snuffbox 0 Report post Posted April 29, 2004 In 1800 - Abolitionists were Extremists.... In 1900 - Suffragettes/Womans Rights activists were Extremists.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted April 29, 2004 Or simply misguided. Oh and calling Wacky Arlen, Chaffee and that bitch Jeffords (when he was one anyway) RINOs is NOT just as extreme as calling abortion clinic bombers the same title... I'm Canadian, it's not my fault. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Brian Report post Posted April 30, 2004 I think we should get off the abortion issue and work towards more stuff in the middle, like birth control, which seemingly get picked up in the ride with the abortion debate. This is what we should be dealing with, not abortion. Thailand actually has a pretty decent model with AIDS based on this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2004 In 1800 - Abolitionists were Extremists.... In 1900 - Suffragettes/Womans Rights activists were Extremists.... In 2000 -- Child molestors were extremists. Big deal... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 30, 2004 I think we should get off the abortion issue and work towards more stuff in the middle, like birth control, which seemingly get picked up in the ride with the abortion debate. This is what we should be dealing with, not abortion. Thailand actually has a pretty decent model with AIDS based on this. Not many people oppose birth control. Not a huge debate there. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Brian Report post Posted April 30, 2004 Not that, but just in general moving more effort into that arena. Start distributing a lot more, especially female contraceptives. When I was in Thailand, condoms were literally distributed like matchbooks. And they've ended up tailing the AIDS crisis pretty well. I think we should do a better job distributing, and maybe push the debate into prevention rather than straight out abortion. Just the general polarization in that debate tends to take away, IMO, from these issues. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2004 Well, you know, not having random sex with people off the street could curb that pesky AIDS problem, too. Sorry for imposing my Puritan values upon everyone. I'll leave now... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2004 Mike, I'm sorry man, but I'm hardly an extremist as I align with your fairly closely. Yet I hold dear to the right to personal freedom, and am pro-choice for society. Pro-Choice is not an extreme viewpoint. On the political scale its slightly left but hardly extreme. I have to disagree with you on that. *cough* Remember this for the rest of your lives. I agree with Tyler...this one time... Quite frankly, I do not support --- AT ALL --- banning of abortion. In my eyes, it is too simple a solution. I wish to change America's heart and soul --- not the laws. I want abortion to be all "safe and legal" --- and non-existant in this country because people find it deplorable. HOWEVER, partial birth abortion has no place in a civilized society. -=Mike It does have a place. Every case of partial birth abortion performed for the past 3-5 years was because of sever birth defects in which the child was not going to live and the mothers life was in danger. You telling these women that they should risk their lives to give birth to a baby that is going to die? People act like Partial Birth abortions were happening every week. They were few and far between and were necessary when they occured. Banning this was just stupid and is just putting peoples lives in danger all so that they can get a foot in the door to totally banning abortion. ex·treme ( P ) adj. 1: Most remote in any direction; outermost or farthest: the extreme edge of the field. 2: Being in or attaining the greatest or highest degree; very intense: extreme pleasure; extreme pain. Extending far beyond the norm: an extreme conservative. See Synonyms at excessive. 3: Of the greatest severity; drastic Now which one of these support what you have been saying in this thread. Simply being for or against something isn't being a EXTREME. I am all for gay marrige...how is that being EXTREME? Making a constitiutional admendment to prevent it....that sounds of the greatest severity or drastic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted April 30, 2004 Turns out a student at UMass shared a similar view as the assclowns mentioned in the intial articles which caused an enormous controversy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 30, 2004 It does have a place. Every case of partial birth abortion performed for the past 3-5 years was because of sever birth defects in which the child was not going to live and the mothers life was in danger. Good luck finding too many doctors who will back you. And, the argument about a mother's health is a joke. What can delivering all but a baby's head, then sucking the brains out to kill it, POSSIBLY due to save a woman's life that a C-Section couldn't? You telling these women that they should risk their lives to give birth to a baby that