The confusion of the right

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Regarding Sarah Palin:

"The biggest red flag proving her popularity with normal Americans is
that liberals won't shut up about her. Palin is a threat to liberals
because she believes in God and country and family — all values
liberals pretend to believe in but secretly detest."

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1894410_1894289_1894287,00.html

As an "Amerca Hater" (who served her honorably for over 20 years) and
as one who hates families I have to admit that Ann Coulter has a
point. I didn't talk about Palin because she was fun to mock or that
her views are so out of step with those of most Americans. It was that
I feared her.

And the hypocrisy Palin shows by admitting that she briefly considered
having an abortion when she found out that the child she was carrying
was going to have Down's Syndrome is remarkable. While I agree that
discussing such private matters in public may be brave, it also shows
that these morons don't get that she was able to consider her options
because she *had* options:

"There are some who will take Palin's comments and use them to support
her unrelenting views on abortion. And that is certainly their right.
But here's what I think: Sarah Palin did make a choice. No matter how
briefly she considered it, she looked carefully at the options given
to her and then weighed them, one against the other. And then she
chose. The reason she had a choice in the first place was because she
lives in a country where abortion is legal."

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/04/21/sarah-palin-admits-she-considered-abortion/

Isn't it heartwarming that she made the "right" choice.

It's confusion like this that will keep the conservative movement
moving even further away from the views of the majority.

Ironically this is exactly what 2pid wants to have happen in the
Islamic world: he'd like the extreme views of the fundamentalists to
be isolated, removing people who hold those views from positions of
power.

At least he's getting his wish here. LoL.

[[email protected]]

On 9 Mai, 18:39, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> Regarding Sarah Palin:
>

>
> And the hypocrisy Palin shows by admitting that she briefly considered
> having an abortion when she found out that the child she was carrying
> was going to have Down's Syndrome is remarkable. While I agree that
> discussing such private matters in public may be brave, it also shows
> that these morons don't get that she was able to consider her options
> because she *had* options:
> "There are some who will take Palin's comments and use them to support
> her unrel
>enting views on abortion. And that is certainly their right.
> But here's what I think: Sarah Palin did make a choice. No matter how
> briefly she considered it, she looked carefully at the options given
> to her and then weighed them, one against the other. And then she
> chose. The reason she had a choice in the first place was because she
> lives in a country where abortion is legal."
>

In the old days, she would stil have a choice, just not
a very good one. Don't take that as my being in favor
of criminailzing abortions. That would be a cure that is
much worse than the problem, if any.
Under a criminalized abortion regime, the proposal is to
lock up the doctors. I think that the mothers hiring the doctors
are much more responsible for the "crime" tah would be the doctors..
If abortion is to be considered murder, wouldn't
hiring a doctor to do it be considered a "murder for hire"?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 9, 8:06*pm, wrote:
> On 9 Mai, 18:39, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > Regarding Sarah Palin:
>
> > And the hypocrisy Palin shows by admitting that she briefly considered
> > having an abortion when she found out that the child she was carrying
> > was going to have Down's Syndrome is remarkable. While I agree that
> > discussing such private matters in public may be brave, it also shows
> > that these morons don't get that she was able to consider her options
> > because she *had* options:
> > *"There are some who will take Palin's comments and use them to support
> > her unrel
> >enting views on abortion. And that is certainly their right.
> > But here's what I think: Sarah Palin did make a choice. No matter how
> > briefly she considered it, she looked carefully at the options given
> > to her and then weighed them, one against the other. And then she
> > chose. The reason she had a choice in the first place was because she
> > lives in a country where abortion is legal."
>
> In the old days, she would stil have a choice, just not
> a very good one. Don't take that as my being in favor
> of criminailzing abortions. That would be a cure that is
> much worse than the problem, if any.
> Under a criminalized abortion regime, the proposal is to
> lock up the doctors. I think that the mothers hiring the doctors
> are much more responsible for the "crime" tah *would be the doctors..
> If abortion is to be considered murder, wouldn't
> hiring a doctor to do it be considered a "murder for hire"?

