Say Anything Blog

It is about time the organization that gave us “McAbortion” should be closing its doors. Not that I am in a rage about abortions, just think running a secondary contraception center, on government funds invites abuse. “Insufficient government funding to reimburse...,” sounds like if they perceive themselves as so beneficial to service the public, they should go figure out some way to keep themselves open. I want my tax money to go to killing Arab terrorist. Hey, you lefties, it is sorta a joke...don’t get upset.

138 abortion to adoption ratio.  Because its easier to just snuff the child out of existence than it is to let it live its life.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Great analogy likwidshoe!

Dave, I think I’m missing somehow the link between farm animals and BABIES!  Please, my friend, get a grip on reality…

Yes, and pro-abortion-rights advocates are missing the link between Iraqi citizens and fetuses. And they undoubtedly believe it is YOU who needs to get a grip on reality.

Planned Parenthood’s War on the Unborn: 670 deaths per day

U.S. Soldiers War on Terrorist Scumbags: 2.1 deaths per day

That’s a pretty fair analogy.

Try mine:

USA’s War on Innocent Animals: 24,657,534.2 deaths per day.  (http://www.vegez.com/news/newslist.asp?ID=5)

U.S. Soldiers’ War on Terrorist “Scumbags”: 2.1 deaths per day.

Wow! By manipulating the definitions of the words “death” and “people”, we can paint the Iraq War with prettier colors!

Differenc being, Dave, that I can very easily associate Americans dying in Iraq and American babies dying here at home.  Just because some refuse to see that “fetus” are human babies does not mean the link does not exsist.

I still fail to see any link between farm animals and human babies, btw…

Dave said, Wow! By manipulating the definitions of the words “death” and “people”, we can paint the Iraq War with prettier colors!

Um...yeah dude.  Because nothing says “fair analogy” like comparing human deaths to animal deaths.

Yes, and pro-abortion-rights advocates are missing the link between Iraqi citizens and fetuses. And they undoubtedly believe it is YOU who needs to get a grip on reality.

You’ve entered the twilight zone Dave.

That is a stellar analogy, my friend.  I’m really impressed because I’m so tired of the same argument from the left everyday on the editorial page of my local newspaper.  “Bush is against stem cell research because it will potentially eliminate innocent human life but he doesn’t care about all the innocent lives being lost in Iraq.”

I’d say likwidshoe’s little ditty pretty much quiets that “brilliant” argument.  Doncha think?

By the way, for the record, I’d just like to say that I love meat, and I would eat steak 3 meals a day for the rest of my life if I could afford it.  Okay sometimes I’d switch it up with bacon or chicken, but you get the idea.

This analogy is ridiculous, as nobody’s making an argument in favor of war along with an argument against banning a woman’s control over her maternal self. Or any comparison of the sort for that matter. Also, with roughly a million abortions per year in the US, planned parenthood is hardly the source of any problem. Eliminating planned parenthood would wipe out a great resource for poor people to get affordable quality health care for a number of problems, not just abortion.

No one said anything about eliminating PP, though it wouldn’t be a bad idea… PP’s mainstay is abortion, that’s where most of their money comes from.

’the organization aborted 138 babies for every adoption referral to an outside agency’

Remember that the next time anyone says that no one is really ‘pro abortion’

I don’t want to eliminate Planned Parenthood, just abortion. If Planned Parenthood could exist with the abortion part of their business I’d be ok with it.  I just don’t think they could, since they’re pretty much all about abortions.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

since they’re pretty much all about abortions.

200k abortions, how many clients? more than thirty times that...NOT all about abortions.

More than a third of their revenue is from abortion.  Follow the money, simple/carl/whatever…

Good Post Likwid!

