Abortion and Republicans
Abortion was approved on Jan. 22, 1973, by Republicans. Richard Nixon was president, Congress was controlled by Republicans and a majority on the Supreme Court had been appointed by Republican presidents.
How did this mess get blamed on independents and Democrats? I guess if you are a conservative you can say anything and it becomes truth.
Our churches don’t approve of abortion but they vote for those who gave it to us, the ones who haven’t done anything to correct it. President Ford followed Nixon and did nothing about abortion. President Reagan did nothing to end abortion, nor did President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush. Over almost 30 years of Republican control and nothing was done, yet our churches continue to support them.
Are these churches going to vote for a Mormon?
We have a lot of people in our churches who would be on the street if it it wasn’t for poor people willing to help them. Those who claim to be Christian should do as Christ said, “Be merciful and do charitable deeds of kindness.” We have too many takers and not enough givers. I believe we need to show more kindness and true love to the less fortunate.
Go to the polls, think right and then vote. God bless America.
Rev. Jesse F. Merchant
Jonesport
New, ‘New Speak’
“Language Lesson,” a letter to the editor from Carole Whelan (BDN, March 13), reminds me of a book I read about 60 years ago. In the novel “1984” by George Orwell, the personnel of the political establishment employed a method of communication that Orwell referred to as “Newspeak.” The terms used in Newspeak referred to other than their literal meaning. Carole’s letter struck a note in me. I remember when the word conservative meant “conservation.”
John Langerak
Chester
God-sent doctor
I felt sad to see that Dr. Klasson of Newport passed away Feb. 29, at 46 years of age. He was a very loving, caring doctor.
My mom, Edith Parsons, was in Eastern Maine Medical Center many times before she died there. Dr. Klasson was her doctor two different times. He showed great compassion, concern and love to her.
As mom was dying, Dr. Klasson was on his knees beside her bed. Taking her hand in his he whispered, “Edith, I love you and your precious spirit. I’m going to use your contentment as an example to help other patients. I’ll never forget you.”
Mom’s family praised God; He sent such a loving doctor to care for her those final days.
Janet Cronkite
Etna
Study existing road
I have been a lifelong resident of Lambert Lake, six miles from Vanceboro in Washington County. Every year I watch as Route 6 (the only road through our area) deteriorates, with the sides breaking off and the formation of many potholes, probably due to heavy wood transport to local mills.
The economy of our region depends upon this road for general commerce, transportation of students to school, delivery of goods, export of raw materials and access to medical facilities.
How can we impress public officials to appreciate the importance of road conditions to our survival as a community? In the present economic climate of no bonding, reduced transportation budget and reduced General Fund budget, our roads are deteriorating faster than they are being maintained. Will we have to wait until we lose our paved roads to get the needed attention?
Why not do a feasibility study on the route between Fredericton and Bangor to upgrade Route 6 so that we can encourage tourism and commerce in this region? I am sure that $300,000 of public funds would be adequate for the study and the results would be useful to all of us, in contrast to the feasibility study for an east-west highway that would only benefit private interests.
My frustration is particularly high when I read about the possibility of public funds going for another study of the already studied-to-death east-west highway when our community so badly needs the economic development that would come from repairing Route 6. Our residents deserve this attention.
Otis Dyer
Lambert Lake
Mr. Dyer is absolutely right ; our legislature should be spending that $300,000 on Route 6 instead of funding a re-study of a twice rejected project. Progress doesn’t mean opening a can of worms for industry it means keeping what we have now maintained and working for the public.
You said it! Spend that, and a few more dollars, on Rt 6! They worked wonders on Rt 9…let’s see that kind of effort again, before talking about thruways.
Ask a few people from Caribou what they think of a bypass project that Sue Collins put together. The project does little. It’s not as though there was a traffic jam in town. 1.5 million passed out to a few contractors in Town that didn’t need the money. What a joke. Way to help in the demise of Caribou. Collins is from Caribou and her family had continued to thrive. It appears they don’t notice nor do they care what happens to the little guy. SAM COLLINS IS A HUGE JERK.
