Lazenby: Filibusters Good For Democracy
A remarkable thing happened in Texas last night (and early this morning). It began on the day beforeYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
A remarkable thing happened in Texas last night (and early this morning). It began on the day beforeYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
111 comments
This is more of what a filibuster should be than the bullshit that passes for one in Congress.
Well said. Pure fantasy. Filibusters are a relatively modern phenomenon, like most things that are effing up the works these days. The US Congress, current cloture rules, and the entire legislative process in DC is as dysfunctional as my ex-girlfriend’s family.
Ha! Yeah, the bs silent ones are effing up the works. I do support the real filibusters that a very few senators (like this lady) are doing. That’s the thing – given how difficult they are, the real ones don’t happen often, and when they do, you can bet the person engaging in it cares about the legislation and the process. Do you support the true talking filibuster, or are you against that?
Whoa – slow your roll, and wall that heavy breathing friend… I was simply agreeing with ol’ Smirks’ comment on the BS method used in the Congress. Relax! Filibusters are OK, they’re just not nearly as heroic (or effective) as they are made out to be. They are usually (these days) for dramatic effect or self-promotion, but it’s OK, man…
This is more of what a filibuster should be than the bullshit that passes for one in Congress.
Well said. Pure fantasy. Filibusters are a relatively modern phenomenon, like most things that are effing up the works these days. The US Congress, current cloture rules, and the entire legislative process in DC is as dysfunctional as my ex-girlfriend’s family.
Ha! Yeah, the bs silent ones are effing up the works. I do support the real filibusters that a very few senators (like this lady) are doing. That’s the thing – given how difficult they are, the real ones don’t happen often, and when they do, you can bet the person engaging in it cares about the legislation and the process. Do you support the true talking filibuster, or are you against that?
Whoa – slow your roll, and wall that heavy breathing friend… I was simply agreeing with ol’ Smirks’ comment on the BS method used in the Congress. Relax! Filibusters are OK, they’re just not nearly as heroic (or effective) as they are made out to be. They are usually (these days) for dramatic effect or self-promotion, but it’s OK, man…
Yeah, good point, Amy… Fascist politicians over-riding the will of the people is Great if you are a Leftwing Radical, or Adolph Hitler….
Nice work: Lizenby….. Mao, who killed 40 Million of his own people, would be ga-ga over your ideas…
Pretty sure Hitler and Mao controlled the majority, not the minority, sport.
I think I’ll start every response to T with “Pretty sure.” It connotes a tad of doubt on my part, and thus I am able to amuse myself, because I have absolutely no doubt where big T stands on any issue (yeah, in his mom’s basement – too easy – I amuse myself again!).
End all of them with
YOU BETCHA!
YOU BETCHA!
He likes that.
Filibusters are only heroic when someone is using it against something you don’t like, amirite?
Pretty sure T would have been down with Strom’s filibuster… but that’s just a hunch.
Filibusters are NOT good for democracy. They are good for politics, and politics has nothing to do with democracy.
Ever heard of “Majority Rule/Minority rights,” “Tyranny of the Majority,” any of that? The founding fathers did. Here’s a refresher: http://www.democracyweb.org/majority/principles.php
Not sure what you’re implying because Majority Rule/Minority Rights has nothing to do with filibuster. And the action has been around for centuries. It is a pure political move. Do you realize that long filibusters are not allowed in the U.S. House? Senate allows it, but it can ended with if 60 members vote to do so. Don’t pull out the old “Founding Fathers” argument like so many do when it is an issue that doesn’t apply to them. Filibusters didn’t even become common until the mid 1800’s.
I’m referring to the fact that filibusters are used as a “mechanism of dissent by the minority” as she said in her article, so yeah, it has everything to do with Majority Rule/Minority Rights. I’m also aware of when, where, and how filibusters are used as well as the history of the procedure. No, the founders didn’t discuss filibusters, which were first used in 1837, but this mechanism of minority dissent that is used against the tyranny of the majority that Madison and Jefferson were so concerned about – especially in the legislature – is an extension of and remedy for that concern.
