What the fuck is wrong with you people?

[freetobegay]

Yesterday it was the Homosexuals & now today it seems to be a womans right to choose.


The onlt thing that can be said about these two issues is, we were not ppassionate enough! Wake up & smell the fucking coffee!

[Pepperbelly]

1. Huh?

What?

Who?

:shrug:

Not me.

[Eric J in MN]

2. We should try to find some common ground with

"pro-life" people instead of writing off millions of potential votes.

[skooooo]

3. What common ground can you see????

Please elaborate.

[DBoon]

44. I can think of a few

better jobs protected by trade policies designed to defend workers' interests and not footloose coporations, better worker protections, better public schools, a tax system under which the wealthy pay their fair share, a health system second to none in the world providing affordable basic coverage to all Americans, waging war only to defend our nation rather than Big Oil Interests, no arsenic in drinking water....

[skooooo]

48. well..ok..but what does that have to do with abortion?

I thought you meant within the issue of abortion. Of course there is common ground, but "their" priorities are very, very different from ours, and that's where one of the biggest problems lay.

[DBoon]

49. If there are in fact constituencies

That support most of the above but are not enthusiastic about legalized abortion, I would welcome them into the Democratic Party, and haggle out the differences internally.

I am making an assumption that there are fundamentally progressive anti-abortion constituencies - perhaps Hispanic and church-going Black voters.

I hate to see any single issue alienate folks who would otherwise be behind a progressive program.

[skooooo]

57. Don't think it will work..

THere's no "haggling" with these people. It's a black or white issue. They cannot tolerate letting others the freedom to get an abortion.

What is there to haggle or, more accurately, compromise???

What exactly would you give up to appease them?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. We have common ground. They don't like abortion..we don't like war

[agingdem]

20. So what do we do...

swap?

[eurolefty]

38. deleted

[freetobegay]

5. There is no common ground.

Either you want the woman to have a choice oveer her body or you don't. There is no middle ground.

[cheezus]

13. sure there is. I'm pro-woman, anti-abortion

I think a woman should have access throughout her life to excellent sex education, contraception, prenatal care, postnatal care, and childcare assistance. I certainly wouldn't take away her right to choose, but we should make that choice a lot easier and do what we can to reduce the number of abortions.

[bri_in_austin]

16. let me guess, you aren't a woman!

Hmm, thanks for telling me what I should do with my body!

Next, I bet you want us barefoot in the kitchen too, huh?

[cheezus]

23. did you even read what i wrote?

I said that the choice should be the woman's. Is there something WRONG with wanting effective sexual education and high availability of contraceptives?

[bri_in_austin]

37. Sorry.

I apologize sincerely. I misunderstood your comment. I think that your ideas are very good ones. And, I come from Abstinence Only, Texas.

[sandnsea]

24. We don't do that????????

Aaargh!!

Where did assistance and education about prenatal care come from? Who came up with WIC, Republicans?? Child care tax credit? Republicans???

They DON'T WANT sex education in their schools and have already gotten numerous schools to change it to abstinence only sex education.

My town LOST it's contraceptive county health clinic. Now all we have is a pro-life prenatal clinic that offers NOTHING except come learn about Jesus and get coupons for clothes and baby items.

We do have to talk to rural America, but if Democrats don't even know what we're up against, I don't know how we'll ever do it.

[noiretextatique]

51. a resonable position....one not shared by some on the other side

who are also against sex education, contraception, and childcare. pro-woman is a good term.

[skooooo]

58. There's the difference between you and "them"..

..You wouldn't take away a woman's right to choose. They would...not much else to say.

[DELUSIONAL]

35. It is amazing to me the number of men willing to give up

women's right to control OUR bodies.

[Cooley Hurd]

7. There is no common ground to be had with most of these people...

Proof is the stem-cell debate...

I say fuck 'em, personally, but that's just the kind of mood I've been in lately...;)

[bri_in_austin]

9. common ground?

If you really think that's possible, I don't mean to be rude, but I think you are living in a dream world.

I will never change my belief in women's rights and gay rights! Maybe we can find common ground in not wanting to kill women, children, and gay people in foreign countries for no reason. Women deserve the right to abortion and gay people deserve the right to live and marry like every other American. That is what the constitution is all about.

[wildeyed]

34. I will never change my belief in woman's rights or gay rights, either.

But speaking as a woman who has had an abortion, does not believe it was murder and who has given large sums of money to NARAL PAC, I think it is possible to use different language to talk about abortion that will lead to a more productive discourse.