It’s been proven many times that a highway bypass does not mean the demise of a town. People do not suddenly decide to stop because going through your downtown is the only way to get somewhere. This bypass will remove loads of truck traffic and other through traffic that never intended to stop from your downtown maze, several other hazardous intersections and a school zone. How can that not be a benefit?
Scuse’ me. have you been to Caribou Lately? There is nothing there. Of course the bypass isn’t THE defining moment. . The point was this bypass wasn’t needed. And the only people that made money from it DIDN”T need the money. A handful of families continue to flourish because of the oldest game in the book. The BUDDY system, CRONIE POLITICS.
I’ll repeat my last point. Surely if you live in Caribou you think this is good. All through traffic will now be out of your downtown and the school zone at the high school. This has to be good especially the big trucks.
Rev. Merchant, Thank you and great letter. I believe that being a good person is what God wants. People are so hateful toward one another. I have never had an abortion and have told my daughters that they will never have one either (unless their is an extreme reason) and that sex is something special to be honored and respected. And yet, as a gay woman, people call me horrible.
Rev. Merchant–The quote you refer to, “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is attributed to Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda for the Nazi Party for 12 years and notorious war criminal. His political and social philosophy was fascism–an extreme right wing worldview embracing authoritarianism and intolerance.
To call those in America that use these same techniques ‘Conservatives’ is far too kind. We should call them what they are, fascists.
As much as “liberals” want to claim that conservatives are fascists and claim that Hitler was a right wing conservative while he was in fact a socialist/communist.
There are fascists on both the right and left that are unable to accept that the people that do not agree with them can still be good people.
Many times the most intolerant people are those that preach tolerance.
History books, encyclopedias, dictionaries and other reference sources do not agree with you. Both Italy and Germany were ruled under fascistic regimes.
I am not going to get into this again with you again. The people that disagree with you are not fascists no matter how you want to claim that they are.
You just prove my point, Liberals are some of the most intolerant people in the US, and will do anything to have their own twisted beliefs accepted as right.
Extreme right wing worldview embracing authoritarianism and intolerance is a definition for fascism straight out of the dictionary. Half of all military strength in the world and a strong police response to dissent indicate a government embracing authority. Intolerance includes discrimination against gays, muslims, hispanics and any other minority group. If it walks like duck…….
In perfect Orwellian style we redfine that intolerance only arrives from fascists. I can show you a few warehouses full of human remains to prove that is not true.
Nobody is redefining fascism. And nobody is claiming that the intolerant are always fascists.
My statement: “In perfect Orwellian style we redfine that intolerance only arrives from fascists.”
Extreme right wing worldview embracing authoritarianism and intolerance
is a definition for fascism straight out of the dictionary. ~~~~~kcjonez
Seems like some one is forgetting a few communist murderous thugs.
Newspeak perhaps? Can I interest you in the new chocolate ration? It has gone up to 20grms.
I give up.
(He’s just itching to tell his story about Communist atrocities in Southeast Asia. Again. It’s a kind of monomania. He thinks it gives him street cred. That’s why he’s always trying to bait people by accusing them of saying the left never does anything bad, because he’s looking for an opening.)
I bait people because they refuse to acknowledge crimes of the left while assaulting crimes of the right. It exposes who you are.
Well so far I haven’t seen any great exposes. Mostly just a lot of ranting about personal experiences, single incidents and right wing media drivel. But you go right ahead and expose something. LOL
You just did. Thanks.
Weak, weak!!!! LOL
Exacta-mundo. (Picture a deflated souffle, I mean cheesecake.)
You folks always give communists a pass. Why exactly is that???
Is it because they are working in the interests of “the People.” So what they do is ok?
Don’t take the bait Miz Sally!
Oh, I was just going to ask for sources. LOL
Source = you at a keyboard
Come on cheesecake, that’s a very weak comeback. Try harder. LOL
Oh, I love that “you folks always give Communists a pass.” It’s so folksy!
Cheesie, I have a relative who almost died in Korea in the 50s trying to stop Mao’s “volunteers.” I spoke out in favor of intervention against the brutal Pol Pot in the 70s and was saddened that it took action by North Vietnam to bring some level of reduction to his genocide. I condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and have always thought Stalin the second worst tyrant of the 20th Century after Hitler. Don’t give me this “you folks” nonsense.