Filibusters, where people take the floor and don’t stop talking until a motion for cloture is passed may be good for democracy. But the type of filibuster we have in the Senate is not. Essentially any Senator can say I intended to filibuster and the bill is dead unless you can get 60 votes. This procedure in the Senate and the Hastert Rule is in the house have made the federal government non-functional. Essentially a minority in either body can now block all legislation. This is the opposite of democracy.
I agree that we need to get back to the real, “old-fashioned talking filibuster” that Strom Thurmond, Rand Paul, and Wendy Davis used. I do not like the “silent filibuster,” for exactly the reason you said – it makes the government non-functional. If a person in the minority is willing to engage in a true talking filibuster, then that is an act of minority dissent that I support.
now Robert, go to the time out chair and behave.
Filibusters are NOT good for democracy. They are good for politics, and politics has nothing to do with democracy.
Ever heard of “Majority Rule/Minority rights,” “Tyranny of the Majority,” any of that? The founding fathers did. Here’s a refresher: http://www.democracyweb.org/majority/principles.php
Not sure what you’re implying because Majority Rule/Minority Rights has nothing to do with filibuster. And the action has been around for centuries. It is a pure political move. Do you realize that long filibusters are not allowed in the U.S. House? Senate allows it, but it can ended with if 60 members vote to do so. Don’t pull out the old “Founding Fathers” argument like so many do when it is an issue that doesn’t apply to them. Filibusters didn’t even become common until the mid 1800’s.
I’m referring to the fact that filibusters are used as a “mechanism of dissent by the minority” as she said in her article, so yeah, it has everything to do with Majority Rule/Minority Rights. I’m also aware of when, where, and how filibusters are used as well as the history of the procedure. No, the founders didn’t discuss filibusters, which were first used in 1837, but this mechanism of minority dissent that is used against the tyranny of the majority that Madison and Jefferson were so concerned about – especially in the legislature – is an extension of and remedy for that concern.
Filibusters, where people take the floor and don’t stop talking until a motion for cloture is passed may be good for democracy. But the type of filibuster we have in the Senate is not. Essentially any Senator can say I intended to filibuster and the bill is dead unless you can get 60 votes. This procedure in the Senate and the Hastert Rule is in the house have made the federal government non-functional. Essentially a minority in either body can now block all legislation. This is the opposite of democracy.
I agree that we need to get back to the real, “old-fashioned talking filibuster” that Strom Thurmond, Rand Paul, and Wendy Davis used. I do not like the “silent filibuster,” for exactly the reason you said – it makes the government non-functional. If a person in the minority is willing to engage in a true talking filibuster, then that is an act of minority dissent that I support.
now Robert, go to the time out chair and behave.
Arithmetic check: the Cloture Rule requiring 60 votes is a 3/5 majority, not a 2/3 majority. Passage of Constitutional Amendments and changes to the Senate Rules require 2/3 for passage.
My apologies, Tom. The 60 votes needed for cloture is indeed 3/5 of 100, not the 2/3 required for constitutional amendments and rule changes. I appreciate you catching that, and we are making the correction.
Arithmetic check: the Cloture Rule requiring 60 votes is a 3/5 majority, not a 2/3 majority. Passage of Constitutional Amendments and changes to the Senate Rules require 2/3 for passage.
My apologies, Tom. The 60 votes needed for cloture is indeed 3/5 of 100, not the 2/3 required for constitutional amendments and rule changes. I appreciate you catching that, and we are making the correction.
If they wouldn’t had idiots like Republican Laubedberg comparing rape kits to abortion, not sure if a filibuster would have been needed.
If they wouldn’t had idiots like Republican Laubedberg comparing rape kits to abortion, not sure if a filibuster would have been needed.
I think when you have seen the “product of conception” as abortion proponents would label “it” at 20 weeks and beyond, you would not necessarily be so proud of the stance you took to filibuster the outlawing of the procedure at that stage. Obviously this woman has no clue, or no heart but has a motor mouth which must make up for it.
See the rape kit BS, maybe you’ll get a clue why she did this, among other factors of this bill that may have had women finding an abortion earlier. Why? Because if it came down to five clinics in the whole state of Texas, it may not be that quick to take care of it sooner.