Look, the point of compromise is going to come out at the embryonic/fetal shift.  The right is not going to abandon their position of pro-life, the left is not going to abandon their position of pro-choice.  Eventually, after the right pulls one way and the left pulls the other, it’s going to end up being legal until 8-11 weeks, except for when the health of the mother is concerned, incest, extraordinary circumstances.  The basic fact of human biological development is that there are several stages, from fertilized egg right on through to death.  At those earliest stages, we are merely the raw material for human beings.  And as I’ve argued in another post, I believe there are serious reasons for having an abortion that are not related to those extraordinary circumstances.  But that’s not a decision that you can sleep on for 8 months.

As proponents of both sides will always hold their most extreme positions, I think the most reasonable compromise is to keep abortions legal through that embryonic phase, but only legal for health, etc., after that.  It seems to me the best compromise, something with which no one will be happy.

As proponents of both sides will always hold their most extreme positions...

You know what is amazing to me?  That advocating for life is considered “extreme” by people like you. 

Your other points were very well made.

You know what is amazing to me? That advocating for life is considered “extreme” by people like you.

“Extreme” in the sense that the ends of the spectrum are “abortions should be illegal” and “abortions should be legal.” Those are the two poles, and my point is that proponents of both sides are unlikely to abandon their core position.  Perhaps there’s a better word for it than extreme.  At some point a compromise is inevitable, and it seems to me that the embryonic/fetal shift is the most reasonable place.  Now, this is not going to make proponents of the extremes (abortion should be illegal no matter what, abortion should be legal no matter what) unsatisfied, as it continues to be legal, which will make hard-core pro-lifers unhappy, but the embryonic/fetal point is fairly early in the prenancy, which will make the hard-core pro-choicers unhappy.

I’m pro-abortion-rights, but I would really like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. As a politician (or as a voter), I would vote to keep abortions legal, using my morals as a guide. But as judge, with the Constitution as my guide, I can’t find anything in there saying abortion is a Constitutional right.

So even though overturning Roe might lead to a decrease in abortion-rights (in some areas), I still think it would be the most fair solution to the problem.

My knowledge of what would happen after Roe is overturned is weak in one area: Would state legislators get to decide, or would all the state’s citizens get to vote on it?

That would be determined differently in each state. It first goes to the legislature and would remain there unless or until a group of people can get the required signatures to make it a ballot issue.

Thanks.

It seems to me that it would be a ballot issue in every state; there is surely enough interest in it.

I’m actually glad that’s the case; as an abortion-rights supporter, I think there is a much better chance of the public (voters) upholding abortion rights than the legislature. But maybe that’s just me.

My knowledge of what would happen after Roe is overturned is weak in one area: Would state legislators get to decide, or would all the state’s citizens get to vote on it?

That would be determined differently in each state.  It first goes to the legislature and would remain there unless or until a group of people can get the required signatures to make it a ballot issue.

I’m actually glad that’s the case; as an abortion-rights supporter, I think there is a much better chance of the public (voters) upholding abortion rights than the legislature. But maybe that’s just me

Depends on the state, but I’ve always thought it the other way around Probably has to do with out views of the issue…

If Roe was overturned, abortion would be legal just like it is now in every state until a law was passed to say otherwise because all laws were struck down in ‘73 so they’d have to be repassed, I believe.  So, your “side” would have the advantage in that legal abortion would be the status quo automatically.  Overturning Roe would also divide the GOP into the more “extreme”, as MI says, pro-lifers and the greater bulk of Americans that want abortion legal just as long as it doesn’t LOOK like a baby (in the 10-12 week range)

South Dakota, actually, already has a law in place banning abortion should the Supreme Court ever reverse Roe v. Wade.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Ah yes, now that you mention it, I believe there are a few states that have such laws… but most do not

