Say Anything Blog

Keep your hand on your money in your pocket at all times.

Rudy says he cut taxes in New York.  I like that about him.

He says he thinks the states should decide whether abortion is legal or not.  That’s ok.

He’s anti-gun and that really concerns me.  That’d be the #1 reason why I wouldn’t vote for him.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Why was Kucinich in North Dakota again?

Was he looking for UFOs or something?

Here’s Rudy’s position on gun control, by the way.

I wouldn’t characterize it as “anti-gun” per se.

Actually, Fargo was the site of a rather famous UFO sighting that is often credited with setting off the UFO craze of the 1950’s and 1960’s.

As for Rudy and gun control, there’s this.  The idea that individual gun owners, and not the people who make the guns, are responsible for gun crimes is at the very heart of pro-2nd amendment sentiment.

Rudy doesn’t share that.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I wouldn’t characterize it as “anti-gun” per se.

A requirement for all gun owners to be licensed is simply a backdoor way to gun registration i.e. licensed gun owners are the only ones allowed to have guns.  The next step after registration is gun confiscation because once the government knows who owns guns, it becomes tempting and easy for them to take the next step, confiscation.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

He says he thinks the states should decide whether abortion is legal or not.  That’s ok.

A republican president who doesn’t even believe the unborn have a right to life can forget about my vote. I’ll defer to my signature…

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

I have a license to own firearms. It is called the Constitution of the United States, and of the States thereof.

Guiliani is a Northeast Liberal, and always has been. His camo is quite attractive, and yet, it is merely camouflage and nothing more.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Guiliani is a Northeast Liberal, and always has been. His camo is quite attractive, and yet, it is merely camouflage and nothing more.

No, liberals don’t use camo… remember, they don’t like guns.

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

George,

Within the framework of our (supposedly) federal system, it is entirely possible to oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds, while recognizing that the Roe v. Wade decision was bad law from a legal or constitutional point of view.

Outlawing abortion by judicial fiat is no more tolerable, constitutionally, than the wholesale legalization of Roe.

The proper venue for this fight, the only proper venue, is in the state legislatures… all 50 of them.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

DocDave:

A requirement for all gun owners to be licensed is simply a backdoor way to gun registration i.e. licensed gun owners are the only ones allowed to have guns.

I agree with you.  It probably isn’t even constitutional…

Carrick, I have similar concerns for the concealed gun licensing which also have the possibility of identifying individuals for gun confiscation.  On the positive side, the concealed gun laws have increased public awareness of the rights of ordinary citizens to bear arms for self-defense.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

it is entirely possible to oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds, while recognizing that the Roe v. Wade decision was bad law from a legal or constitutional point of view.

Sure, I don’t disagree with you on that.

The proper venue for this fight, the only proper venue, is in the state legislatures… all 50 of them.

The proper venue is NOT my senator deciding on when life begins. The proper venue is a constitutional amendment defining life as beginning at conception.

However, whatever we can do to save lives, we should do, including what you suggest. But listen, we need our president to pick an exceptional judge. The next president will most definately pick 1 if not 2 or 3. Do not underestimate what can be done for the aborted unborn in the next few years. We need a judge on the Supreme Court that doesn’t lie about when a person is a person. These unborn should enjoy the rights of freedom and liberty as laid out in the 14th amendment of the constitution:

...nor shall any State deprive any person of LIFE, liberty…

The Supreme Court should look at Roe and not only overturn it, but rule that abortion infringes on a person’s right to life. And this is where many of you will differ from me. I believe when blood is being shed, skin is being burned alive, and scalpals cut apart tiny unborn bodies, we cannot be afraid of being accused that we are legislating from the bench by identifying these unborn as persons.

Hear this: If one puts the formality of the law above an innocent person’s rights to life and freedom, what does that say?

Fine, let’s go for a human life amendment. Let’s try to work with the legislature. But picking the wrong president will ruin this great opportunity to change the court.

1) Yes, we should work to overturn Roe (which Giuliani still hasn’t even promised). But let’s not get a judge that will pass the buck and prolong or not even end abortion in some states. Let’s get a president who will end abortion.
2) Let’s get this straight. Abortion is NOT a religious issue. It’s a human rights issue. These unborn can and will be protected by the constitution by an honest judge.

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

The proper venue is NOT my senator deciding on when life begins. The proper venue is a constitutional amendment defining life as beginning at conception.

That is the way to go about it.  However you’re going to have to get 2/3rds of both houses of Congress to agree, so you can’t forget about your Senator.  Then you have to win 3/4ths of the state legislatures. 

Or if you’re a El Supremo Court Judge you can just make it up at the bar.

