutes after the high school shooting.

The school claimed none of its students were involved in the attack.

A black car could be seen close to the school where a portable oxygen tank was lying in a front yard next to a large sign bearing the image of a baby and the word 'Life'.

Read more:

At 3:34 PM, Blogger Bill_in_DE said...

You have to understand boltok's 'logic'. He starts with a single fact, then plays connect the dots with it, inventing the dots as he goes. Glenn Beck would be so proud.

At 6:58 AM, Blogger guy said...

Again Boltec....

No offense, again, at this point I just finished my weekend bbq ritual which involves eating some amazing bbq baby backs, which I spent all damn day smoking, in combination with a hella of a lotto booze...


By your exact same reasoning I will present the same scenario...

Given recent polling about 90% of the US citizens are Christian...

About 114 people die in the US every single day...

Sooo.... by your straw-man complete B-fucking-S**** fallacy, I can say with 100% certainty, that about 100 people are killed by anti-Christian activists everyday in the US.....

Hot-f***ing damn it must be easy to be a complete jackass!!! Why do I even bother with this whole "evidence" BS when I can just make BS up that might just convince .00001% of any retard that may be reading this?...

Please ****ing try again you jacktard... With some REAL F***ING evidence for once.... Not half a** Faux news BS, but please, if you possibly can, with what your fake ass American loving BS you call truth... Just tell me your obvious BS, can be backed up with just a tiny shred of evidence...

Again, Im sorry for being a bit off but that just goes even further in proving that you are a complete ultimate f**ing liar... Ive no excuse for anyone that may buy into your bS...At this point Ive about 1 brain cell on my side and I can still see through it, so whats your excuse?....

At 7:24 AM, Anonymous boltok said...

I think your brain cell count is probably accurate and leaves you fairly uncivilized. I'd be careful working around those fumes. You really can't run the risk.

What is the difference between James Pouillon and George Tiller? Was either justified? Did you notice any difference in media coverage? And if so, why would that be the case?

At 7:30 AM, Anonymous boltok said...

Is Harlan Drake your brother or relative? You're rather emotional about a killer.

At 8:43 AM, Blogger Tim said...

Pouillon was all over the news. Yahoo, CNN, the local papers (I'm from MI).
The man who did it killed another as well. He was mentally unstable and this has zero to do with Tom's topic. Taking the argument anywhere you have to in an attempt to win it is ridiculous. Or is it that you just have to have the last word? Because this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. I think that we all can agree that killing someone over their stance on abortion is not an acceptable thing to do.

At 2:52 PM, Blogger Bill_in_DE said...

Boltok is the very embodiment of conservative 'truthiness', as defined by Stephen Colbert:

"What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I *feel* it to be true, but that *I* feel it to be true."

At 4:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure if it's the fact that I'm paying closer attention these days in the political arena or maybe my IQ is reaching to greater heights... but as this is a venue to express one's opinion, after 5 minutes of reading various entries,I'm beginning to yawn...I'm straining and fighting the urge to scream "Quit bloviating!" It's passed 4 a.m., need to sleep at some point here, so I will make my first post pithy....Dear Tim, your quote "They are radical reactionaries who have no interest in governing this nation cooperatively." You are speaking of Republicans. Well, yes, you are right. The Gov't. works for "We the People" not we work for them.

At 11:43 AM, Blogger Bill_in_DE said...

"You are speaking of Republicans. Well, yes, you are right. The Gov't. works for "We the People" not we work for them."

I think the real point is, does the Government work all the time for us, or only when the party not in power lets it work? Is there really a benefit to the country to have the minority party block every attempt to get the people's work done?

I'm not talking about opposing the majority party on philosophical differences, that's their responsibility, to represent the people who voted for them. I'm talking about the automatic unreasoning obstructionism that is becoming the regular practice in Washington.

That isn't leadership, it's nothing more than intransigence for its own sake. The Republican voter would be better served if their party actually came up with sound, intellectually consistent policy, even if it isn't used, than to be seen as just an ineffectual party with no ideas, just 'NO!'. They're not working for anybody except themselves.

At 8:15 PM, Blogger Chris said...

HI Tom....great post as always....trying to make sense of life at home and the craziness that is my country, so haven't been in blogdom lately! Keep it up...glad to know that someone still has their voice, and is making it heard!!! Hugs!

At 11:23 AM, Blogger ebdoug said...

I learned at Thanksgiving time that my 5 times great Grandfather was John Brown who died in 1776 during the Revolutionary war, leaving 10 1/2 children. The third was Owen Brown father to "the John Brown" The oldest was Hannah who married Solomon Humphrey who had Hemen Humphrey, first cousin to John Brown, second president of Amherst college in Amherst Mass. As President Hemen wanted to admit a "person of color" which he did. And it was said that it was 100 years at Amherst before the second one was admitted. In "The Bridge" I learned the the second "person of color" at Amherst was greatly admired by Obama.
Now switch to my father's side of his family. It was John Wise who was in the war. He gave birth to Henry Wise, my great great grandfather who was governor of Virginia when John Brown invaded Harper's Ferry and Wise signed the hanging decree for Brown and was there at teh hanging. Wise then fought for the south (states rights, one of those who thought the slaves should be freed in time) And said later he greatly admired John Brown.
In other words "freedom for all" was bred in my being.

At 8:54 AM, Anonymous Amy said...

I agree with you about the inappropriateness of "The Star Spangled Banner." My vote for national anthem has always been Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land."

BTW, among today's Quotes of the Day is this:
"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt



Post a Comment

<< Home