I think that Dave`s point was that we are not taking very good care of the people who are already here, whether we are talking about Iraqi civilians, American soldiers, or other people who suffer and die because of our knee-jerk irrationalism. Many people feel that is more important than the destiny of an unborn human being. Simply put, perhaps the born should be cherished above the unborn.
I am glad that the tone of these messages has improved too.I strongly dislike the quite unmerited hostility on both sides of the argument. No-one has lost their grip on reality!
And please don`t talk about terrorist “scumbags”: there were no links between Iraq and 9/11, even if a majority of Americans still believe otherwise. The American media is capable of some pretty large deceptions in service of the status quo, whether that be right or centre politically. (There is no left wing in the States.)
We need to stop throwing insults at those who don`t agree with us - I am worried that anti-terrorist fears have been used to justify all sorts of unethical and greedy activity on the part of this administration and the concerns of a handful of powerful people. Anyone who objects to the “war on terror” (although we´ve created far more terror in Iraq, Vietnam, and Central America than any terrorist organization) is labelled a terrorist sympathiser or a desecrator of 9/11´s victims. (This is not new, however. The anti-war lobby in The First World War was castigated as an insult to the fallen, and the stupidest war imaginable continued until millions had been killed - but with hindsight they were not disrespectful or unpatriotic, they were right.)
Sorry for switching topics like that, and remember that, if you must be patriotic at all, it´s not unpatriotic to question your leaders - they may not have your interests in mind, or at heart.

And please don`t talk about terrorist “scumbags”: there were no links between Iraq and 9/11...

Yes there. And even if there wasn’t, does it matter? Iraq is a terrorist hotbed and has been for decades.

The American media is capable of some pretty large deceptions in service of the status quo, whether that be right or centre politically. (There is no left wing in the States.)

There is a very large left wing segment in America. The problem on your end is that you’re so far removed from the center that just about everything looks “right wing” to you. If you can look at our socialist Democrats and think that they are somehow on the right in any way, fashion, or form, then you, sir, are a communist.

Anyone who objects to the “war on terror” (although we´ve created far more terror in Iraq, Vietnam, and Central America than any terrorist organization)...

This is said a lot by the left both here and worldwide. Care to elucidate a response?

The anti-war lobby in The First World War was castigated as an insult to the fallen, and the stupidest war imaginable continued until millions had been killed - but with hindsight they were not disrespectful or unpatriotic, they were right.

They were right? How could they have stopped the war without war?

Sorry for switching topics like that, and remember that, if you must be patriotic at all, it´s not unpatriotic to question your leaders - they may not have your interests in mind, or at heart.

Yeah,...your comment really had nothing to do with the parent post.

Yes, we´ve created terror. We´ve invaded two countries and killed thousands of civilians! And who funded the Taliban, for example?

The First World War could have been ended. No-one wanted it, but countries were bound together through unwieldy alliances of “honour” and prestige. Not good enough reasons.Surely you don´t believe that that war had to be fought, or could not have been stopped through negotiation?

And yes, I´m afraid that to European eyes, (and I am no leftie myself) there is barely any left-wing representation in American politics. Perhaps it looks that way because the USA is further right in its entire political schema than most European countries, so that what looks left to you looks central to us.

And please, don´t be rude about me going off-topic, does it matter? And anyway you don´t have to reply…

Yes, we´ve created terror. We´ve invaded two countries and killed thousands of civilians!

Newsflash: innocent people die in wars.

I’m sorry to break that to you.

And who funded the Taliban, for example?

Doesn’t matter at this point. Past mistakes do not mean that we can sit on our hands doing nothing about a problem.

The First World War could have been ended. No-one wanted it, but countries were bound together through unwieldy alliances of “honour” and prestige. Not good enough reasons.Surely you don´t believe that that war had to be fought, or could not have been stopped through negotiation?

Negotiation between a bunch of European countries that had built up a bunch of secretive alliances, each with their own (naturally) special interests and causes? Surely you jest. It’s not in the human nature to negotiate for very long with nations that do not trust nor like each other. War is inevitable.

Perhaps it looks that way because the USA is further right in its entire political schema than most European countries, so that what looks left to you looks central to us.