What I won’t do is think in labels or feel the need to change the topic of conversation that began this thread (fascism).
I still await your acknowledgement of the logical fallacy of your claim that saying fascists are intolerant is saying “only fascists are intolerant.”
I still await a single post by you chiding a rightie for calling a Democrat a socialist or a Marxist.
Will I be waiting for Godot?
Look at how you categorize worst the tyrants 20th Century. You don’t even count Mao.
The top three in my mind.
1) Mao 49-78 million civilians depending on how you count, Communist
2) Stalin 23 Million civilians Communist
3) Hitler 12 Million civilians Nazi
Mao is the third-worst in my list, largely because I look at deaths in those countries on a per capita basis and consider civilian deaths in civil war or internecine conflict as different from the calculated extermination of concentration camps. Both are evil, but the latter is more evil. Hitler’s bombing of the civilian population of England is different from what he did at Auschwitz.
I see, so you measure evil by “per capita deaths”. I’ve never heard that one before when discussing genocide by tyrants.
There is somehow a difference between someone starving in a detention camp (Nazis) and someone starving in a province when Armies surrounded Ukraine and relieved them of the food they just harvested. The same happened in China to the tune of many more millions than starved in camps.
If we wish to talk about the reprehensible policy of forced starvation, we must reach well back in history to American treatment of the Plains Indians, British treatment of the Irish and the Boers, and Sherman’s destruction of the South’s means of sustenance in his March to the Sea.
Death camps were new to the art of man’s inhumanity to man, and they were the very definition of absolute evil. As a Ukrainian I would have preferred eating rats as Stalin tried to starve me out for resisting collectivization, than to be lined up by the Nazis and shot along with 33,000 other innocents at Babi Yar. It is absolutely silly that you have your panties in a knot because I rank Mao the third worst tyrant. He was evil. Your man Nixon raised toasts with him. My man, FDR, raised toasts with Stalin.
Is Idi Amin less evil because Uganda gave him fewer people to slaughter?
You made your list without mentioning Mao at all.
And it was you that numbered them.
I made no list at all. Read my post from 19 hours ago again. It mentions Mao and Pol Pot, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and calls Stalin the second worst tyrant after Hitler. Neither Hitler nor Mao make it to the top because each helped us win WW II and defeat the Axis Powers. Read Tuchman’s “Stillwater and the American Experience in China.” Mao, unlike Chiang, actually fought the Japanese hard rather than holding back for the Civil War that both Chiang and Mao knew would come.
Remember History is always written by the winners.
We have had left-wing dictators, like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, who have slaughtered millions, and right-wing dictators, like Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, who have left a similar bloody trail. KC only defined fascism and nowhere said intolerance and genocide were exclusive to it.
Your difficulty with the English language and the rules of logic is disappointing. If I told you that “All dogs are mammals,” I am not saying that all mammals are dogs. Why should saying that “all fascists are intolerant” be treated by you as saying “all intolerant people are fascists.”
Fess up, Cheesecake: you have made a glaring intellectual error. If you can’t acknowledge this, then you have embarrassed your cause.
My point is that it seems easy for the pass to be given on the left that it does on the right.
Why do you need to restrict discussion of “intolerance of the right” when the topic comes up? It puts you in the category of having more sympathy for the Russian revolution than say… the burning of the Riechstag.
KJ’s definition of “Extreme right wing worldview embracing authoritarianism and intolerance
is a definition for fascism straight out of the dictionary.” could just as easily be a definition for Communists and the left IMO.
Kj’s seems to have limited his definition to the right. He even goes a bit further. He suggests that the US, (in a reaction to Larry saying liberals are intolerant )
“Half of all military strength in the world and a strong police response
to dissent indicate a government embracing authority. Intolerance
includes discrimination against gays, muslims, hispanics and any other
minority group. If it walks like duck…….”
That “walk like a duck” seems to say the US is fascist.
Cheesecake, it is disappointing that you can say that “Extreme right wing woldview embracing authoritarianism and intolerance” “could just as easily be a definition for Communists and the left IMO.” How can right wing equal left wing?