Currently we demand that abortion be safe and legal. And it should be. But can we talk, instead, about ways to decrease the number of abortions that happen in the US? We would all like fewer abortions, right? And it involves giving women real choices. I can tell you from personal experience that I had the abortion because I felt that I didn't have any other options.

The fewest number of abortions happen in Netherlands, where it is legal. The most, in Latin America, where it is not. So if you really want to decrease abortion, look at how they do it in Netherlands. Clearly banning the procedure won't work.

Now I know these arguments won't work with the most extreme anti-abortion people. They are all about punishing woman for their sexuality, anyway, not saving the unborn. And they do involve higher level thinking, which is clearly problematic. But I have had productive personal discussions with anti-abortion religious people about abortion using these arguments. They seem to see my points.

[bri_in_austin]

I totally agree.

This whole abstinence-only, repress teenage hormones, etc. movement is ridiculous. Hopefully, the "more productive discourse" that you talk about will happen in the near future.

[bri_in_austin]

41. I totally agree.

This whole abstinence-only, repress teenage hormones, etc. movement is ridiculous. Hopefully, the "more productive discourse" that you talk about will happen in the near future.

[LTRS]

10. Like what?

No, I don't think so. What we should really do is demand and demand and demand that the repukes tell us what they plan to do with women who get abortions once they make them illegal. Are they going to jail them, and the doctors too? The public isn't going to go for that, and it will change the whole debate. Might be a great wedge issue for US for a change!

They can never respond to that question. Put those repukes on the spot and KEEP THEM THERE on this. End of story.

[Eric J in MN]

21. Like saying abortion should be illegal after 4 months of

preganancy, with some exceptions.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Right. And who is in charge of deciding whether women "qualify"?

Are pregnant women going to have to stand in front of a long card table, like the old days, and justify why they want an abortion?

This idea that women are running around, willy-nilly, getting and staying pregnant for 8 months and then deciding at the last minute to get abortions is complete and utter BULLSHIT.

Why do women get abortions after 4 months? Serious birth defects. Risks to health or future ability to reproduce. A whole list of myriad reasons that can't be easily quantifiable (and, if you didn't notice, the so called "Partial Birth Abortion" ban DID NOT contain an exception for womens' health) This is why these decisions NEED to be between women and their doctors, not between a bunch of white-haired televangelists and their President.

But if you read what the "pro-life" community has to say about the matter, they're not drawing some imaginary line at 4 months. No, they want to ban the birth control pill because of the "abortions" it causes. This is what we're dealing with... Not "rational people interested in compromise"..

What do I define as compromise? Hell, yes, let's do what we can to reduce the incidence of surgical abortion.. by making Plan B Contraception available OTC. Making sure RU-486 is available to whoever wants it. Increasing funding for better and more effective birth control.. Also, making sure pregnant women have access to health and prenatal care- a single payer health care system would go a long way in that regard. As it stands, a woman making a non-liveable minimum wage with no health insurance.. how the fuck is she supposed to be able to carry her pregnancy to term? Want to reduce abortion? Stop making the idea of a poor woman raising a child alone in this society such a cruel joke.

[Bluebear]

12. Since you already called for endorsing gay marriage bans...

have you formulated what that middle ground should be with regards to abortion?

[freetobegay]

14. Touche! plastic_turkeys

[Eric J in MN]

22. Saying abortion should be illegal after 4 months, with some exceptons (nt)

nt

[Bluebear]

26. You are straddling a fence on both issues....

that will eventually have neither side agreeing with you.

[Zookeeper]

46. The rabid anti-choice voters won't settle for that...

They want abortion to be illegal. Period.

[noiretextatique]

52. which exceptions, and who decides?

politicians? doctors? internet posters?
i can't think of any medical procedure that a man can have that is comparable enough to abortion for you to grasp why this decision shoudn't be anyone's except the person involved and her doctore.
just like any other medical procedure.

[Eric J in MN]

54. Ideally. But we lost big on Tuesday.. Pres., House, and Senate.

We have to consider if we can get some pro-life voters next time.

Regarding which exception, the life of the mother obviously, and maybe others.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. We didn't "lose big".

51% is not a MANDATE.

Considering the fact that you had Bush and Cheney scaring the Bejeebus out of people (Cheney, remember, was telling people that with Kerry as president we would get hit with a nuclear attack) I think that Bushco's performance was incredibly weak.

You start selling out the pro-choice voters in the Democratic Party, and there won't BE a Democratic Party. Which may sound good to you, but it sure doesn't to me.

[noiretextatique]

71. what right are you willing to sell off

in order to win? that's what you're asking of pro-choice women, so i'd like to hear what we can expect from you.
if the other side was interested in compromise, and if abortion was readily available for women by the fourth month...
of course that isn't the case.
so, what can women expect from you?