Well yeah. You guys are full on socialist. It’s why your economies are in the dumper, often with steady double digit unemployment (we moan and bitch at 5%). It’s why you guys pay more than double (usually more than three or four times) the amount for gas. Of course we would all look “right” to you. We are still nominally free.

And please, don´t be rude about me going off-topic, does it matter?

Is it “rude” to point out that you went off topic?

Well, yes, I felt it is a little rude, since I had already acknowledged the fact myself and apologised for it! But not to worry,I know this can be a heated site!

I´m interested to hear that you think you are more free than us in Western Europe. I would argue that your mainstream media is rather more controlled than ours, for example. Also, I don´t think are economies are in the dumper. I simply don´t accept that. And fine, we pay a bit more for petrol, but we´re supposed to be getting out of our cars, and the tram and train system in Scandinavia and Germany is cheap, civic and efficient. I don´t see that as being less free. We are certainly not socialists here in Western Europe, but in many countries we do lean towards free healthcare and schooling whenever possible. Is is less free to have good free education and good public services?
I am not claiming that we are the freest, I´m merely trying to point out that your assumption that you are the most free may not be true from all or even most points of view.
And to answer your first point about innocent people dying in wars, I accept that (ish). I´m just pointing out that we are creating just as much terror and carnage to innocent people as, if not more than, we have suffered at the hands of the other side. It´s not necessarily that I´m against the Iraq war, although I feel it has made the world a less safe place, and that we were lied to outrageously, but it´s the assumption of moral rectitude that offends me. Now, don´t get me wrong: I deplore the actions of Islamic fundamentalists, there´s no question over that. However, the debate over the war on terror has been characterised by knee-jerk emotionalism, irrationalism and jingoistic bias, and in our re-embracing of torture we have shown ourselves capable of barbarism. For this reason, I think we have helped turn many people into terrorists.
Talking about past mistakes does not help, but I feel a little circumspection is in order, a little balance and humility. We must guard against flag-waving and back-patting and we must always retain a scepticism about our leaders. But all of that has been forgotten and sadly the mantra of “my country, right or wrong!” often prevails. 
Thanks for replying, despite being still off topic!!

I would argue that your mainstream media is rather more controlled than ours, for example.

How?

Also, I don´t think are economies are in the dumper. I simply don´t accept that.

If our economies were what yours are, we would say that it is in the dumper. Maybe you just have different standards. Things like consistent double digit unemployment are acceptable.

And fine, we pay a bit more for petrol, but we´re supposed to be getting out of our cars...

Says who?

We are certainly not socialists here in Western Europe...

Yes you are. Your Prime Minister Tony Blair is one. Jacques Chirac is another one. Gerhard Schröder is another one. You guys are spilling over with socialism.

...but in many countries we do lean towards free healthcare and schooling whenever possible.

Nothing is free in life. You pay for it.

Is is less free to have good free education and good public services?

If you think that your services are good (even though you are required to pay for them whether you want them or not, which by definition is less free), then “no”.

I am not claiming that we are the freest, I´m merely trying to point out that your assumption that you are the most free may not be true from all or even most points of view.

Never would claim all. But definitely most and as a whole.

I´m just pointing out that we are creating just as much terror and carnage to innocent people as, if not more than, we have suffered at the hands of the other side.

Which is a sad consequence of war. The difference between us and the people we are fighting is that we are not creating terror of innocent civilians simply for the sake of creating terror.

It´s not necessarily that I´m against the Iraq war, although I feel it has made the world a less safe place, and that we were lied to outrageously...

What lie?

...but it´s the assumption of moral rectitude that offends me.

Explain please.

However, the debate over the war on terror has been characterised by knee-jerk emotionalism, irrationalism and jingoistic bias, and in our re-embracing of torture we have shown ourselves capable of barbarism.

What “torture”?

Talking about past mistakes does not help, but I feel a little circumspection is in order, a little balance and humility.

