Well I have news for him: They never imagined Vagina Police modeled after the TSA either.
Well super. The gentleman who did the post, James N. Hall III, replied to my above comment with this gem:
M., HOW COULD THEY IMAGINED SUCH EVIL METHODS, THEY WERE ONLY CONCERNED WITH WHAT WAS GOOD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!
I take it he is shouting mad about the subject. I hear ya dude.
Well needless to say. With an opening like that who could resist? Certainly not I. So I didn't.
Well how could the government think of such a thing? It is what governments do. And you want to hand your daughter's privates over to the government? I have a daughter and it scares the crap out of me.
Why not join me in supporting: Rockford Pro Life who want to fix the problem without government goons and TSA agents.
You know government is evil. A necessary evil. Still evil. And you want to hand over the most intimate parts of your female relatives to evil? Which is why I keep asking if you are insane?
It is very difficult to use evil to do good. It is certainly above my pay grade. You think the idiots in Washington could handle it?
And I then thought some more and added this bit:
I do see where you and I differ. I believe government is a necessary evil. You believe that government is or can be a force for good. As do liberals. I think of it as setting evil against evil. Better to not let either side get too strong lest they come for you. Which means tolerating some evil. Well the moschiach has not returned permanently, so for the time being we are stuck with it.
It is a fallen world my friend. We can make it better. But I'm unwilling to do the kind of evil necessary to make it perfect. I leave that job to the liberals.
The essence of the difference is "What Could Possibly Go Wrong?" Plenty. I guess I'm going to now have to admit my homosexual leanings sort of. I'm an engineer and I have been fucked in the ass more times by Murphy than I'd care to remember let alone recount. And I didn't like it one bit. Like the government, Murphy doesn't have the courtesy to use any lube. I take that back. Sand is the preferred lubricant. Coarse dry sand.
So when I see how things could go wrong my life experience has trained me to avoid the dangers. I have to weigh the evil vs the good and try to determine if there is a net benefit. And uppermost in my mind is "What Could Possibly Go Wrong?" Because I don't like being Murphy's (or government's) bitch.
I'll consider supporting Rockford Pro-Life when they also link bastards.org, and support them. Yes, I'm adopted. AND I'm pro-choice. And, no, it's not a suicidal stance. But adoption in this country (and others) makes you into a second-class citizen.
Due to the state I was adopted in, I can't even ASK for my original birth certificate without my adoptive parents' approval (or their death certificates.) I'm not even sure my birthday is correct - back then - and there - they changed dates to be sure adoptees could never find their original parents. (And no, my parents-at least my mother-won't give approval. And it's mostly the adoptive parent side that opposes reform.)
So, they help fix adoption, maybe I'll support pro-adoption groups. Otherwise, no. And, btw - I've met many birth mothers who regretted 'giving up' (abandoning to strangers in my view) their children. More, in fact, than women who regret abortions.
Oh - and, btw, adopted kids are way over-represented (scroll down to the second set) in psychiatrists' offices. Maybe because we are told from day one that abandonment (again from our point of view) is the proof of true "love"?
Oops - not sure if it was a forbidden word (but it's what I AM) or the length of the rant - but that's the first time I ever got a 'comment pending' here. Sorry 'bout that.
They never imagined Vagina Police modeled after the TSA either.
That's hardly an accurate description of Scalia's position, is it?
Scalia criticized, according to an AP report, those who misinterpret the 14th Amendment’s due process clause to include abortion.
“But some of the liberties the Supreme Court has found to be protected by that word—liberty—nobody thought constituted a liberty when the 14th Amendment was adopted,” Scalia said. “Abortion? It was
criminal in all the states.”
Simon, you continue to behave like a caricature of a libertarian.
flenser · November 24, 2010 7:40 PM
flenser,
Of course it is not Scalia's position. How could he sell the load if it was?
Now how exactly did we get the TSA? And what recourse will you have when it finally comes to that? That upstanding protector of liberties (of the Vagina Police) Scalia?
Your error is that you keep imagining what it would be like if they did it your way. What could possibly go wrong? I imagine they will do it the government way. What won't go wrong?