My critique, which you are still trying to pathetically dodge, is that saying “all fascists are intolerant” is not the logical equivalent of saying “all intolerant people are fascists.”
Are you educable?
I critiqued Kcjonez for his (her?) misuse of the word fascist at the beginning of this thread. You are accusing him (her?) of something she never said.
Under your logic, once you agree that all dogs are mammals, and agree that you are a mammal, we must conclude that you are a dog. I think not. Stubborn, yes, canine, no.
Reptile, maybe.
Anyone who names himself after a fat-laden dessert is definitely mammalian.
Are you saying all mammals are fat?!
No, but the very purpose of mammary glands it to provide fat-laden sustenance. Cheesecake (the dessert) consists mostly of creamy milk products. Cheesecake (the poster) consists mostly of bombast.
You know and I know the reference and my objection was to “intolerance and authoritarianism” and its use to singularly describe Fascists and its use could as easily be used to describe Communists. What seems to be your problem with that?
Kcj did in fact imply that the US was fascist in reaction to Larry. Was he/she implying some other country was fascist? What do you think she was saying? Do you understand context?
In answer to your previous question as to why I do not chide folks on their mistaken interchangeable use of Communists/ Socialists and Democrats. That is easy. You just proved why. There is no gain in it. That is also proof I am educable.
I know nothing of what you mean; I only know what you write.
You have the privilege of editing your posts, Etch-a-Sketch style, but right now we have your critique, ten hours ago, of KCJonez’s definition of fascism, twenty hours ago. Your post states: “In perfect Orwellian style, we redfine (sic) that intolerance only arrives from fascists.”
That is not what KCJonez wrote. You might, as did I 18 hours ago, have critiqued him for calling American conservatives fascists. You finally got around to doing that. Your first critique was to make the logical error that someone who says “fascists are intolerant” was saying “only fascists are intolerant.”
You have proven you are not educable. I wish you were, but I will throw up my hands in any further effort in getting you to post logically, not emotionally.
Larry, pay attention. I am correcting your statement that Hitler was a socialist/communist. He wasn’t. Hitler was a fascist. I’m not twisting anything. I’m not being intolerant of anyone. I’m not proving any point. I’m just telling you something you might want to know for further reference so you don’t look uninformed. Hitler was a fascist not a socialist/communist.
The National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis) were socialists…by name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
Gosh, don’t any of you ever look up anything? Yes, the word Socialist was a word in the Nazi party name. The government they established when they came to power was a fascist government.
Google has answers. Google is your friend. Google helps you look like you know something. Try using Google once in a while.
But they ruled as fascists. Obviously.
Many Marxist parties or nations were Democratic by name. Hitler sent socialists and Marxist to their death, was embraced by industrialists, and opposed by labor unions. Get in touch with history and get past a skin-deep analysis of labels, only.
If you bothered to read any history of the Nazi Germany, you would have found that the Nazi’s were very conservative. The battles between Nazi’s and communist were very bloody even before the Soviet Union entered the war.
LOL “Conservative” Nazis? No, they were pretty much a totalitarian political entity. Socialism, theocracies, facism, hereditary kingdoms… All are totalitarian forms of government, where the all-powerful state dictates life.
I perfer this Republic thing, where government is LIMITED and stays the h311 out of my business.
East Germany was known as the Democratic Republic of Germany (DDR in the German language) but they had nothing to do with democracy or being a Republic. North Korea official name is Democratic People’s Republic of Korea but you would be hard pressed to find any democracy there.
You cannot tell an entity’s purpose just by their name you have to look at their actions.
Just a matter of information:
People’s Republic is a title that has often been used by Marxist-Leninist governments to describe their state. The motivation for using this term lies in the claim that Marxist-Leninists govern in accordance with the interests of the vast majority of the people, and, as such, a Marxist-Leninist republic is a people’s republic.
Democratic Peoples Republic implies that they were elected to act in the people interests. In fact they were.. only they did not have any opposition or were elected through their politburos again with no opposition. Usually they garnered 100% of the vote.
Additional comment.
On this: “claim that Marxist-Leninists govern in accordance with the interests of the vast majority of the people, and, as such, a Marxist-Leninist republic is a people’s republic.”