If it doesn’t help, then why do you do it? Listen, you can navel gaze all you want. I will continue to advocate crushing the terrorists and the terrorist supporting regimes.

Yes you are. Your Prime Minister Tony Blair is one. Jacques Chirac is another one. Gerhard Schröder is another one. You guys are spilling over with socialism.

And Kerry’s a communist and Bush is a fascist. Woo.

Orwell wrote:

The word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.” The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another.

And Kerry’s a communist and Bush is a fascist. Woo.

Dave, do you have a real point? Do you disagree that Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, and Gerhard Schröder are socialists? They don’t.

I´m sorry this is such a piecemeal response.
Anyway… There is no way in the world that Blair is a socialist. He advocates a meritocratic, millionaire-creating society with a two-tiered health system. The gap between rich and poor has grown under Labour, a party that was socialist once, but which has slid rightwards to a central position.
Unemployment is not desirable, but it exists everywhere, which is why it helps to have a compassionate welfare state, and why countries like Germany do not have such a damaging gap between rich and poor. Welfare is a form of re-investment in the economy anyway - the money tends to be used for food etc.
We were lied to about the Iraq war. We were told that there were weapons which could be deployed in 45 minutes which could destroy Britain. It was all in a dossier which was infamously “sexed-up” to justify the war.
You said that getting public services “whether you want them or not” is less free. But the point is, most people just want good healthcare and they ought to get a good education, regardless of their parents´income. As with abortion, the financial frailties of your parents should not condemn you. The abstract concept of freedom does not justify deprivation. A child has little freedom to earn enough to send himself to the best schools. German friends tell me they were asked several times in the States whether Hitler was still in charge, I certainly begin to wonder how good state education is in the US!
What torture? Abu Ghraib, for example. Plus Guantanamo Bay. I call it torture to use sensory deprivation for long periods too. plus it was a serious discussion in the US about whether it was acceptable to use torture officially, not just “torture light”.
I take back what i said about past mistakes - it does help when it allows us to see present events with more clarity.
The knee-jerk emotionalism I am referring to can best be illustrated by something I heard on a joint US-UK radio broadcast a few weeks after 9/11. A British caller voiced his concern that the situation could escalate to the US-UK panel. The response from an American politician was: “ I find the idea that the situation could possibly escalate after this stunning”.
“We need to get out of our cars” because we´re running out of fossil fuels and because of climate change. The US administration is rightly criticised for not taking this latter issue more seriously. This is not a left/right issue. This is what nearly all our scientists are telling us, and we should have the “freedom” not to be living underwater!!
Thanks.

Anyway… There is no way in the world that Blair is a socialist.

Well I don’t know what to tell you if you can’t or won’t recognize the socialists out there. It is true that he is not a 100% socialist as there are some things he has to recognize, namely that the benefits of a free market can’t be denied, but all in all the guy is a socialist. It is no wonder that you said, “There is no left wing in the States.” You can’t even recognize the left wing.

Unemployment is not desirable, but it exists everywhere, which is why it helps to have a compassionate welfare state, and why countries like Germany do not have such a damaging gap between rich and poor.

“A damaging gap between the rich and poor”? What does that even mean? And why does it matter? “The poor” is a baseline; it never moves up. “The rich”, however, can move up or down. So you have a baseline that never moves up and the upper tier that can move up or down. That tells me one thing: if you don’t have “a growing gap between the rich and the poor”, you don’t have a growing and healthy economy.

Maybe Germany’s “compassionate” (how can you be “compassionate” with other people’s money?) welfare state is a big part of the reason why Germany has had double digit unemployment for over a decade.

Welfare is a form of re-investment in the economy anyway - the money tends to be used for food etc.

That is one way of looking at it. Another way is that welfare is largely an economic black hole that creates a dependency class that creates no “re-investment” in the economy. They don’t even create an investment.

We were lied to about the Iraq war.

Prove it. And until you do that, I’d appreciate it if you stopped saying this.