Next you'll be wondering how SSM affects straight marriage and why
straight marriage requires "defense" against it.

Seek help.

[[email protected]]

On 9 Mai, 22:32, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On May 9, 8:06*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 Mai, 18:39, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > Regarding Sarah Palin:
>
> > > And the hypocrisy Palin shows by admitting that she briefly considered
> > > having an abortion when she found out that the child she was carrying
> > > was going to have Down's Syndrome is remarkable. While I agree that
> > > discussing such private matters in public may be brave, it also shows
> > > that these morons don't get that she was able to consider her options
> > > because she *had* options:
> > > *"There are some who will take Palin's comments and use them to support
> > > her unrel
> > >enting views on abortion. And that is certainly their right.
> > > But here's what I think: Sarah Palin did make a choice. No matter how
> > > briefly she considered it, she looked carefully at the options given
> > > to her and then weighed them, one against the other. And then she
> > > chose. The reason she had a choice in the first place was because she
> > > lives in a country where abortion is legal."
>
> > In the old days, she would stil have a choice, just not
> > a very good one. Don't take that as my being in favor
> > of criminailzing abortions. That would be a cure that is
> > much worse than the problem, if any.
> > Under a criminalized abortion regime, the proposal is to
> > lock up the doctors. I think that the mothers hiring the doctors
> > are much more responsible for the "crime" tah *would be the doctors..
> > If abortion is to be considered murder, wouldn't
> > hiring a doctor to do it be considered a "murder for hire"?
>
> Next you'll be wondering how SSM affects straight marriage and why
> straight marriage requires "defense" against it.
>
> Seek help.- Ascundeþi textul citat -
>
> - Afiºare text în citat -

you mean SSCU?
I'm ok with that
there is no such thing as SSM
There is marriage, and that's it
SSM or SSCU, whatever you call the legal bond between man and man, or
woman and woman, its something else.
Marriage needs no defense against something that is not marriage.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 10, 3:27*am, wrote:
> On 9 Mai, 22:32, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On May 9, 8:06*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On 9 Mai, 18:39, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > Regarding Sarah Palin:
>
> > > > And the hypocrisy Palin shows by admitting that she briefly considered
> > > > having an abortion when she found out that the child she was carrying
> > > > was going to have Down's Syndrome is remarkable. While I agree that
> > > > discussing such private matters in public may be brave, it also shows
> > > > that these morons don't get that she was able to consider her options
> > > > because she *had* options:
> > > > *"There are some who will take Palin's comments and use them to support
> > > > her unrel
> > > >enting views on abortion. And that is certainly their right.
> > > > But here's what I think: Sarah Palin did make a choice. No matter how
> > > > briefly she considered it, she looked carefully at the options given
> > > > to her and then weighed them, one against the other. And then she
> > > > chose. The reason she had a choice in the first place was because she
> > > > lives in a country where abortion is legal."
>
> > > In the old days, she would stil have a choice, just not
> > > a very good one. Don't take that as my being in favor
> > > of criminailzing abortions. That would be a cure that is
> > > much worse than the problem, if any.
> > > Under a criminalized abortion regime, the proposal is to
> > > lock up the doctors. I think that the mothers hiring the doctors
> > > are much more responsible for the "crime" tah *would be the doctors...
> > > If abortion is to be considered murder, wouldn't
> > > hiring a doctor to do it be considered a "murder for hire"?
>
> > Next you'll be wondering how SSM affects straight marriage and why
> > straight marriage requires "defense" against it.
>
> > Seek help.

> you mean SSCU?

Nope. I (unlike 2pid) know what words mean and I generally choose the
word I want based on its meaning. LoL.

> I'm ok with that
> there is no such thing as SSM

Yes, there is.

> There is marriage, and that's it
> SSM or SSCU, whatever you call the legal bond between man and man, or
> woman and woman, its something else.

You don't read the papers, do you.

> Marriage needs no defense against something that is not marriage.

You'd better tell that to the people of Iowa, Vermont, etc. as they
have SSM laws on the books. Yes, I said marriage again.

The people who wrote the DOMA legislation also seem to disagree with
you.