Sorry(off topic) I just had to point out the absurdity of the Supreme Court getting to make stuff up and have it count as much as a constitutional amendment which is so hard to accomplish.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

The Supreme Court should look at Roe and not only overturn it, but rule that abortion infringes on a person’s right to life.

George,

I do not disagree with your goals, but do not mistake agreement on objectives with agreement on method.  The Roe decision came about because liberal Supreme Court justices overstepped their constitutional authority deciding questions not properly within their constitutionally-mandated venue.

Overturning Roe is one thing, but the decision that you seek is nothing short of judicial activism in the opposite direction.  To decry such activism on the left, but encourage it on the right makes us hypocrites, the same as the liberals who got us into this mess in the first place.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Overturning Roe is one thing, but the decision that you seek is nothing short of judicial activism in the opposite direction.

I was going beyond that point. If you read further. I believe judicial activism is warranted to save millions of lives.

That’s why I wrote this:

And this is where many of you will differ from me. I believe when blood is being shed, skin is being burned alive, and scalpals cut apart tiny unborn bodies, we cannot be afraid of being accused that we are legislating from the bench by identifying these unborn as persons.

Hear this: If one puts the formality of the law above an innocent person’s rights to life and freedom, what does that say?

If laws don’t protect people, why should people protect the law?

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

The Roe decision came about because liberal Supreme Court justices overstepped their constitutional authority

Perhaps that is true but if you read the decision in its entirety, you will find that the life of the unborn question was a key decision point.  i.e. if the court had agreed that the fetus was human than Roe could not have been decided as it was.  Unfortunately the court decided that the fetus did not share the rights of born humans.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

you will find that the life of the unborn question was a key decision point.

Great point Dave. BTW, I wasn’t conceding that assuming “an unborn is a person” is judicial activism when I said this:

I believe judicial activism is warranted to save millions of lives.

I was saying if it were, it would still be warranted. But your comment is right on.

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

george: It seems pretty clear that you don’t trust the American people to do the right thing, just like the lefties, so you want to use the courts, just like the lefties, to deprive them of their right to vote on legislation that affects them.  Yours is simply another totalitarian approach, just like the lefties.
A Constitutional amendment is a federalist process; yet another Supreme Court decision is a totalitarian process.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

George,

Assuming you are as knowledgeable about legal affairs as you would portray yourself, perhaps you’ll take the time to detail how such a case as you propose would work?  Who would file the original suit, in which jurisdiction, and what exactly would this plaintiff claim was their specific injury and who would they claim to have caused that injury?

Doc,

I believe, fervently, that the point of the rather tortured (pun intended) argument put forth in Roe was to allow the justices to reach the conclusion that they did.  In other words, to reach the point where they could summarily dismiss all state and federal laws regulating abortion, the court first had to dispose of the “personhood” of the fetus.  The definition was thus incidental to the point of the Roe decision, and not precedential of its own accord.  I’m not suggesting they were right, only that their personhood definition was incidental to their decision.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

The definition [of life] was thus incidental to the point of the Roe decision

But should it have been? I mean, really, that’s one reason why you retry a case… if you have new evidence and new arguments.

Robert108: What if the people of California voted to allow partial birth abortion. Would that be that OK?

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

Who would file the original suit

Anyone could

in which jurisdiction

Any jurisdiction

what exactly would this plaintiff claim

I think you could get a team of lawyers to get the best case. For example, a husband could sue on behalf of his unborn son.

was their specific injury and who would they claim to have caused that injury?

not necessarily

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

George,

Your enthusiasm is admirable, but your suggest lawsuit is in serious need of rethinking.

Point one-not anyone/everyone has the standing necessary to bring the lawsuit you envision.  Nor does anyone/everyone have a cause of action, a demonstrable injury, or a justiciable issue for the court to examine.  Paying a lawyer to file a lawsuit is not the same thing as getting a judge to hear your case.  Overturning Roe v. Wade, however reprehensible or morally repugnant you may find that ruling, is not as easy an undertaking as you have deluded yourself into thinking.

I believe there are really only two grounds on which you could conceivably succeed.  Either a state law restricting Roe is challenged on appeal, something that has been done several times already.  Or possibly an aggrieved, soon-to-be ex-husband sues his pregnant, soon-to-be ex-wife to enjoin her from having an abortion.  What you have suggested… sort of… is frivolous.  And frivolous lawsuits are tossed out of court every business day of the year.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Robert108: What if the people of California voted to allow partial birth abortion. Would that be that OK?

If you really don’t know the answer to your hypothetical, then I pity you.
Like most totalitarians, you just don’t trust the people, as I have said over and over again.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

If you really don’t know the answer to your hypothetical, then I pity you.

Obviously I don’t know the answer and it’s pretty obvious you don’t either.

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

Obviously I don’t know the answer and it’s pretty obvious you don’t either.