Darleen,
In the generally accepted TEA Party Manifesto is fiscal responsibility, Constitutional Government (missed the Drug Prohibition Amendment), free markets and that is it. Most in the movement feel getting involved in social issues will drive away some libertarians, Democrats, moderates, independents, etc.
Driving away supporters is an odd way to do politics. The Democrats are smart enough to hide their real agenda until after elections. Republicans - the ugly you see is the ugly you get.
As to who appointed me? Me.
BTW it looks like I made an error with the name. It should be Resist.Net I will correct the text.
In a related story, some people blame the War on Terrorism for the TSA policies.
Actually, it might be important to both maintain the WoT and reprivatize the TSA simply to provide a precedent to prevent anti-abortion laws from turning into a Vagina Police.
While it is true that the main aim of TEA Parties is fiscal conservatism, the sheer breadth of the movement, plus its doggedness in NOT adhereing to a one-size-fits-all-litmus-test (crafted by coastal elites, natch) is a huge part of its attractiveness to the hoi polloi of America's flyover country. They get to craft their local parties to match their concerns/values/principles.
Someone dare breathe that maybe MAYBE we ought to be concerned with a radical pro-abortion culture? Maybe that abortion statutes should be left to states and localities? But to say such is to drive away the golden "moderates" and independents?
Is it really that no one gives a rip about social cons or that it is the self-described establishment types of inside the Beltway, and urban elites in Frisco, NYC and Chicago that say that and expect everyone to genuflect?
Every poll taken on the issue shows most Americans to be pro-choice BUT NOT as the pro-aborts define "pro-choice". While most Americans agree that an adult woman should be able to choose abortion in the first trimester, the minute you go beyone that description (2nd, 3rd trimester abortions - married women -- minor females without the knowledge of a parent -- paid for by tax dollars) support for abortion drops off significantly.
Such Americans believe that government should have "hands off" and leave the decision to the adult woman, but when you are talking about minors and viable fetuses you're talking about something entirely different.
I would describe myself as a reluctant pro-choice. And I would add that I don't believe the government should FORCE doctors, nurses, pharmacists, hospitals, etc to participate in abortions -- something that Left-Feminist sites often talk about.
I'm sorry you've had such a bad personal experience with adoption.
My daughter's best friend, when they were both 15, got pregnant. She kept it from her parents early on because she knew they would pressure her into an abortion and she told me daughter she didn't want to have this baby pay the price for her mistake. She participated in a partially open adoption - the beautiful baby girl went to a loving couple who she got to know, and they keep in touch with her with pictures and letters. She really doesn't think of the little girl as "hers". They are family now, because love is stronger than blood. She didn't "abandon" her baby, she gave her a family.
My grandsons' aunt & uncle are now the proud parents of a beautiful baby girl who they arranged to adopt before she was born. She's now 11 months old and loves her mommy and daddy and they love her to pieces. (uncle is making up a lot of time missed because he just got back from Afghanistan two weeks ago after a 7 month tour). As far as the rest of the very extended family, she's a new member in the same standing as everyone else. For my boys, she's just another of their cousins.
I took the liberty of reviewing the going from the linked article to the home page of the site in question. If their main aim is limited government or fiscal conservatism, they sure have a wierd way of showing it. I'd say the home page is about 3:1 social issues to limited government or fiscal conservatism. At what point do you consider it reasonable to conclude that the people in question are simply trying to co-opt the Tea Parties to their own agenda?
Bill Dalasio · November 26, 2010 1:51 PM
Someone dare breathe that maybe MAYBE we ought to be concerned with a radical pro-abortion culture? Maybe that abortion statutes should be left to states and localities? But to say such is to drive away the golden "moderates" and independents?
Well yes it does. You can't win elections when 20% or 30% of your side can't even hold their nose any more.
To get that last little bit that is the margin between victory and defeat you have to do enough compromising to make your side more attractive than theirs.
And then their is the culture problem. Can the passage of laws solve a culture problem?
My preference is for cultural problems to get solved in the culture. Government keep out.
Conservatives are just as much believers in the State as liberals. Their objectives are different but their core belief is the same "government can..." No it can't.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
"Tea Party Patriots - a social conservative group masquerading as a TEA Party organization"
Excuse me, Simon? When were you elected to decide the definition of authentic TEA Party membership? Cuz I don't remember getting the ballot.