We were told that there were weapons which could be deployed in 45 minutes which could destroy Britain.

Yeah. Most of the world believed it. And it still might have been largely true. We don’t know what was moved out of the country in the 14 month “rush to war”. We never did find out what was in those lines of semi-trucks moving into Syria. So I guess the entire world’s intelligence agencies were “lying” now?

It was all in a dossier which was infamously “sexed-up” to justify the war.

Please tell me that you’re not talking about this. That would be sad.

You said that getting public services “whether you want them or not” is less free. But the point is, most people just want good healthcare and they ought to get a good education, regardless of their parents´income.

The thing is: I don’t want a more expensive system and I don’t want my health care doled controlled by the government. Think about it: you’re going on about how you don’t trust the government and yet you want them to control your health care? That doesn’t seem too smart. Plus I don’t want to pay for you. No offense.

As with abortion, the financial frailties of your parents should not condemn you.

“As with abortion”? What do you mean here?

German friends tell me they were asked several times in the States whether Hitler was still in charge, I certainly begin to wonder how good state education is in the US!

And I’m certainly beginning to wonder how well you can recognize sarcasm and derision.

What torture? Abu Ghraib, for example. Plus Guantanamo Bay.

Abu Ghraib “torture” was punished. We don’t condone underwear on heads and naked pyramids. Lyndie England was sentenced to three years in prison. Guatanamo Bay “torture” requires a new definition of “torture”.

I call it torture to use sensory deprivation for long periods too.

I could care less. These are terrorists captured on the battlefields. Keep them awake. They would cut our heads off. No sympathy from me.

“We need to get out of our cars” because we´re running out of fossil fuels and because of climate change.

“We’re running out of fossil fuels”?

The US administration is rightly criticised for not taking this latter issue more seriously. This is not a left/right issue. This is what nearly all our scientists are telling us, and we should have the “freedom” not to be living underwater!!

Wow. Think you could step up the fear mongering and empty rhetoric? Calm down dude.

I just got some bad news: my girlfriend is slightly pregnant.

Doesn’t work that way Dave. Your analogy fails. There is almost never a 100% socialist, communist, etc. What is next? Are you going to point to a free market project of Stalin’s and then claim that he was not a communist?

It is true that he is not a 100% socialist as there are some things he has to recognize, namely that the benefits of a free market can’t be denied, but all in all the guy is a socialist.

I just got some bad news: my girlfriend is slightly pregnant.

I just got some bad news: my girlfriend is slightly pregnant.

Well, it’s a darn good thing you don’t have a problem with ending the life you’ve created! 

In fact… you should look at this as GOOD news because:

1) you now have the opportunity to exercises your “Right” to kill a defenseless human life;

2) you know that if you ever want to have children, you’re capable.

3) You now have the ability to say, “See!  It’s not that hard of a decision!”

Welfare is not an investment

J. K. Rowling

Unemployed and living on state benefits, she completed her first novel,

Welfare is not an investment in any meaning of the word.  It is redistribution from the achievers to the non-achievers.

I’m sure JK would like to know you think the welfare system is responsible for her writing, Woof.  How about all the other welfare receipients who produce nothing?  If welfare is an investment, it’s a very bad one.  No investor could stay in business with such poor returns.

Right.  Because God knows she couldn’t have written the book while gainfully employed.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

No investor could stay in business with such poor returns.

I don’t know… have you seen the sales for those Harry Pottery books?

Doesn’t work that way Dave. Your analogy fails. There is almost never a 100% socialist, communist, etc.

I’ll just defer to you on this who issue, likwid. I don’t know enough about Blair, Schroeder, et. al’s economic views to continue.

Ah, I thought I’d put a “” icon after my comment. My tongue was firmly in cheek, Robert.

Welfare generally selects for lack of ambition. Of course, there are welfare recipients that really need it, but the large percentage just doesn’t want to work, and is content with what others will provide for them.

