Debbie F. wrote:
To be honest, I can't disagree that it is a stretch to believe that Obama never heard some of the inflammatory stuff at church, or for that matter at the dinner table. He would have done better to admit that yes, he did hear some of that stuff, had lots of arguments about it, but loved some of the people involved and did his best to agree to disagree. I realize that I have a tendancy to personalize some of this stuff, but again, to relate to my own life experience, if I refused associate with every person I heard make racist, sexist, homophobic or just plain crazy stupid remarks, I would have to cut off a fair number of my relatives. So, since those of us in glass houses can't throw stones, I have some sympathy for the "crazy uncle" defense. He should have used it in the first place instead of playing dumb.

I also admit that I am not a "persuadable voter" in this election, so I am willing to unfairly give Obama the benefit of a doubt that I might not always be willing to give him or other candidates. I like Obama, and I think he might just do a good job, but I would have been willing to give Clinton my vote if things had swung that way as well (sorry dajafi.) I hate to be a single issue voter, but in this election, as the possessor of a uterus, and as the mother of a child who has a uterus, my most pressing interest is the Supreme Court. The Bush adminstration has proved that the nation can survive almost anything for eight years, but two (or even one) more conservative Supreme Court justices will adversely affect our lives for an entire generation.

jerseyhoya wrote:People who spend time debating what issues are substantive and what aren't, are what we like to call "losers"

It's great that you have decided what does and does not matter. However, it does not work that way.

jerseyhoya wrote:Looks like she'll win by 140-150,000ish.

At some point, the fact that Obama has been taking a dump in these primaries for the past three months might become a concern to you all. Since Hillary is dead and all.

jeff2sf wrote:

Debbie F. wrote:
To be honest, I can't disagree that it is a stretch to believe that Obama never heard some of the inflammatory stuff at church, or for that matter at the dinner table. He would have done better to admit that yes, he did hear some of that stuff, had lots of arguments about it, but loved some of the people involved and did his best to agree to disagree. I realize that I have a tendancy to personalize some of this stuff, but again, to relate to my own life experience, if I refused associate with every person I heard make racist, sexist, homophobic or just plain crazy stupid remarks, I would have to cut off a fair number of my relatives. So, since those of us in glass houses can't throw stones, I have some sympathy for the "crazy uncle" defense. He should have used it in the first place instead of playing dumb.

I also admit that I am not a "persuadable voter" in this election, so I am willing to unfairly give Obama the benefit of a doubt that I might not always be willing to give him or other candidates. I like Obama, and I think he might just do a good job, but I would have been willing to give Clinton my vote if things had swung that way as well (sorry dajafi.) I hate to be a single issue voter, but in this election, as the possessor of a uterus, and as the mother of a child who has a uterus, my most pressing interest is the Supreme Court. The Bush adminstration has proved that the nation can survive almost anything for eight years, but two (or even one) more conservative Supreme Court justices will adversely affect our lives for an entire generation.

You've got a uterus... ugh. Ok, yeah, that's right. Despite all the other crap going down in America, the most important thing in the world is abortion. Jesus. I hate that crap when my Catholic mom tells me she can't vote Dem because of the abortion thing and I similarly hate it when someone can't vote Rep because of it. There's too much other stuff going to the crapper to worry about something so insignificant as abortion, or, perhaps to say it in a better way, to elevate it to primacy above all other things.

jerseyhoya wrote:Looks like she'll win by 140-150,000ish.

At some point, the fact that Obama has been taking a dump in these primaries for the past three months might become a concern to you all. Since Hillary is dead and all.

Debbie F. wrote:You may disagree with me, but don't you dare judge me! It may be insignificant to you, but until the advent of the birth control pill and the Roe v. Wade decision, biology was indeed destiny for 50% of the population...just not the 50% you happen to belong to, therefore it is "insignificant." I have no idea how old you are, and perhaps you cannot remember a time when women could not make such essential decisions for themselves. Or perhaps you just don't care. But I am just old enough to remember that time, and there is no way in hell that I want my daughter to live through them. I said in my response that I am not happy, or even proud, of basing so much of my decision this time on the issue of the Supreme Court, but I certainly don't apologize for it, not this time.

Perhaps it may also occur to you that the appointment of more conservative justices will also affect other vital issues, such as civil liberties, that will also impact a generation of Americans. Is that a "significant" enough issue for you?

jeff2sf wrote:

Debbie F. wrote:You may disagree with me, but don't you dare judge me! It may be insignificant to you, but until the advent of the birth control pill and the Roe v. Wade decision, biology was indeed destiny for 50% of the population...just not the 50% you happen to belong to, therefore it is "insignificant." I have no idea how old you are, and perhaps you cannot remember a time when women could not make such essential decisions for themselves. Or perhaps you just don't care. But I am just old enough to remember that time, and there is no way in hell that I want my daughter to live through them. I said in my response that I am not happy, or even proud, of basing so much of my decision this time on the issue of the Supreme Court, but I certainly don't apologize for it, not this time.

Perhaps it may also occur to you that the appointment of more conservative justices will also affect other vital issues, such as civil liberties, that will also impact a generation of Americans. Is that a "significant" enough issue for you?

Too late, it's a dumbass position. There are WAYYY more important issues than whether or not possibly maybe a liberal judge will die and possibly be replaced by a conservative and possibly have abortion temporarily made illegal (the states could do their own thing). The thing is, you already said you're not proud of it and it's dumb.

pacino wrote:specter is pro-choice

jerseyhoya wrote:Tom Ridge is pro-choice

And generally telling people things they care about are dumb is, well, dumb.

uncle milt wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:

Debbie F. wrote:You may disagree with me, but don't you dare judge me! It may be insignificant to you, but until the advent of the birth control pill and the Roe v. Wade decision, biology was indeed destiny for 50% of the population...just not the 50% you happen to belong to, therefore it is "insignificant." I have no idea how old you are, and perhaps you cannot remember a time when women could not make such essential decisions for themselves. Or perhaps you just don't care. But I am just old enough to remember that time, and there is no way in hell that I want my daughter to live through them. I said in my response that I am not happy, or even proud, of basing so much of my decision this time on the issue of the Supreme Court, but I certainly don't apologize for it, not this time.

Perhaps it may also occur to you that the appointment of more conservative justices will also affect other vital issues, such as civil liberties, that will also impact a generation of Americans. Is that a "significant" enough issue for you?

Too late, it's a dumbass position. There are WAYYY more important issues than whether or not possibly maybe a liberal judge will die and possibly be replaced by a conservative and possibly have abortion temporarily made illegal (the states could do their own thing). The thing is, you already said you're not proud of it and it's dumb.

i agree with debbie.

jeff2sf wrote:That hurts, but then again most of this board obviously would..

The thing is, I'm pro life. I have voted for two pro-life candidates in my life (Bobby Casey and Tom Ridge). There are too many way more important things for me to vote on than this. The more people that realized that, the better America would be.

jeff2sf wrote:You've got a uterus... ugh. Ok, yeah, that's right. Despite all the other crap going down in America, the most important thing in the world is abortion. Jesus. I hate that crap when my Catholic mom tells me she can't vote Dem because of the abortion thing and I similarly hate it when someone can't vote Rep because of it. There's too much other stuff going to the crapper to worry about something so insignificant as abortion, or, perhaps to say it in a better way, to elevate it to primacy above all other things.