[Robeson]

17. Common Ground? Where?

Do you know that the goal of Pro Lifers is to band abortion? Period. Is that the "common ground" we must find? Basically giving up our position, in total, on this issue? Why don't we just join their party while we're at it?

[The Flaming Red Head]

They want to ban the pill too

.

[Cha]

47. I know what you're saying but I

wouldn't call them "pro lifers"..that's giving them way too much credit!

They would kill Iraqi children in a heartbeat if bush says so and bush says so.

They are anti-choice to da max!

[Mandate My Ass]

18. what you really mean is give something up

Not a chance.

[noiretextatique]

27. they don't want "common ground"

when will you folks get it?

[movonne]

42. Bull Shit!!! I will never find common ground with these people. They

can find common ground with us...

[msongs]

59. the problem I see is that the "pro life crowd" is also mostly

aginst birth control, against family planning, against contraception, against helping support and nurture all the kids who will be born because an abortion was prevented. That is what I hear around here from people...............

Msongs
Riverside CA

[Pushed To The Left]

65. Dennis Kucinich did this doing the primaries

My understanding is that Kucinich used to be anti-abortion, but is now pro-choice. He was asked at a rally about how he was going to prevent "the killing of the unborn" or something similar. He said something to the effect that instead of going against the constitutional rights of women, we should instead prevent abortions from happening by providing programs, birth control, etc. He didn't give up his pro-choice stance, but he reframed his argument in a way that anti-abortion people could relate to.

[cheezus]

6. if it wasn't those it would be non-married live-in couples

one they got that they'd move on to the dancing problem in this country

[Zookeeper]

50. or interracial marriage...

I was turning my radio dial to Air America and came across a christian call-in program where a called was claiming that jeebus would have been against interracial marriage. To the host's credit, she said there was nothing in the bible to support that theory.

Some repubs claim to be against gay marriage ("What's to stop people from marrying goats?"), or stem cell research because of the "slippery slope" argument. I suppose the same could be said for Dems giving in on the same issues: Where will it stop? It's not like the Christian Taliban's agenda stops at gay marriage or abortion.

(LOL, to the "dancing problem in this country"! There is a Baptist college near me and the students do, indeed, have to sign an agreement not to dance. :crazy: )

[camero]

8. It was neither

It was Kerry's refusal to come out aginst the war in Iraq and show the war on terror to be a sham and his refusal to point out that those were wedge issues designed to distract while they pick your pocket.

Hear anything about gays or abortion from Bush lately? No, it's all been about privatizing SS and tax cuts for the wealthy. They don't care about either of those issues. They just use it as a misdirection tactic.

[sandnsea]

15. What are you smoking?

YOU are as much a reason we lost as anything. People think YOU represent the views of the Democratic Party and when you say shit like this, they panic and vote for Bush. 98% of Americans see Osama bin Laden on television and say to themselves, "wow, that's a terrorist". I don't know what the fuck you see.

There's no terrorists, I swear to God that probably lost us more votes than anything said in this election. It's just beyond stupid.

[camero]

19. It's a sham

Where are the attacks? There've been none and there won't be any. The war on terror is just to make people fearful. That's all. It's straight out of Goebbels. Any terrorists that are out there are in Iraq and the ME. Not here.

Bullshit. My way is the way to full employment which does much more for the dems than any scare tactics could. Your way lost and has been losing for 10 years now.

Oh by the way, have fun sending your sons and daughters to die for Halliburton.

[sandnsea]

30. Keep talking

Keep letting people think Democrats are nuts. I thought there were no terrorists in Iraq, they're all freedom fighters. So now I'm confused, there are or aren't terrorists.

Who bombed Madrid, Bali, the Cole?

And by the way, we live in a capitalist country. They will not ever want or care or take seriously socialist "full employment" plans.

Fight for your beliefs, you really should. But next time we're having a Presidential election, could you just shut the hell up for a few months so we can get OUR agenda out there, in one unified piece.

[camero]

32. Thanks for making my point

Demopublicans lose to republicans everytime. Those attacks are all in foriegn countries. The war on terror is straight out of the playbook of the war on drugs. Restrict, demonize, divide.

Distract while picking pockets. You've certainly got the strategy down pat.

[sandnsea]

60. The Cole?

American Embassies? Just turn the other way and pretend none of it is real. And when we're attacked here at home, call it a MIHOP CIA operation. Say whatever you want, just be sure and clarify you ARE NOT a Democrat when you do it.