This sounds a lot like the Occupy folks when they post statements like.
If you are not part of the 99% you are part of the 1%.
Or we know what is your best interest….
Yeah, look at all the people who say the USA is a democracy. They are wrong too!
Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to a nationalist community. Its individuals are united together as one people in national identity through connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and eugenics. Fascism seeks to purify the nation of foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture. Fascism promotes political violence and war, as forms of direct action that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality. Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations for violence against opponents or to overthrow a political system. Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism—communism and social democracy. Fascism claims to represent a synthesis of cohesive ideas previously divided between traditional political ideologies. To achieve its goals, the fascist state purges forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.
May I ask the source of your definition or is it your own?
I got it from from a book called World War II by C.L. Sulzberger, He cites Heath’s French Dictionary
Sooooooo unfounded.
Larry, you have it right but it is no use debating the issue with the likes of msally or chen. They will never read any real history books, never mind any of the original documents where they might get a glimmer of how the history has been rewritten by progressives to distance themselves from the time when they embraced and extolled the virtues of both Hitler and Mussolini.
OK Larry and Government. Please show us your source of information. Again, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Go to the library and read some history books. REAL history books.
http://www.sarasota.usf.edu/academics/cas/capstone/2010-2011/history/dunder%20-%20it%20did%20not%20happen%20here%20nazi%20infiltration%20of%20america%20in%20the%201930s.pdf
http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/1930s_German-American_Bund_Nazis_Camp_Nordland_article
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1190378_1930andapos_s_American_Nazi_Party_Pic.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wom2e-V0Oz8
Government – did you read any or see any of these. The first posting is a paper from a student. Within the first page the author states that the Third Reich was ultra-right. Come on at least try.
It’s called looking at the whole story, not just the parts that you agree with. Then again, you only pick and choose the “facts” that support your personal bias. I simply googled and listed a cross section of the results.
Like I said, GO TO A LIBRARY. And learn something for a change.
Again, did you read any of what you posted? Please, see and talk to a history teacher or professor. People who do study this for a living know more than you will ever know. As of the comment about reading something. You said that you Googled for material. In the time I posted my first response to you and your reply was 28 minutes. You could not have possibly read the links and posted a reply. Like I said. At least try. No wonder the conservatives hate education… they cannot even understand their own writings.
HItler was not a socialist nor was he a communist, he absolutely hated communism. Remember he invaded the communist USSR and his ally was the fascist Mussolini.
Now it is true that the official NAZI party name was National Socialists but even Hitler stated that that was to get more Germans to support him not because he believed in Socialism. It was not until the 1990’s with Rush and the other right wing talking heads that Nazism was even compared to scialism and that was because they wanted to make it seem like liberals are worse then they are.
I would disagree with your opinion that “It was not until the 1990’s with Rush and the other right wing talking heads that Nazism was even compared to socialism”
I can recall such confusion in the 60’s as well. This is nothing new I think. I expect that they were as wrong then as they are now. Rush or not.
No need to confuse Nazis and Socialist to tar liberals. They do fine on their own.
Hitler was a Communist… BAAAHA HA HA HA HA
Where the hell did you go top school.
Sadly, LarryinCamden is likely a proud enrollee in Glenn Beck College, located in GlennBeckgrad, GlennBeckistan. Think of it as a companion to the Hogwart School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, without any of the more entertaining elements of fantasy.
KC, I normally agree with you, but I would not call our opponents fascists. I know they get silly and call President Obama a Marxist and a socialist, but let’s not get down into the hole that they are in.
I know people whose relatives suffered under Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler, and I would never equate Bush, Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum, for all their manifest faults, with any of that trio. Guernica and Auschwitz are their own horrors and we cheapen the word fascist by using it too freely.
These people are reactionaries at war with the twenty-first century. Let their words and their intolerance sink them.
You suppose the Germans just married into fascism on the first date. It was a long trip down a dark hole, and it could happen here.
We came closest to fascism with the Business Plot in 1934, about which General Smedley Butler testified before Congress. FDR never faced the right wing putsch that some corporate titans were considering.