Do some research!
I have, but have you seen “products of conception” at 20 weeks? A real eye opener that.
Hey, did you catch the fact that this article was about filibustering, “regardless of whether you agree with the reason” for the filibuster – not abortion. You could also say it was about drones (Rand Paul’s filibuster) or civil rights (Strom Thurmond’s filibuster), I guess, if you misread it that way.
Ms Lazenby states “A remarkable thing happened in Texas last night…” Yes, the successful filibuster of a flawed bill that she and many Texans did not support we are told. So hurrah for the democratic use of filibuster and the use of Sen Wendy Davis as shining example with smiling picture at the top of article. My point is that while Senator Davis may be championed in some quarters, she is in some respects being used as much as a tool as the filibuster itself. Who in the end has she really served? Planned Parenthood and abortion services are a business like any other, and as stated before, slaughterhouses are given more oversight than some of these vaulted women’s clinics.
She has served the majority of Texans who don’t want this unconstitutional bill that is being “rammed through” the legislature against the will of the people. She has served women who want to retain the right to control their own bodies with the advice and counsel of their doctors – not based on what you think. Also, read up on Planned Parenthood and the myriad of services they provide. Additionally, read up on the lack of regulation in American slaughterhouses (which, of course, are not analogous to abortion clinics – no one slaughters a fetal pig for consumption). I know I’m not going to change your mind on abortion, but at least if you know some actual facts, you can sound more educated in a debate.
Children have constitutional rights too.
Yep, and If they are born into poverty, their rights are much less likely to be preserved, through no fault of their own. Let me know when you’re ready to support children who have been born through the social programs that you love to hate and call entitlements, not just fetuses. Until you do, you are pro-birth, not pro-life.
Did you respond to the edit?
The one where you said that abortions are never denied when the life of the mother is in danger? Yeah, that’s not true, Frank. Read some of this legislation and then get back to me. I don’t care to talk to someone who has not properly educated himself on the issue.
I did not say never, I said the doctors I have spoken with. If the legislation has the ability to stop one MURDER, I approve.
Yes, because “the doctors you have spoken with” represent a true sampling of what the majority of doctors nationwide believe. Another area in which you could educate yourself like “Curious” said – statistics. Also, doctors aren’t the ones making the laws, legislators are, and many of those laws penalize doctors for performing the procedure, either with revocation of their licenses or criminal penalties.
Unfortunately the doctors that responsibly and morally perform abortions could be penalized. In my opinion the option is not to legalize murder wholesale, as Roe v Wade did. The more conservative and reasonable option is to make this a decision between the doctor and the mother/parents when this condition occurs (the condition being life/rape/inscest etc.).
Undoubtedly many, I would suspect Curious and yourself, would agree that Mr. Snowden is a hero (which I do as well). He also will be penalized, unfortunately. That said, is the answer that everything at all times that the NSA/Military does be public knowledge always and at all times? No.
You would not want to broadcast to the world, during wartimes (illegal or not) that you are sending your troops into falujah on April 1, 1901 at 1200 hours. That would endanger the lives of the soldiers and likely would get many if not most killed.
Likewise, legalized abortion MURDERS many children that have no choice in the matter. This is immoral, in my opinion more immoral, than allowing doctors and mothers/parents to decide these matters privately at such time that is necessary.
I have supported them, when I have a nickel left over from what the Demlicans and the Repuklicrats steal from me. Don’t get high and mighty. You have no idea what I do.
Further I am neither pro life or pro birth. I am anti MURDER.
Sorry it offends you that a well read 21st century woman finds abortion at 20 weeks and beyond, barbaric. if you can’t see the comparison between the slaughterhouse and abortion, then you haven’t witnessed one. Lucky you. Trying to suppress the truth of the matter by lamely “empowering” women to “retain the right to control their own bodies” by an expedient yet gross tactic is a no win in my book.
Further, If the wing-nuts of the right were proponents of abortion, you can be sure that the wing-nuts of the left would be quick to condemn them for committing genocide of the poor and vulnerable.