is going to die? People act like Partial Birth abortions were happening every week. They were few and far between and were necessary when they occured. The Record of Bergen, NJ on 9/15 had an expose, where Ruth Padawer (a journalism professor at Columbia) spoke to a doctor at an abortion clinic in Englewood,NJ that performed 1,500 a week --- and the doctor claimed that a "miniscule number" were done for medical reasons. On 9/17. the Washington Post did a report on several abortion clinics and reported "It is possible-- and maybe even likely-- that the majority of these [partial-birth] abortions are performed on normal fetuses, not on fetuses suffering genetic or other developmental abnormalities. Furthermore, in most cases where the procedure is used, the physical health of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy.... Instead, the "typical" patients tend to be young, low-income women, often poorly educated or naive, whose reasons for waiting so long to end their pregnancies are rarely medical." Dr. Haskell of Dayton, OH told the American Medical News that most of his abortions are in 20-24 week range (where a fetus is viable, by most estimates) and that 80% are done for "elective" reasons. The late Dr. James McMahon of Los Angeles developed the partial-birth technique, and used it thousands of times. In a written submission to the House Judiciary Committee in 1995, he admitted using the method even during the final three months of pregnancy on babies with no "flaw," for such reasons as mere youth of the mother, or "psychiatric" difficulties. In September over 300 physician-specialists--including former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop-- issued a statement "partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility Banning this was just stupid and is just putting peoples lives in danger all so that they can get a foot in the door to totally banning abortion. Nope. Defending it is simply being rigidly "pro-abortion". ex·treme ( P ) adj. 1: Most remote in any direction; outermost or farthest: the extreme edge of the field. 2: Being in or attaining the greatest or highest degree; very intense: extreme pleasure; extreme pain. Extending far beyond the norm: an extreme conservative. See Synonyms at excessive. 3: Of the greatest severity; drastic Now which one of these support what you have been saying in this thread. Supporting partial birth abortion fits #1 and #3 on that list. Simply being for or against something isn't being a EXTREME. I am all for gay marrige...how is that being EXTREME? Making a constitiutional admendment to prevent it....that sounds of the greatest severity or drastic. No, a Constitutional Amendment is the ONLY path available. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted April 30, 2004 (edited) Mike=Pro-choicers are extreme? Pro-gay marriages? They might be MINORITIES, but certainly not EXTREMISTS. There's a difference. And we've already shown that the religious right probably shouldn't cite the Bible for reasoning behind banning gay marriage, unless they've never gotten haircut, haven't shaved their beards, eaten the shellfish, coveted anything, lusted after anyone, eaten the rare meat, gotten a tattoo. It's all in Leviticus. Then there's the problem of translation, as next to nobody reads Arameic anymore. Yet somehow, they aren't labeled as extremists. As for abortion, someone apparently hasn't done their homework on statistics: a recent ABCNews poll shows that 53% of Americans support it. Which would make them the majority. Anyways. To be fair, the Levitical Law's purpose was massively misunderstood. For a time it was on the right track but people mutated it over time and started looking at it in a way that God didn't intend. There's also the fact that the Laws there are largely ceremonial, and often aimed at people taking specific vows or serving in the Temple/Tabernacle. There's also the fact that when Jesus moved God's people under the new covenant in His teaching, he pointed to the spirit of the Law, not the letter. He also pointed out that the actual moral laws were intended to point out sin for conviction and to lead to repentance. Jesus then summed up the entirety of the law with 2 simple commands that encompassed the spirit of it all. Homosexuality is also directly addressed by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. It also comes under the heading of lust. The point of the Christian life isn't to clean yourself up to come before God and be right with Him. It's to trust Him to clean you up Himself. This legalistic mentality is the opposite of Christ's teachings and church activities, and is not the true Christian message. Unfortunately, people have become so entrenched with this false doctrine that when someone attempts to explain the truth of scripture, they refuse to hear it. We do have a rite to cite the Bible if we are using it and reading it and understanding it in the way that it has to be studied. And there IS a necessary way to study it. Also, there are more people able to speak and read Aramaic than you may think. Anyone who graduates from my school's Biblical Languages major MUST demonstrate a clear ability to read and translate biblical Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Anyone working for organizations like Wycliffe Bible Translators or any other Christian translation organization that is worth its weight must translate from the original texts into the new language. I'm a biblical languages major and next year I begin Hebrew and Aramaic. I plan to carry my studies through the doctoral level, probably concentrating on Hebrew and Aramaic. My college's dean of students is fluent in Aramaic and teaches the courses on it and has written one of the difinitive textbooks on the Old Testament for undergraduate studies. People who know what they're talking about when it comes to the Bible do exist. Edited April 30, 2004 by SpiderPoet Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2004 Simply being for or against something isn't being a EXTREME. I am all for gay marrige...how is that being EXTREME? Making a constitiutional admendment to prevent it....that sounds of the greatest severity or drastic. No, a Constitutional Amendment is the ONLY path available. -=Mike Or, you allow it. Leave it up to the states. Or at least make a 1-time exception to the full faith & credit clause by stating something like "out-of-state same-sex marriages do not have to be recognized in states in which it is not legal" if you really need to make any exceptions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 30, 2004 Simply being for or against something isn't being a EXTREME. I am all for gay marrige...how is that being EXTREME? Making a constitiutional admendment to prevent it....that sounds of the greatest severity or drastic. No, a Constitutional Amendment is the ONLY path available. -=Mike Or, you allow it. Leave it up to the states. Or at least make a 1-time exception to the full faith & credit clause by stating something like "out-of-state same-sex marriages do not have to be recognized in states in which it is not legal" if you really need to make any exceptions. So, you SUPPORT changing the Constitution. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stephen Joseph 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2004 (edited) Back on TOPIC~!!!! Rene(if image not working) That's the kid who wrote that Tillman was a Rambo wannabe. I think I made my point. Proceed Edited April 30, 2004 by Stephen Joseph Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 30, 2004 Back on TOPIC~!!!! That's the kid who wrote that Tillman was a Rambo wannabe. I think I made my point. Proceed Heck, if you want comedy, read democraticunderground.com's reaction to the piece. I think one person disagreed with the column. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2004 Simply being for or against something isn't being a EXTREME. I am all for gay marrige...how is that being EXTREME? Making a constitiutional admendment to prevent it....that sounds of the greatest severity or drastic. No, a Constitutional Amendment is the ONLY path available. -=Mike Or, you allow it. Leave it up to the states. Or at least make a 1-time exception to the full faith & credit clause by stating something like "out-of-state same-sex marriages do not have to be recognized in states in which it is not legal" if you really need to make any exceptions. So, you SUPPORT changing the Constitution. -=Mike If there *absolutely* needed to be any kind of restriction, I'd be OK with that in order to placate any states who might be up in arms. Ideally, this wouldn't be needed, and the decision would just be left up to each state w/out that restriction. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2004 Back on TOPIC~!!!! That's the kid who wrote that Tillman was a Rambo wannabe. I think I made my point. Proceed Heck, if you want comedy, read democraticunderground.com's reaction to the piece. I think one person disagreed with the column. -=Mike In all fairness, one could look up the FreeRepublic.com archives and see the same thing when Paul Wellstone was killed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2004 Back from my trip. I was so crazy tired when I left that I actually set an incredibly bad date range, saying I was going on vacation from late May until early March. WTF?!?!?!?!??! Anyway, I've long spoke out against IndyMedia and wouldn't take it seriously for a second. I view it as the left-wing version of NewsMax. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2004 The problem with the left is that they DON'T RECOGNIZE their radical members. The gay marriage groups? They are extreme. The pro-choicers in Washington this weekend? Extreme. Thank you for setting policy, master. I consider groups like PETA and ELF to be extreme. Actually, I'd call ELF criminals for some of the things they've done. Those types are the extreme groups of the left. The groups you mentioned don't have anything on them, they mostly hold protests and rallies and don't hold graphic banners in public places or set fires to auto dealerships. To reverse what you're saying is to say that Rick Santorum is extreme. I don't, I think his comments were stupid and reflect badly on the GOP, but not extreme. Phelps would be the extreme. I think a case for the gay marriage people being extreme could have been made prior the the announcement by the White House stressing the need for a marriage amendment. The fact that the gay marriage groups gained numbers and recognition in the wake of that is pretty elementry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2004 Mike....Im willing to guess that the extreme group 'ku klux klan' are prominently Republican...shall we base the party on their actions? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2004 Mike....Im willing to guess that the extreme group 'ku klux klan' are prominently Republican...shall we base the party on their actions? Bad answer snuff. I can already predict how Mike's going to respond to this one... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2004 Mike....Im willing to guess that the extreme group 'ku klux klan' are prominently Republican...shall we base the party on their actions? Bad answer snuff. I can already predict how Mike's going to respond to this one... Heck, just because they all vote the party line doesnt mean theyre Republicans... Theyre still not as Extreme as those heathens wanting crazy rights to sexual preferances Mike --John Kerry fell off a snowboard and told his secretservicedude that he'd cuff him up Vietnam style Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 1, 2004 Mike....Im willing to guess that the extreme group 'ku klux klan' are prominently Republican...shall we base the party on their actions? ACTUALLY, the only former Klansman in office is a Democrat. Historically, the KKK tended to be populated by Democrats. Just to give you technicalities. Is that what you expected, kkk? In all fairness, one could look up the FreeRepublic.com archives and see the same thing when Paul Wellstone was killed. Never said you couldn't. However, I've never been to freerepublic.com, so comments on it seem rather pointless on my part. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 1, 2004 Is that what you expected, kkk? Yeah, pretty much so. Although to be fair, a lot (not all) of the "KKK Democrats" eventually moved into the Republican Party. Except, of course, everybody's favorite W.Va. Senate Democrat. This also reminds me of a Newsweek article a while back profiling Tenn. Congressman Democrat Harold Ford, Jr. He was at some BBQ saying hi to voters and the Newsweek writer heard some old guys that were racist saying that they liked Ford (can't remember what they said, but one did have a racist remark). His skin color was brought up and one of the guys said "But at least he ain't no Jew..." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted May 1, 2004 Never said you couldn't. However, I've never been to freerepublic.com, so comments on it seem rather pointless on my part. -=Mike Yeah, but the other point is that most of the Democrats here have never been to democraticunderground.com or whatever, either. Both sides have their morons Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 2, 2004 Never said you couldn't. However, I've never been to freerepublic.com, so comments on it seem rather pointless on my part. -=Mike Yeah, but the other point is that most of the Democrats here have never been to democraticunderground.com or whatever, either. Both sides have their morons Well, moveon.org is sponsoring speeches by Al Gore. That is more mainstream than anything free republic.com has done that I'm aware of. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted May 2, 2004 I wouldn't call MoveOn morons like I would FreeRepublic (which I visited twice through links not knowing where it went) and DemocraticUnderground (which I've heard stories about but never been to). I would say they're doing shock value advertising that the Kerry campaign won't. Whether this helps or hurts the Kerry campaign I don't know, it could be interesting. I've never been to MoveOn either, FWIW. But I do know the people behind it made those "Flying Toasters" PC screensavers that were really huge in 1994. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted May 2, 2004 Double Post Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted May 2, 2004 That is more mainstream than anything free republic.com has done that I'm aware of. -=Mike That's true. It even has its own PAC (Political Action Committee). I've never been to MoveOn either, FWIW. But I do know the people behind it made those "Flying Toasters" PC screensavers that were really huge in 1994. I didn't know that. So they went from "Flying Toaster" guys to Democrat soft money conduit? Quite a leap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted May 3, 2004 I didn't know that. So they went from "Flying Toaster" guys to Democrat soft money conduit? Quite a leap. The company that made that product (After Dark was the name of the full screensaver suite) was called Berkeley Systems because they were based oughta... Well... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