[camero]

67. Again...foriegn country

Those that did get attacked...NYC...voted overwhelmingly for Kerry even though he was for the war and the Patriot Act. There is a growing realization that the Dems are complicit with the Republicans on this and the boogeyman on TV is just that. A boogeyman.

[noiretextatique]

33. this is our agenda

bush, inc is far more of a danger to most americans than terrorists, would you agree? i think kerry made a very good case to the american people about that, but i do think it could have been stronger. once again, democrats let the rw define the issues, instead of articulating a CLEAR difference...that's certainly true about the war on terrorism. it IS largely a SHAM that has been used to not only start a war, but also to curtail civil liberties here. none of that was done to "protect" us from terrorists.

[noiretextatique]

31. it is a sham...it's all a sham

and i agree with you. this entire war of terrorism is smoke screen while the foxes raid the chicken coop. people in this country have FAR MORE to fear from bush, inc than the boogeyman du jour.

[sandnsea]

61. So not the point

Did you seriously go out and try to convert voters based on Bush being worse than the terrorists?

[noiretextatique]

72. I actually said he IS a TERRORIST

since i am not interested in converting anyone. bush did more to convert people than i ever could...something some of us need to remember.

[theoceansnerves]

11. ah

so you've come to realize this isn't "progressive underground." i realized that a long time ago, but the past few days have been really bad.

[hangloose]

25. It's all a fraud the intent is to tie us up in debate and discussion

endlessly while the Bushies continue to make "New Realities" leaving us to ponder and question and investigate. We are collectivly being to fucking intellectual about what is otherwise a clear case of Fraud. Kerry didn't lose because of his position Gays, abortion, that he is an elite liberal, accountablity.

The fact is that's why he WON, do of this stance on these and many other social issues!

Let's not lose sight of the fact he won they stole the election. Stop fighting each other that's just what these manipulators want more noise.

Let's band together an send them all to Jail.

[freetobegay]

29. It's the Internets!

Sheeesh!

[Sophree]

64. Here, here!

Excellent point.

:thumbsup:

[Jack Schitt]

28. I'm passionate enough to say that I fully support both of those issues.

To deny rights to ANYONE is immoral.

[LiberteToujours]

36. I hope you're not talking about me

Because my thread was about being STRONGER on a woman's right to choose abortion. I believe that by leaving it at "choose..." we look afraid to finish the sentence.

[RetroLounge]

39. Psy-ops and trolls abound

"Yesterday it was the Homosexuals & now today it seems to be a womans right to choose" and tomorrow it will be something else. Divide, divide, divide.

just saying...

RL

[freetobegay]

40. Say it all you like

I am well established here, unlike...

[sangh0]

43. READ THE POST!!!

RL is AGREEING with you.

[freetobegay]

55. My apologies to him

I am just so pissed right now, my mind is playing tricks on me!

[LiberteToujours]

45. There's going to BE some division

We just lost a huge election. Of course people are going to have different viewpoints over the coming months and we will fight for what we think is going to be the best direction to take the party. If unity means more of the same, we're just going to keep losing. Debate at this point is not a bad thing and it does not necessarily mean trolls.

[n2mark]

53. Nothing is wrong except

read my post Thoughts to ponder. Then go on from there.

[Taverner]

56. I keep telling everyone it was Sea Otters that cost us!

Damn otters!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

62. I'm passionate enough. I haven't been reading these threads... sounds

like you are saying some DUers are advocating throwing gays and abortion rights to the wolves.

I don't believe in becoming Republicans to win an election. I want to win, but I'd rather lose and be who I am.

[Wind Dancer]

70. You summed it up!

I'm glad we didn't throw the "fight for civil rights" to the wolves, I'm sick of hearing my party suggest changing to accommodate these RW fundies. We need to continue advocating for the rights of gays, women and minorities.

Geeez, I feel like we are moving back the clock, not progressing. If Clinton is endorsing this nonsense and the Dems approve, I'm out of the party. Why are we allowing Rove and the radical agenda of this administration to change our core beliefs? WTF?

We need Wellstone Dems, not Clinton Centrists.

[Sophree]

63. The finger pointing is pretty bad.

It reminds me of what my Pop always said,

"When you point your finger at someone, you have 3 fingers pointing back at you."

Let's be kind to each other. Assigning blame gets us nowhere and just serves to factionalize what should be the party of inclusion.

[Strelnikov_]

66. I Fully Agree. Our Views Are Supported By Over 50% Of The Electorate

If we give up our principles, we become them.

I do not want to become them.

Our side will win once the bankrupt policies of the racist GOP reich wing implode. Until then, survive and resist.