I think when you have seen the “product of conception” as abortion proponents would label “it” at 20 weeks and beyond, you would not necessarily be so proud of the stance you took to filibuster the outlawing of the procedure at that stage. Obviously this woman has no clue, or no heart but has a motor mouth which must make up for it.
See the rape kit BS, maybe you’ll get a clue why she did this, among other factors of this bill that may have had women finding an abortion earlier. Why? Because if it came down to five clinics in the whole state of Texas, it may not be that quick to take care of it sooner.
Do some research!
I have, but have you seen “products of conception” at 20 weeks? A real eye opener that.
Hey, did you catch the fact that this article was about filibustering, “regardless of whether you agree with the reason” for the filibuster – not abortion. You could also say it was about drones (Rand Paul’s filibuster) or civil rights (Strom Thurmond’s filibuster), I guess, if you misread it that way.
Ms Lazenby states “A remarkable thing happened in Texas last night…” Yes, the successful filibuster of a flawed bill that she and many Texans did not support we are told. So hurrah for the democratic use of filibuster and the use of Sen Wendy Davis as shining example with smiling picture at the top of article. My point is that while Senator Davis may be championed in some quarters, she is in some respects being used as much as a tool as the filibuster itself. Who in the end has she really served? Planned Parenthood and abortion services are a business like any other, and as stated before, slaughterhouses are given more oversight than some of these vaulted women’s clinics.
She has served the majority of Texans who don’t want this unconstitutional bill that is being “rammed through” the legislature against the will of the people. She has served women who want to retain the right to control their own bodies with the advice and counsel of their doctors – not based on what you think. Also, read up on Planned Parenthood and the myriad of services they provide. Additionally, read up on the lack of regulation in American slaughterhouses (which, of course, are not analogous to abortion clinics – no one slaughters a fetal pig for consumption). I know I’m not going to change your mind on abortion, but at least if you know some actual facts, you can sound more educated in a debate.
Children have constitutional rights too. Further and by your own words, Planned Abortion Clinics of Amerika are a business. Unfortunately, as evidenced by not just the doctor in PA, but in many across this nation, their business is MURDER of innocents.
I have asked many doctors personally, and I don’t give a crap if you like it or believe it or not, and they tell me that if the life of the mother is truly in danger, there is no way in hell they would deny the abortion if she wanted it. Personally I agree. Rape, Incest, Assault. These are all issues between her and God.
Yep, and If they are born into poverty, their rights are much less likely to be preserved, through no fault of their own. Let me know when you’re ready to support children who have been born through the social programs that you love to hate and call entitlements, not just fetuses. Until you do, you are pro-birth, not pro-life.
Did you respond to the edit?
The one where you said that abortions are never denied when the life of the mother is in danger? Yeah, that’s not true, Frank. Read some of this legislation and then get back to me. I don’t care to talk to someone who has not properly educated himself on the issue.
I did not say never, I said the doctors I have spoken with. If the legislation has the ability to stop one MURDER, I approve.
Yes, because “the doctors you have spoken with” represent a true sampling of what the majority of doctors nationwide believe. Another area in which you could educate yourself like “Curious” said – statistics. Also, doctors aren’t the ones making the laws, legislators are, and many of those laws penalize doctors for performing the procedure, either with revocation of their licenses or criminal penalties.
Unfortunately the doctors that responsibly and morally perform abortions could be penalized. In my opinion the option is not to legalize murder wholesale, as Roe v Wade did. The more conservative and reasonable option is to make this a decision between the doctor and the mother/parents when this condition occurs (the condition being life/rape/inscest etc.).
Undoubtedly many, I would suspect Curious and yourself, would agree that Mr. Snowden is a hero (which I do as well). He also will be penalized, unfortunately. That said, is the answer that everything at all times that the NSA/Military does be public knowledge always and at all times? No.
You would not want to broadcast to the world, during wartimes (illegal or not) that you are sending your troops into falujah on April 1, 1901 at 1200 hours. That would endanger the lives of the soldiers and likely would get many if not most killed.
Likewise, legalized abortion MURDERS many children that have no choice in the matter. This is immoral, in my opinion more immoral, than allowing doctors and mothers/parents to decide these matters privately at such time that is necessary.