For me one of the hallmarks of fascism is the refusal to ever face the voters again, as with Mussolini and Hitler, or a military conquest, as with Franco. Racism, militarism, xenophobia, hatred of unions, desire for control and close alliances with the corporate elite are not enough to call a government fascist.
That may well be the most reasonable thing you have written in a long time. But if I were to say it I’d be called a fascist.
Thank you. I would like to see posters of your persuasion begin chiding the posters from the right for their misuse of terms such as socialist and Marxist to describe Democrats.
I see “Marxist” and “socialist” used on this site far more often than fascist.
I doubt any nuanced post on what fascism means would ever be described as fascist by any of your fellow posters.
Look at my post in response to pbmann on a similar topic below.
Pbmann is not a poster from the right. I agree that you have had the decency not to use socialist and Marxist to label Democrats, but I cannot recall your calling out a fellow conservative for that misuse of language.
I consider myself a Yankee conservative. “Yankee” implies no religion or interference in the lives of my neighbors, UNLESS help is requested.
I do not consider the left to be anymore socialist than the right. There would be a flare-up on the right if we eliminated Social Security eminent domain, the entire public infrastructure, and public ownership of rivers lakes, and seaports. In a truly capitalist system NONE of these things would exist. To some extent socialism has been with the USA since the first “public Common” was created.
Now if the majority wants to swing to pure capitalism, I will (reluctantly) go along. This of course means the end of the Smithsonian, private ownership of the Washington Mall, private ownership of airports, seaports, and transport Rivers like the Mississippi, the Ohio, and the Hudson. This means everyone takes care of their own trash, builds their own roads on their own land, and finances their own education.
The USA has always been a hybrid of capitalist/socialist economics. Most countries are hybrids. China and Cuba not completely Communist, England France and Greece not purely socialist, and Even the former Soviet Union not purely Marxist.
Agreed. Pejorative labels are a very poor substitute for careful analysis.
Rev. Merchant – The decision on abortion was passed down from the Supreme Court on Jan 22, 1973. It wasn’t the Republicans that put the abortion mills into high gear, it was the Supreme Court. Starting off with an inaccurate statement negates the rest of your letter.
Janet Cronkite – God has angels all around us. We just need to realize and recognize.
See below my answer to 4lifeandfreedom and please try to find some facts before you post.
People are laughing at your answers.
The Rev. wrote, “Abortion was approved on Jan. 22, 1973, by Republicans.” His statement is simply false. A decision on abortion was passed down by the Supreme Court. And the case, if you actually study it, was cleverly tilted to favor the mother while ignoring the actual life of the child. Even the woman that was used in the case years later said she regretted her part in the decision.
It wasn’t the Republicans fault that abortion is legal. And that’s what the Reverend was inferring.
By the way, I don’t really care if people laugh at my answers. That’s their problem, and their right.
Do you even know the constitutional grounds for why abortion until viability must be legal? Or are you, in typical fashion, speaking without knowing the entire body of facts?
Question 1: Yes. Question 2: No.
Please explain your understanding of the constitutional basis then. I’m interested in hearing.
“abortion mills”? What the hell are you talking about?
PP for starters.
They spend a vast majority of their funds on other services than abortions. Also, it’s not like anyone is out there trying to increase the volume of abortions either, so for you to imply that is a disgusting lie. Planned Parenthood spends the bulk of their time and money on preventative measures and education. Abortion isn’t this fun procedure that liberals relish in like you try and portray it to be.
Further, you say “PP for starters”. Okay, so what else is there on your list of abortion mills? PP is just the start, so where does that list continue onto?
“Also, it’s not like anyone is out there trying to increase the volume of abortions either, so for you to imply that is a disgusting lie.”
Why is it a “disgusting lie” and not simply just a lie? What is or isn’t disgusting about a group of people promoting abortions, to you?
No, there is a concerted effort to promote abortions by people who think the planet is grossly over-populated. Forced abortions is the dream of the promoters behind UN Agenda 21, and such other like things. The problem with this whole “overpopulated earth” controversy ultimately comes down to: Who decides what the target number of humans on the planet is, and, how do you reduce the population to reach that goal?
