Roger Dorn wrote:

Bucky wrote:10 blocks? Wow, it's grown 10-fold with the passing years!

Good catch, 10 blocks would have been something

Man, looking at the Google map image of 6221 Osage and the rest of the block is depressing. The deaths that occurred obviously don't make them comparable but in some ways it's almost worse than the fact of the bombing, where one can at least imagine some of what occurred wasn't due to deliberate actions.

Anybody see Mitt?

Mitt is everywhere. The dude is running again.

The Ukrainian Prime Minister is stepping down. Apparently, he was one of the biggest supporters of the President's fascist agenda.

'We ought to attach something' to extended the debt limit

well, that's certainly a good spot to start negotiating from. how about we give you a functioning democracy that's able to pay its debts, you increase the debt limit, and we call it even??

Mitt is everywhere.
The Ukrainian Prime Minister is stepping down.

Do the math.

philliesphhan wrote:Anybody see Mitt?

Put it on my watch list, but haven't had a chance to watch yet.

The latest strategy in the anti-abortion movement is to impose things like a 20 week or fetal heartbeat limit. I wonder, if the goal is to reduce abortions, such legislation isn't counter productive. That is, such a time limit creates a kind of crisis--a decision needs to be made quickly. I wonder if a woman is considering an abortion, that kind of decision making environment won't tip the scales to having the procedure, while allowing the woman a couple of weeks might result in not terminating the pregnancy.

Of course, thinking this through would mean that the anti-abortion movement really is about reducing abortion when I believe that its actions are more consistent with the goal of punishing women simply for being women.

i think your last sentence is the reason for many who are anti-abortion, who are also anti-contraceptive.

pacino wrote:i think your last sentence is the reason for many who are anti-abortion, who are also anti-contraceptive.

That's my point--much of what's going on in legislation these day has nothing to do with "life".

The anti contraceptive stuff is beyond bizarre to me. Equating contraceptive use with slut is clearly intended to punish women. It will discourage young women from seeking out information and professional advice. Stigmatizing contraceptives and its female users is going to cause more abortions.

I watched Mitt. I thought it was alright. Pretty much what I thought it would be going in: Really nice guy, very smart, levelheaded, loves his family, gets that his parents gave him a lot. I thought there was way too much about 08 and not enough about 12. There were less real humanizing moments than I was maybe expecting, but that may have been more just that he takes everything in stride. It sure seemed like the guy making it had pretty limited access though.

I think abortions are pretty horrible and I can't imagine my fiancée or I being able to make that decision.

That being said I would never legislate on morality and prohibit a woman from making a decision about her body that only she should make...pretty much how I feel about the way government should handle these issues...stay out of the personal realm.

Being opposed to the government mandating that the Little Sisters of the Poor buy insurance that covers contraceptives is a pretty long way from being anti-contraceptives.

that's your (conservative) opinion

edit: or rather,

jerseyhoya wrote:Being opposed to the government mandating that the Little Sisters of the Poor buy insurance that covers contraceptives is a pretty long way from being anti-contraceptives.

In theory, I guess. But in practice, I doubt you'd find many who would stand on the principle you're asserting but don't also want to restrict access to contraceptives more broadly, and stigmatize (even in some cases criminalize) individuals' sexual choices.
Unfortunately, the Cuccinellis outnumber the Werthlesses.

that akward moment where "separation of church and state" and "freedom of religion" meet at a party

jerseyhoya wrote:Being opposed to the government mandating that the Little Sisters of the Poor buy insurance that covers contraceptives is a pretty long way from being anti-contraceptives.

you may be surprised, comrade, to learn that in most places licensed physicians may prescribe practically any legal compound for just about any condition

they get 'advised' a lot about dosages, etc, but they have much more latitude than people imagine

so what the nuns are doing with their sex-hating birth control demonization is practicing medicine without a license AND thwarting the operation of the free god-damn market for the constitutionally protected freedom to have insurance pay some part of the bill for just about anything

them & their commie pope, that is

my Gogle informs me of this:

Live! Watch President Obama's State of The Union address Tonight on Youtube at 9pm ET

gonna try it out

wonder if the youtubecast will try to handle all of the 1,280,227 republican responses simultaneously

Roger Dorn wrote:I think abortions are pretty horrible and I can't imagine my fiancée or I being able to make that decision.

That being said I would never legislate on morality and prohibit a woman from making a decision about her body that only she should make...pretty much how I feel about the way government should handle these issues...stay out of the personal realm.

Pretty much sums up my position on abortion perfectly. IOW, despite the party line, "pro-choice" does not [and should not] equal "pro-abortion".