I have supported them, when I have a nickel left over from what the Demlicans and the Repuklicrats steal from me. Don’t get high and mighty. You have no idea what I do.
Further I am neither pro life or pro birth. I am anti MURDER.
Sorry it offends you that a well read 21st century woman finds abortion at 20 weeks and beyond, barbaric. if you can’t see the comparison between the slaughterhouse and abortion, then you haven’t witnessed one. Lucky you. Trying to suppress the truth of the matter by lamely “empowering” women to “retain the right to control their own bodies” by an expedient yet gross tactic is a no win in my book.
Further, If the wing-nuts of the right were proponents of abortion, you can be sure that the wing-nuts of the left would be quick to condemn them for committing genocide of the poor and vulnerable.
Let’s only do what the Liberal Radicals want….D@*n the Constitution or the will of the people…
Sounds like Obama has achieved his dictatorship..,.and his happy-blissful, idiot little drones are marching in NAZI-like Lockstep, with his every desire…
Sad…
P.S. If you can’t stay on topic, please do not disturb the grown ups who can. We’re having a discussion about an important topic here.
Sorry: I changed it to make it topical..and I’m sure you’ll approve of your brethren Baby-Killer being let go, to kill more babies, and women…
That’s how yall roll…Like I said: Hitler is likely smiling at you real big with approval…Baby Killer supporters, like you and Lizenby, are his kind of people…
Since we’re going off topic anyway, is there a reason you always spell her name wrong? I mean, it’s right there for you to see, so is it that you can’t read, write or what? Is an inability to read and write the reason you use cartoonish curse words in your posts, too? Really, I’d like to know.
Theres a reason.
He’s a FUCKING idiot!
FITS doesn’t have a day care or kid’s page to separate him from the adults.
Headline: Rick Perry calls special session to pass Texas abortion bill blocked by filibuster
Governor calls second special session of State legislature to pass tough abortion bill that
was filibustered by Wendy Davis
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/26/rick-perry-texas-abortion-bill-filibuster
LMAO…Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
I wonder if this leftwing NAZI thinks Perry’s move is: GOOD FOR DEMOCRACY…Hahahahahahahahahaha…..
Now yall see why I liked this guy….He’d run rings, for the American people, around the crappy job Obama is doing…
You do realize that Davis – or another senator – can filibuster again in this special session, right? I believe we re already discussed that this is a tool used by the minority to dissent, so no one is claiming that this will necessarily change the outcome of the vote. Oh, wait – it (along with the protesters who showed up) actually did change the outcome of the vote by stalling it until after the session expired, so…
Point being: We have to FIGHT the Anti-Life Zealots over and over and over and over….It’s looks like Rick Perry is DOWN for the Struggle…brotha…
I don’t know for all of us in the right, But a lot what is going on is a rallying call to me. And the gutting of the Race-Hate Legislation by the SCOTUS this week is encouraging…that we can win…
And I think A LOT of Americans are FINALLY realizing, you not only have to win at the ballot Box…the Leftwing NAZI Minority is Fundamentally TAKING OUR country….You have to BEAT them Senseless, figuratively (not actually, like they KILL babies)…..
Perry’s move is a sign that We’ll Keep Slapping the $#!* out of the Filthy and immoral..and I bet he gets GARGANTUAN support…So more will heed the call….Bravo, Rick, Bravo….
Let’s don’t go sucking each other’s dicks just yet…
Filibusters are fine. Mobs storming the capitol, not so much.