It’s a disgusting lie because it implies that people who are pro-choice enjoy abortions and seek to have them performed in greater numbers. That’s factually untrue and it is nowhere near the heart of why people hold pro-choice views.
There is nothing about forced abortions in Agenda 21, and that topic is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The pro-choice platform does not included forced abortions in its tenants — so again, it’s irrelevant.
“It’s a disgusting lie because it implies that people who are pro-choice enjoy abortions and seek to have them performed in greater numbers.” – What if there ARE people who enjoy abortions, ever think of that? I’m sure there is at least one doctor who likes performing abortions. I didn’t think someone could possibly enjoy killing another human being, but they DO exist. We’ve all got weird, and sometimes very dark, fetishes. Abortion isn’t any different in that regard.
“There is nothing about forced abortions in Agenda 21,” – How do they expect to enforce their standards, if they didn’t expect to come to the point of forced abortions? Do they just fine you for having more kids? Do the parents get put to death in place of the children? Gotta cut down on our CO2 emissions… (And yes, I believe it is coming to that one day, when we are all old and the youth are nationalistic and ignorant. “Behold, a ‘pale’ (‘Green’ is the correct translation) horse!”)
“and that topic is completely irrelevant to this discussion.” – It is very relevant, but not in the way you think it is. You never actually see an incoming mortar round, but you sure can hear it a mile away.
“What if there ARE people who enjoy abortions, ever think of that?’No, I’ve never considered it. Would you like to discuss why?
EJP’s point was to imply that ALL those who are pro-choice hold those kinds of views and that simply isn’t true. You can point to a liberal who is a pedophile but that doesn’t mean they all are. You can point to a person who only has one arm but that doesn’t mean all people only have one arm.
EJP is trying to smear and degrade a whole group of people for their views on an issue by using lies. That’s a disgusting lie. I stand by that.
Again, the Agenda 21 stuff is irrelevant and your basis for believing forced abortion is in there is pure assumption.
I haven’t got a clue how you deduced that out of what I wrote. It’s obvious that you are either incapable of comprehension, or you just want to argue. In either case, I didn’t imply anything of the kind.
Yes, you did. Quit trying to skirt responsibilty for the hateful things you said.
How did I infer anything close to what you concluded?
Thank You!!!
A question I have put to progressives many times and they always refuse to answer. Who is going to decide who lives and who dies? Are you going to reduce the population by 1 billion? 2 Billion? 4 Billion?
Yep… Georgia Guide Stones. They wrote it in stone, and spent a lot of money erecting this structure. Makes you think they are serious of their goal, whomever they may be.
I bet they’ll decide who lives and who dies. What “progressive/democrats” fail to realize, is that this same thing can be used against THEM too.
“Oh! Well it seems Comrade Joe isn’t ‘with’ the program anymore, so let’s have a generic moment of silence for him as he goes off to work out his problems in the ‘camps’ and maybe he’ll get out. If not, it is a simple procedure to get rid of 1,352 week-old pregnancies, since everyone is a son/daughter of the great and merciful United States of the World.”
It’s also why I’m against the “PATRIOT” Act. You know why they call it an act? They’re pretending to be patriots… At first they came for “domestic terrorists”, but I said nothing, and then they came for me.
A possible reason you have never received an answer is because the question is not worthy of an answer.
Or you just don’t want to appear to be as cruel to the “useful 1d1ots” as you really are, lest you lose votes.
REV. JESSE,
Abortion is never about politics. It is the taking of innocent life. The politics of abortion simply keeps the guilty from being punished. Ultimately all will go before the only judge that maters and being D, R, or I will have nothing to do with the judgement that will be handed down. It will simply be the question of ” Did you take an innocent life? ”
If it’s legal, there are no “guilty”.
You folks who believe in the invisible angry sky fairy have a right to your fantasy . Just be clear that we do not all believe as you, and we are not bound by your beliefs.
Abortion is always about politics. Science, law, finance and parents’ readiness to raise a child are never, ever discussed. It’s just pure politics.