I agree with almost everything you say.

My parents are landlords; they rent out a lot of very crummy houses (rent is like $250 a month). So, I’ve seen my share of poor people. The ones on welfare sat around all day and got drunk. The ones OFF welfare were usually working all day and taking night classes at the local university.

My point was that even if you attribute JK Rowling’s success to welfare(a tenuous argument at best), she is only one of millions on welfare.  That is a very poor success rate.  The welfare system itself got no return from her, other than the taxes any productive person is forced to pay.  Once again, no credit to the welfare system.  The truth is probably more like she was successful in spite of being on welfare.  Most welfare recipients don’t do anything productive, since they are already provided for.  If they had any ambition, they would already have gotten jobs.  Welfare generally selects for lack of ambition.  Of course, there are welfare recipients that really need it, but the large percentage just doesn’t want to work, and is content with what others will provide for them.

I don´t know if the links will work, because I don´t know how to do it, but there you go.
I think it´s important to create moral distance between ourselves and the terrorists, and I feel that torture and clumsy exit-plans which cost thousands of human lives blur the boundaries, as does the highly questionable legality of the war. Britain´s leaders have told us that in all likelihood there were never any WMDs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1132811,00.html
I think it is more desirable to have a well-educated populace whose schooling isn´t based on the wealth of the person´s parents. That way we won´t get so many people who think Hitler´s still in power or that Scotland is part of England. And these people were not joking, I assure you.
My proof about us being lied to about the Iraq war? I know common knowledge throughóut Europe isn´t necessarily enough, but here´s The Times, a conservative newspaper:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1367722_1,00.html

A Scottish centrist newspaper:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=972992003

And the Guardian, a left-leaning newspaper
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1089931,00.html

This last article in particular sheds some light on the way intelligence was manipulated and shoe-horned to fit a policy which had already been decided.
The welfare system exists to help people who have no money to buy food. Jobs are not always available, and what happens then? Someone wrote that welfare is redistribution from achievers to non-achievers. But if an entire region closes down its mines, leaving %80 unemployment, are they non-achievers?
I think that J K Rowling used her time on income support/unemployment benefit to tremendous use, and in the process she brought an entire generation back to reading. I know people whou use the time to do voluntary work.
And it´s not just unemployment benefit - it´s also income support: according to Indiana congresswoman, %40 of America´s homeless are employed. In Europe, a decent minimum wage and strong EU regulations over health and safety and dismissal procedures help cause incentive to work. I feel this is a better incentive than the negative incentive of cutting the blood supply to the nation´s poorest and most vulnerable.
Oh yeah, my point about abortion was that, just as a child should not be aborted just because of things which happened before or surrounding its conception, so perhaps a child should not be penalised with a poor state health and education system just because its parent/s aren´t big earners. This is why wealth is not always conferred on merit - there are many in this world who from birth will never be poor, and those who are astronomically unlikely ever to be rich. Often the circumstances that govern these things are a lottery. That is why we must try always to look after people and create a beautiful society for everyone, balanced of course with reasonable personal financial freedom. I think of countries like Norway as an example: perhaps people won´t agree? And what´s Canada´s position on these matters? Just wondering, because they did a quality of life analysis, including factors like safety, health and so on. I mean, it´s a tough thing to measure! Vancouver was first! There wasn´t an American city in the top ten. But then, can I really favour the country that produced Shania Twain and Celine Dion over the nation that gave the world The Smashing Pumpkins and F. Scott Fitzgerald? Nah.
Thanks.

Hey likwidshoe, you´re getting politer (apart from the thing about me being “sad")! Oh well.