Also, you again deceptively frame the issue, as has been a trend in your abortion posts. The bill would only result in “all but five of the state’s abortion clinics to close their doors” because those clinics are unsanitary butcher shops. This supposedly ghastly, misogynistic bill requires these clinics to meet basic levels of hygiene imposed upon other facilities providing surgical care. Your outrage should be directed at the clinics that refuse to do this on their own and still perform invasive procedures on women. Yet predictably you regurgitate the war on women talking points, but it was the abortion on demand, no questions ask mentality of the left that killed women like Karnamaya Mongar, Semika Shaw, and Jennifer McKenna Morbelli. It is a strange form of logic that convinces someone that it is anti-woman to expect a doctor who performs procedures that are exclusive to women to comply with basic standards of hygiene. It is this mindset that fosters clinics like that of Gosnell and this Planned Parenthood abatoir:
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=9059172
Talk about deceptively framing the issue… No use debating someone who thinks those who are pro-choice are anti-woman and that providers of legal abortions and other women’s health services are the same as a doctor who provides illegal abortions. Restricting abortion rights doesn’t prevent abortions – it sends more desperate women to people like Gosnell. I remember your anti-choice, anti-woman arguments from a previous article. Nothing different to see here – moving along.
Yes, it is deceptive framing to discuss the actual content of the bill at issue, which anyone relying on this article for information would be completely unaware.
And you have not addressed, much like the author, how it is pro-woman to insulate unsanitary butcher shops from basic standards of hygiene. It should be shocking to any person with a conscience that all but 5 clinics in Texas cannot meet the basic requirements imposed upon other facilities performing surgical procedures. Or how it is pro-woman to defend with the fervor bordering on zealotry a practice that disproportionately results in the abortion of female babies.
Please cite my anti-woman arguments. You can’t, because it is a lie and nothing more than an ad hominem attack. Being pro-life is not being anti-women, no matter how many times you repeat that nonsense to yourself.
Shut up curious. CL pretty much kicked yours, and Lizenby’s, @$$.
It’d be wise for you to shut up, because posting more just makes you look more ignorant, and/or dis-honest…
Pot, meet Kettle.
YOU BETCHA!
YOU BETCHA!
‘Let Allah sort it out.”
Thought you would get off on a quote from your masturbation subject.
“No use debating someone…moving along.”
I always get a kick out of those who cannot actually form a counter-argument trying to act like they are just not deigning to respond. Frankly, given the way it is asserted as fact by those like Lazenby that pro-lifers are anti-women, I don’t know why it is so hard for someone to explain (not change the subject or make ad hominem attacks, but explain) why it is anti-woman to expect that those performing invasive medical procedures comply with basic standards of hygiene. Or maybe you can explain why abortion clinics should be immune from inspection. Or why it is anti-woman to point out that abortion disproportionately results in the murder of female babies.
And reading comprehension is key. I did not say that being pro-choice equated with being anti-woman. I attacked the Left’s use of this insulting “argument.” Now I do think there are serious negative consequences for women flowing from the Left’s absolutism on abortion. I set forth some of these above. But unlike the nasty rhetoric from the other side, I will extend the benefit of the doubt that these are unintended consequences rather than some dark malice underlying their every action.
Filibusters are fine. Mobs storming the capitol, not so much.
Also, you again deceptively frame the issue, as has been a trend in your abortion posts. The bill would only result in “all but five of the state’s abortion clinics to close their doors” because those clinics are unsanitary butcher shops. This supposedly ghastly, misogynistic bill requires these clinics to meet basic levels of hygiene imposed upon other facilities providing surgical care. Your outrage should be directed at the clinics that refuse to do this on their own and still perform invasive procedures on women. You never deviate from the talking points about pro-lifers being anti-woman, but it was the abortion on demand, no questions asked mentality of the left that killed women like Karnamaya Mongar, Semika Shaw, and Jennifer McKenna Morbelli. It is a strange form of logic that convinces someone that it is anti-woman to expect a doctor who performs procedures that are exclusive to women to comply with basic standards of hygiene. Or that finds that anyone that opposes a practice that results in the disproportionate elimination of female babies is the one that is anti-woman. It is this mindset that fosters clinics like that of Gosnell and this Planned Parenthood abatoir:
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=9059172
Talk about deceptively framing the issue… No use debating someone who thinks those who are pro-choice are anti-woman and that providers of legal abortions and other women’s health services are the same as a doctor who provides illegal abortions. Restricting abortion rights doesn’t prevent abortions – it sends more desperate women to people like Gosnell. I remember your anti-choice, anti-woman arguments from a previous article. Nothing different to see here – moving along.
So it is deceptive framing to discuss the actual content of the bill at issue, the subject matter of which anyone relying on this article for information would be completely unaware?