It was the Supreme Court of the United States that made abortion the law of the land via Roe v. Wade January 22, 1973, allowing the killing of our unborn children throughout all nine months of pregnancy and also taking away any states’ rights at the time. It was based upon a falsehood, as Norma McCorvey now tells, having realized that she was the scapegoat for the feminist groups pushing this law through. Pro-life Democrats and Republicans were completely stunned; and this vote of 5-4 justices has precipitated what we have as more than 57 million unborn babies being killed since 1973, not to mention those killed after birth–euphemistically termed “partial-birth abortion,” and supported wholeheartedly by this narcissistic, socialistic president. All of us who are able to respond to these articles should be thankful that the Roe v. Wade decision was not a factor for our mothers.; but that huge fact does not seem to have an effect upon so many who do not view the unborn as children–only as a blob of tissue. Well, folks, that is how we all began, and life kept growing within until the blessed event could take place in 9 months and mothers and fathers, siblings, grandparents and extended family could coo at, hug and love the little one who came into the world.
These Supreme Court justices might have had the law of the land in their hands, but they will have a lot of answering to do before the Supreme Justice Who will mete out the Heaven or hell decision.
Not to nit pick but the vote was 7-2 with the following 7 voting for Roe with their presidential appointee–
Harry Blackmun (R) Warren Burger (R) Lewis Powell (R) all appointed by Nixson
William Brennan (D) Potter Stewart (R) — appointed by Eisenhower
William Douglas (D) — appointed by Franklin Roosevelt
Thurgood Marshall (D)— appointed by Lyndon Johnson
I don’t think the Rev. lied there were 5 Justice’s who were appointed by republican presidents maybe he didn’t explain it clearly.
Interestingly it was John Kennedy’s appointee, Byron (Wizzer) White who was most vocal in his opposition to the Roe decision
Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one.
Sounds like good advice to me. What are the chances that the conservatively religious will start minding their own business.
I’d say less than zero.
Conservative Yankee Credo… “What happens in his yard is his business, UNLESS he REQUESTS assistance.”
7 billion people on the planet. many areas running out of clean drinkable water, and arable land. The wild species are being driven to extinction as we mow down their habitat to feed house and clothe more humans.
There is no heaven, there is no hell, and there is no god…. Never has been…
If people would realize that we are in COMPLETE control of our own destinies, maybe they would make a better plan.
Tell us how you really feel about God.
Tell me how you feel about living on the back of a turtle.
I live on the back of a turtle?
http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_12.html
According to the Iroquois, yeah.
Hear hear! This god that folks worship has brought us nothing but pain. If he was so good, kind, so loving….why is he playing so hard to get? Why isn’t he stepping in? Could it be that he is leaving it up to us? When I cut him lose, I came to understand WE are in charge. There is no saviour. We are it. WE must take charge and not blame god for our failures.
John Langerak,
“WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” (Orwell, “1984”).
“Soylent Green is people!”-Charlton Heston
“Four feet Good. two feet bad.” -Sheep,
‘Pigs can talk!!” (Orwell, Animal Farm)
“Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing.” -Emerson/Art
My point, you read a book, good job. Read another one.
Dude, you need to chill out. Being angry without a reason? Sounds like someone’s been attending too many “2 minute hate”.
Way to pick out a great example of a SMALL irrational group that does not represent more then a fraction of the republican party.
Woe v.Wade is long SETTLED LAW.
Let’s see a few letters from those that think everything should be free. I am positive you get those letters BDN why not portray the left as far leaning socialists the way you portray the RNC as Abortion ranting lunatics?
Not much chance of that is there TOM GROENING? What a JOKE.
Hey Reverend,
There is no God. Look around.
Ya know it’s funny. I come out saying that the Roe V. Wade issue is dead news and then a dozen people come out supporting the letter writer. Not to mention taking the time to tell us in various ways that we’re going to Hades.
Rev. Jesse F. Merchant is a liar. You’d think a minister would be above that, but instead, he goes on to accuse conservatives of lying. His congregation must be proud.
See my answer to 4lifeand freedom below
Which is relevant how? Check one fact and declare him honest, in typical liberal fashion.
Declare him a liar, in typical conservative fashion.
At least it is a fact. Many times there are no facts to support anything from your side.
Rev. Jesse F. Merchant,
I’m reminded that Satan is the prince of this world, and then remember why it is I don’t vote any longer.