Calm down:  This is refreshing!  A real socialist to debate!  You trot out all the socialist nostrums, and there is some truth to all of them, as far as they go.  No time for a point-by-point right now, but here’s something in general for you.
Socialists are focused on what is to me a strange idea of equality.  It is one of reduction rather than promotion.  Because some are less ambitious than others, we should shoot for the lowest common denominator.  We should pitch our societal goals so that the dim bulbs are never outshone by anyone, because that might hurt their feelings.  My question to you right now is this:  Who pays for all this?  Isn’t it the productive and ambitious?  I know you think those people are obligated to take care of the unproductive, because you think it’s some sort of lottery, but consider that most people in the US with wealth earned it.  The inheritors, like the Kennedys, for instance, talk a good game, but don’t do much.  I will believe in liberalism, US style, when the Kennedys open up their trust funds to fight poverty, and their properties to the homeless.  Until then, they should STFU.  More later.

Oh, yes.  I would much rather have physical distance between me and the terrorists, then someone’s idea of “moral” distance.  The UN is not my standard of morality.
I can’t help but point out that if Great Britain, a world leader at the time, had gotten Hitler in the ‘30s, the world wouldn’t have suffered WWII.  Instead, we got Neville Chamberlain.  Don’t you appeasers ever learn?
I wasn’t lied to.  I always knew we went to Iraq to get Saddam.

I think it´s important to create moral distance between ourselves and the terrorists, and I feel that torture and clumsy exit-plans which cost thousands of human lives blur the boundaries, as does the highly questionable legality of the war.

You don’t think there is a giant moral different between us and the people we are fighting? No talking to you if you don’t. As to your repeated “torture” claims: care to just explain yourself? Bonus points for not redefining “torture” while you do. As for the legality: it’s legal.

Britain´s leaders have told us that in all likelihood there were never any WMDs.

Well it looks like Saddam bluffed the wrong people then. That’s hardly my problem. Saddam should have let the UN Weapon’s Inspectors into his country and he shouldn’t have played games and blocked their access. That was just one of many terms of his unconditional surrender that he pissed on time and time again. And again: what was moved out of the country in the 14 month “rush to war”?

I think it is more desirable to have a well-educated populace whose schooling isn´t based on the wealth of the person´s parents. That way we won´t get so many people who think Hitler´s still in power or that Scotland is part of England. And these people were not joking, I assure you.

Agreed. Here in the U.S. we need to break the Teacher’s Union and get back to the basics. As for your continued assertion that these people didn’t know that Hitler wasn’t in power, how do you know? You didn’t meet them. Maybe your friends can’t recognize sarcasm and derision either.

My proof about us being lied to about the Iraq war? I know common knowledge throughóut Europe isn´t necessarily enough...

Yeah, prove it. You’re still coming nowhere close to doing that. It seems that, to you, what may be a mistake (and we’ll never know because we gave Saddam years to prepare and/or move out weapons), is a “lie”. As far as saying, “common knowledge throughóut Europe”, do you really want to go there? It is “common knowledge throughóut Europe” that America is “imperialistic”, but that’s hardly true.

Hey likwidshoe, you´re getting politer (apart from the thing about me being “sad”)! Oh well.

I didn’t say that you were “sad”. I said that bringing up a possible point would have been “sad”. What again was it that you were saying about a “well-educated populace”?

Calm down dude.

Careful! I´m using the word “being” in the sense of “behaving”. It´s quite normal and acceptable usage where I´m from, I´m not sure about the USA.

And you were so polite, until the end! you´re such a tease…

Thanks. More later.

Wow, I´ve never been called a socialist before. Neither has Blair: everything is privatised now in the UK, much of it under his stewardship, he has introduced competition in hospitals, he funds projects with public and private money combined, even the way incapacity benefits is conducted has been opened up to competition! Centrist, the Unions hate him and don´t control the Labour Party anymore. He opposed the Firefighters´ strike and basically every strike that comes along!
And I´m not an appeaser - I just don´t think this war was worth it, and I fear it may cause more problems later, that´s all.
My point about moral distance is that we need that gap in order to prevent more people turning against us. What hope do we have of persuading the world of our good intentions if we behave like barbarians?
Thanks.