And you have not addressed, much like the author, how it is pro-woman to insulate unsanitary butcher shops from basic standards of hygiene. It should be shocking to any person with a conscience that all but 5 clinics in Texas cannot meet the basic requirements imposed upon other facilities performing surgical procedures. Or how it is pro-woman to defend with the fervor bordering on zealotry a practice that disproportionately results in the abortion of female babies.
Please cite my anti-woman arguments. You can’t, because it is a lie and nothing more than an ad hominem attack. Being pro-life is not being anti-women, no matter how many times you repeat that nonsense to yourself.
“No use debating someone…moving along.”
I always get a kick out of those who cannot actually form a counter-argument trying to act like they are just not deigning to respond. Frankly, given the way it is asserted as fact by those like Lazenby that pro-lifers are anti-women, I don’t know why it is so hard for someone to explain (not change the subject or make ad hominem attacks, but explain) why it is anti-woman to expect that those performing invasive medical procedures comply with basic standards of hygiene. Or maybe you can explain why abortion clinics should be immune from inspection. Or why it is anti-woman to point out that abortion disproportionately results in the murder of female babies.
And reading comprehension is key. I did not say that being pro-choice equated with being anti-woman. I attacked the Left’s use of this insulting “argument.” Now I do think there are serious negative consequences for women flowing from the Left’s absolutism on abortion. I set forth some of these above. But unlike the nasty rhetoric from the other side, I will extend the benefit of the doubt that these are unintended consequences rather than some dark malice underlying their every action.
Hey, does anyone want to talk about the drone issue? She discussed that in her article, too. Drones kill real live people, and that topic seems to be getting drowned out by the abortion folks.
Unfortunately it always will. What?? Bengazi? Football? Baking? No, abortion
Hey, does anyone want to talk about the drone issue? She discussed that in her article, too. Drones kill real live people, and that topic seems to be getting drowned out by the abortion folks.
Unfortunately it always will. What?? Bengazi? Football? Baking? No, abortion
Your designation of Thurmond as a Republican, while technically correct, is misleading in the context of the example given. At the time of his filibuster against Civil Rights, he was a Democrat. The subtle implication is that Republicans opposed civil rights legislation, which is the opposite of reality.
Sure, he was an old school Dem at the time of the civil rights filibuster, he was a “Dixiecrat” before it, and then he became a Republican in 1964 because of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He was a Republican for the majority of his political career, so I agree with calling him that. I really don’t think there’s any implication here that Republicans opposed civil rights back in 57, but they sure did in 64 – thus, old Strom’s switch. Further, I think an argument can be made that many in the GOP oppose civil rights today. They’re certainly seen that way, and it cost them the last election. Plus, that whole outreach thing isn’t going so well for them…
“They” certainly seem that way, not “They’re.” Pardon the typo.
Get some sleep, RC – your first sentence was correct the way you wrote it :-)
Your designation of Thurmond as a Republican, while technically correct, is misleading in the context of the example given. At the time of his filibuster against Civil Rights, he was a Democrat. The subtle implication is that Republicans opposed civil rights legislation, which is the opposite of reality.
Sure, he was an old school Dem at the time of the civil rights filibuster, he was a “Dixiecrat” before it, and then he became a Republican in 1964 because of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He was a Republican for the majority of his political career, so I agree with calling him that. I really don’t think there’s any implication here that Republicans opposed civil rights back in 57, but they sure did in 64 – thus, old Strom’s switch. Further, I think an argument can be made that many in the GOP oppose civil rights today. They’re certainly seen that way, and it cost them the last election. Plus, that whole outreach thing isn’t going so well for them…
“They” certainly seem that way, not “They’re.” Pardon the typo.
Get some sleep, RC – your first sentence was correct the way you wrote it :-)
Can’t wait to see Lizenby’s stance on democracy and Rick Perry’s reconvening the Senate to enact the PEOPLE’S will. Will the Baby-Killers drag this tired hag out again….???
Rick Perry is STUFFING it down their THROATS. Make ’em work brother……You Don’t Mess With Texas…I LOVE it…