There is no “answer” to a hypothetical; it’s all about speculation, and in your case, manipulation.  What would you do, if the voters didn’t decide the way you want?

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Point one-not anyone/everyone has the standing necessary to bring the lawsuit you envision.

All you need is one case to change the decision

Overturning Roe v. Wade, however reprehensible or morally repugnant you may find that ruling, is not as easy an undertaking as you have deluded yourself into thinking.

Ok, so then lets not try?

Why does everyone care so much about supreme court judges again? Because states are waiting in the wings and lawsuits are ready to be filed once the right judge has been nominated. How the courts are comprised changes which lawsuits will be filed.

frivolous

is an opinion. And who determines if something is frivolous? Judges. So if pro-life judges are elected, will they consider an argument defending human life frivolous? No. If Rudy gets in and puts a constitution robot on the court, you’re right, they might see it as frivolous because they don’t see the unborn as humans.

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

What would you do, if the voters didn’t decide the way you want?

The question I asked you is not “what would you do”. The question was would you be OK with what the people decided?

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

The question was would you be OK with what the people decided?

Since I’m not an “emo” the question is irrelevant to me.  My question is: What would you do if the people don’t make the decision you want?

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Unlike you, I would NOT trust the people in every state to make the right decision at this time to vote to end abortion. Lots of people are uneducated about it, like even many on this forum. I believe if put to a vote, some states would allow it and some wouldn’t.

What would you do if the people don’t make the decision you want?

Now, to answer your question, which is less than you do for me: for the states that would allow abortion, I would support candidates, and donate to causes that would help to change the minds of the people.

But what a ridiculous path to have to go down. Why even go down that path unless it was a last resort.

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

Unlike you, I would NOT trust the people in every state to make the right decision at this time to vote to end abortion.

Well, you could always just go out and shoot everybody who disagrees with you, I suppose. //SARCASM - sort of///

Seriously, the problem here is that anybody, with any issue, from one fringe end of the political spectrum to the other, could give the very same answer that you have here.  Which is why we have the Constitution we have and the form of government we do.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

...for the states that would allow abortion, I would support candidates, and donate to causes that would help to change the minds of the people.

In the first place, it is important to educate the people before the vote takes place, rather than whining about an outcome you don’t like, which is why I won’t play your hypothetical “holier than thou” game; it’s not about feelings, it’s about what you do to tell people the truth about abortion, that it’s feticide for birth control purposes, that a human fetus is a human being, and that it shouldn’t be a death sentence to have an irresponsible mother.
Unlike you, I trust people to make the right decision when they have accurate information, which is why the lies of the lefties must be refuted time and time again with the truth.  There is no other way, under the Constitution.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

I won’t play your hypothetical “holier than thou” game

Huh? Seriously, what on earth are you talking about?

“Hypothetical” is something that probably won’t happen. You’re advocating to bring the issue to the states. And I’m asking you what would happen, once it goes to the states and they vote NO on banning abortion. Are you really naive enough to think that’s not possible?

I don’t even know what you mean by “holier than though”. Good Lord, man. I’m asking you a straight question.

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

Unlike you, I would NOT trust the people in every state to make the right decision at this time to vote to end abortion.

you could always just go out and shoot everybody who disagrees with you

So you’re telling me you WOULD trust the people in every state to make the right decision at the time to end abortion?

No, because the question is a trap to make you think that you don’t trust people. Substitute “think” for “trust”, which means the same in this context and you will agree with me. I do trust people, but I don’t “think” (ie “trust") they will make the right decision.

It doesn’t mean people are stupid, just poorly educated on abortion.

you could always just go out and shoot everybody who disagrees with you

So you’re saying if California votes to legalize abortion, I have 2 choices:

1) Be OK with it
2) Shoot somebody

This isn’t the old Soviet Union, bat. I’m NOT OK with it, and I will do everything possible as a citizen to overturn it just as I have been doing all of my life. Why do you have a problem with that?

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

It depends on what you mean by “everything possible”, doesn’t it?
Assuming that you really mean anything you have written here, your rhetorical device of assuming that the people will not do what you want them to do simply begs the question; it doesn’t resolve anything.  Anyone who is sincerely anti-abortion has already been working against it, in Constitutional ways, so that isn’t even an issue.  The real issue is how far you are willing to go to get your way.
Personally, I couldn’t vote for Rudy, unless it was either him or Hillary; no matter how much I dislike Rudy’s stances on several social issues, he is far, far better than Hillary.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

I don’t even know what you mean by “holier than though”.

Sorry I went over your head.  If I said “more anti-abortion than thou”, would that clear it up for you?  You are fighting those who share your basic values, instead of fighting the pro-abortion crowd.  Get it now?

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke