There, I said it — Susan Hutchison opposes a woman’s right to reproductive freedom — and I’ve intentionally said it as a statement of fact. Hutchison opposes reproductive rights as defined by Roe v. Wade, and supports overturning that landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision. No caveats, no prevarication, no couching the assertion as mere opinion or belief or speculation; Hutchison is anti-Choice.
And I’ll go one step further by freely admitting that I am making this statement of fact with the malicious intent of damaging Hutchison’s reputation with King County’s majority Pro-Choice voters. Now that’s a libel case in the making… assuming I’m wrong. Which I’m not, and which is why Hutchison will never sue me for defamation, despite the fact that all she would need to do to prove me wrong is simply refute my assertion under oath.
The headline in today’s Seattle Times states that Hutchison “steers clear of abortion rights questions,” but that is an understatement to say the least. Hutchison isn’t steering clear of the question, she is lying, both to voters and to the press. It may be a lie of omission, but it is lie nonetheless, and she deserves to be publicly raked over the coals for showing such blatant disrespect for our democratic process.
(And by the way, when I say that Hutchison is lying, I mean that not as my opinion, but as a statement of fact. Susan Hutchison is a liar. And if she thinks such a blunt assertion is defamatory, well, we already know she knows how to hire an attorney, so she should feel free to sue me.)
No, it’s not Hutchison who’s been steering clear of abortion rights questions, but members of the media, who while gingerly pointing out her obfuscation, refuse to follow my lead by calling her bluff. I mean honestly, what reasonably honest and intelligent person wouldn’t firmly conclude from Hutchison’s consistent lack of forthrightness that she opposes legal abortion, opposes your right to a legal abortion, and if elected Executive cannot be trusted to support unrestricted family planning services to low-income women at county funded health clinics?
Specifically, Mitchell said that Hutchison filled out the group’s questionnaire, but gave an incomplete response to a key question. It asked if she supported a woman’s right to reproductive freedom as defined by Roe v. Wade, Hutchison replied that she would uphold the law of the land, according to Mitchell.
Does she really think voters are that stupid, let alone members of the National Women’s Political Caucus of Washington?
“We then told her we would need a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on that queston if she wanted an endorsement. When we made it clear that’s what was required, she declined to answer. We left on a positive note,” Mitchell said. “She didn’t say she wasn’t pro-choice but didn’t say she was, which is what we need to happen.”
Which is why Hutchison refused to answer, because she knows very well that she couldn’t possibly get the organization’s support if she honestly answered no.
Hutchison said she didn’t “want to make their litmus test an issue in this race.”
Though Hutchison has absolutely no problem with speaking openly on other litmus tests, that don’t hurt her standing with the electorate. What a dishonest, disingenuous, disrespectful liar. And she’s been lying about herself and her politics since the day she and her phony smile got into this race.
No, one’s standing on issues and one’s party affiliation don’t tell you everything you need to know about a candidate, but so-called “litmus tests” and party labels do give the average voter a good idea of whether or not the candidate generally shares their values. That’s why despite giving thousands of dollars to Republican candidates (and only Republicans), despite receiving contributions and endorsements almost exclusively from Republicans, and despite nearly running for the U.S. Senate as a Republican, Hutchison, running in an overwhelmingly Democratic county stridently refuses to acknowledge that she is a lifelong and active member of the GOP. And a member of its conservative wing at that.
That there is a large segment of voters who don’t know this is a disgrace, and that there are surely many Democrats who will cast a vote for the nice lady from TV, unaware of her conservative Republican bona fides, is a corruption of our electoral process. Whatever you may think of her as a person, and her careers in TV and philanthropy, Susan Hutchison the candidate is a lie. And it’s a lie that can only succeed in November if our local media remains complicit in their polite silence.
Good for you, Goldy. Now you’re running on all cylinders. Keep hitting her, and keep hitting her hard.
This is not exactly breaking news, y’know.
But it’ll bring the troglodytes out of the woodwork (and montana, and Los Angeles)….
Big fucking deal! Since when does the County Exec get to overrule the US Supreme Court? What next? Will your scum-sucking Dow go on record as demanding the right to change nuclear policy? King County Executives have that much power? Grow up!
Hutchison is not a big D or a little d or even a little r.
No, the fact is that she is a big R with flames and has the capacity for endless lies and deception that big R’s hold so dear.
As for the media, well they don’t eat their own and never have, so it was always going to be a greater task to pull facts out of the fog about this candidate.
keep pounding Goldy!
This is an important issue not because the County Executive gets to weigh in on reproductive rights, and not even because it shows Hutchison’s personal viewpoint. It’s important because it demonstrates that she does not want to say anything that would lose her base, and her base is rightwing Christians. She is or was on the board of the Discovery Institute, for petes sake. No one who doesn’t run with that crowd has anything to do with the Discovery Institute anymore.
jon 4&1/4: The issue is deception. We the voters should demand that those who would represent us first openly represent to us who they are and what they stand for and what their core beliefs are.
Hey Goldy, I heard you like having sex with sheep. Sue me for lible!
sara68: partly true, though the core gain for Hutchison is not in the far right votes she could lose. The moderate gender motivated voter is who she is hiding her right wing views from. This race depends on who this class of voter gets out and votes for.
@3 The “big deal”, as it were, is the County Executive’s role in the administration of Harborview and the Seattle/King County Department of Public Health.
All this being said, there’s something of a question of whether “outing” of Hutch’s stance regarding abortion would lose her more votes from pro-choice Democrats or gain her the approval of more conservatives who might otherwise think she’s just another one of those Seattle liberals, worse yet an aluma of the big bad “left-biased” media. (KIRO? You betcha, if the comparison’s with Fox Noise.)
Well, an idiot would write it that way, but someone with common sense and any morals worth spit would say: Susan Hutchison opposes terminating innocent human beings. She opposes this because doing so is denying them the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
But, then this is HA and not many here are intelligent enough to absorb common sense, so eh, a shot in the dark.
Goldy, Goldy, Goldy..
SO someone who believes in the sanctity of innocent life is a….bad person??
You Atheist Progressives are soul-less heathens. You destiny is clear.
Frankly, I don’t know why Atheist’s like y’all even worry about what happens here on Earth.
In the perspective of eternity, your tenure is less than ablink of an eye anyway. You live in the cesspool of YOUR OWN FEELINGS and SINFUL NATURE…seperated from God because of a lack of faith.
Good for Susan Hutchison.
I’m sure as King Kounty Executive whe will use her powers for the evil purposes of stopping abortion.
Now Dow Konstantine…there is a man who believes in baby-killin’!
5. sarah68 spews:
YIKES…Right-wing Christians are…EVERYWHERE!
Look at Sarah, there may be one stalking you now…with a BIBLE!
You ATHEIST PROGRESSIVES live your lives in FEAR. I can understand why…no hope, no Savior…just your own evil thoughts & paranoia. I admire someone willing to stand up to the Baby-Killin’ PROGRESSIVE ATHEISTS like you.
Oh, now give me the line about how you aren’t for crushing innocent life…but it’s the mother’s right to kill her baby in womb.
Tell it to the Lord.
Empty Suit, you bet! Also sperm should have the god given right to pack a sidearm and the every embryo should have the right to vote.
As for a woman’s right to reproductive self determination what we need is a gradual return to the days of back alley abortions for everyone but the rich, and this is why moderate women will rush to support Hutchison.
Goldy:
Instead of reacting to what you read in Fairview Fannie, or the latest geezer column in Crosscut, why don’t you get out and watch a debate?
Constantine and Hutchison went at it in Kent last night, talked about health clinics, with Hutchison saying she would NOT end reproductive services.
She even asked listeners not to believe what they read in “left wing blogs.”
Do we believe her? Whatever your answer, why not hear her? Get off your butt, man. There’s an election on.
Cynical @12,
No, believing in the sanctity of life does not make one a bad person. Lying about it does. That’s the point. She’s not being honest with voters.
Joel @15… the same goes for your comment. It’s not her position that is the issue, but her refusal to honestly state her positions.
This blog is taking itself waaay too seriously these days.
*runs off to Publicola*
So Goldy was not at the Kent event? Point Joel.
Still, Joel was at the event and has been following politics for years and most certainly gets that deception and avoidance as a candidates core strategy should not be overlooked in his coverage. Two points Goldy.
Back in the day, I remember when “coverage” of campaigns and candidates was not limited to only the bite spoon fed by the candidates or their campaigns.
Rather than empowering candidates to hide their real identity those candidates should be returned to the spotlight and examined by those who “cover” their attempt to attain office.
Get off your butt, man. There’s an election on.
Reproductive Rights: is that what you call killing unborn babies?
Really, it’s not even Republican or Democrat (and yes, Sarah, I mean Susan, is a Republican). It’s about someone who knows how county government works, versus someone who DOESN’T know how county government works. And that choice is pretty simple.
But Republicans don’t care that she can’t govern; it’s all about the power for them. ANd she doesn’t care that she can’t govern; it’s all about the power for her.
These days stealth candidates are all that Republicans have because Republicans really ARE at record lows in all approval ratings, which is as they deserve for sending our country down the crapper for eight years.
Yes, King County is having budget problems. It’s not financial mismanagement, in case you haven’t heard, it’s a GLOBAL RECESSION! And placing the responsibilities of County Executive with a known liar with ceertain, shall we say, temperament problems *cough vindictive cough* whose recent resume is filled only with the tough, tough work of kissing the large asses of rich people would be irresponsible. I’m certainly not going to.
@3 Yes, it is a BFD, because abortion is arguably the biggest and most incendiary issue in American politics, and when you stand for office and ask people to vote for you they have a right to know where you stand on such an issue.
The point is not that county government has nothing to do with abortion (although this isn’t true, as I’ll explain below). The point is that Hutchison is running a deceptive and obfuscatory — she is trying to get into office on false pretenses — which makes her unfit for public office.
County government does have something to do with abortion. No, the county exec can’t overturn Roe v. Wade. But she can meddle with how the county health department delivers health services to county residents. And the kind of ideological meddling she might bring to the job could harm our children. Let’s not pretend that abortion ideology has no local consequences, because it does, okay? It can affect everything from teen pregnancy rates (which shot up under the Bush administration’s misguided abstinence policy) to teen STD rates. The last thing we need here in King County is a replay of the Bush administration’s stupidity in our county government and school district health programs.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I oppose forced birth.
I should say that Sarah, I mean Susan, is also against birth control, like most other Republicans. Again, with this in mind, elevating her to this office would be clearly irresponsible.
I’m personally opposed to abortion on moral and religious grounds. I believe a fetus is a separate human being who is entitled not to have his/her life arbitrarily taken without due process of law. As a liberal, I believe the highest duty of government and law is to protect the weakest among us, and no one is more defenseless or in greater need of such protection than an unborn child.
However, that’s my personal opinion, and I’m not prepared to use government force to impose my personal opinion on someone who may not share my values or beliefs.
Also, I don’t think making abortion illegal will work; we’ve already been down that path, and it was a failure. It didn’t stop abortions, but it did drive desperate women to dangerous back-alley abortionists, sometimes at the cost of their lives. I don’t want that tragic history repeated in our country.
Because it’s already been demonstrated that abortions can’t be stopped by passing laws against them, I have come to believe that right-to-lifers are fighting the wrong fight, and have missed the boat on how to end, or at least greatly reduce, abortion in America. You must change the culture. You must do it with persuasion. Abortion will go away when our people decide they don’t want abortions. You must do this one person at a time, in families, in churches, and through networks of friends.
But persuasion alone is not enough. It must be recognized that women who get abortions are desperate. They’re doing it because all the alternatives are worse in their situation. To end abortion, you have to offer these desperate people viable alternatives. If you want them to give birth to their children, and keep and nurture and raise them, then you must be willing to create the social conditions and resources that make it possible for them to do so.
Conservatives who lust for reversal of Roe v. Wade should be careful of what they wish for. Roe v. Wade is the source of the constitutional right of privacy. That right doesn’t expressly exist in the Constitution, not even in the Bill of Rights, but the Roe court, in a carefully and logically reasoned decision, found that such a right is necessarily implied by the Constitution’s other provisions. Overturn that decision and you may be giving the government you fear and despise a permission and power to peer into the private recesses of your life in ways you’ve never imagined.
If the Supreme Court ever does overturn Roe v. Wade, I hope they will declare that unborn children have a constitutional right to life, instead of leaving it up to individual states to legislate on the issue. The latter is the worst thing that could happen because it would tie up all 50 state legislatures in endless abortion battles that would preempt all other lawmaking and result in perpetual abortion warfare and legislative gridlock. Absolutely nothing else would get done, and the result would be chaos in our state governments. The greatest contribution Roe v. Wade has made to our society was removing the abortion debate from state legislatures so they could focus on education, transportation, law enforcement, economic development, and other issues important to local communities.
@19 “killing unborn babies”
No big deal. God kills unborn babies all the time. If we are to be like God, shouldn’t we kill unborn babies too?
@11 “She opposes this because doing so is denying them the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.”
If that’s what she believes, why doesn’t she say so? This is exactly what I believe, but I don’t know what she believes. For all I know, she may be an unprincipled opportunist who’d sell out in the blink of an eye.
“Forced Birth” Who dreamed up that one?
@17 We take politics seriously because politics is serious.
Exhibit A: Hitler. Exhibit B: Lenin. Exhibit C: All of history’s civil wars. I could offer more proof but that should do for now.
@18 Three points for you, for pointing out the press has abrogated one of its most basic responsibilities to the public.
“He said, she said” reporting doesn’t cut it. That isn’t journalism, it’s either laziness or cowardice, or a combination of both.
RR @29
Don’t leave out my fav: “Unnamed sources”
@19 A fertilized egg a few days old isn’t an “unborn baby.” It’s an insentient cell which is “life” in the same sense as your fingernail clippings.
The most difficult question the Roe v. Wade court wrestled with — and the question it couldn’t answer — was when a cell mass becomes a human being. All the accumulated human wisdom from the fields of religion, philosophy, medicine, etc., couldn’t answer that question, and it remains unanswered.
I don’t pretend to know where that line should be drawn. I feel confident in my sense that aborting a day-old fertilized egg with a morning after pill isn’t killing a human being, and that a so-called “partial-birth” abortion of a fully formed fetus that moves within the womb is. Nature has drawn a line somewhere in between, and the best the law can do is draw it somewhat arbitrarily, but on a reasoned basis.
The Roe v. Wade court attempted to do this by divvying up the human period of gestation into “trimesters.” Over the years, the courts have fleshed out doctrine by suggesting the law may tolerate more restrictions on later-trimester abortions. This is an attempt to extend the protection of the law to organisms that increasingly resemble ourselves as pregnancy advances.
But this approach might be entirely wrong. Should physical resemblance be the test? That seems superficial. Those who believe in a divine presence in our university and the existence of an indestructible soul likely would argue that a nascent organism becomes “human” when it is vested with a soul. And who knows when that is? Some draw from their religious beliefs the notion that the organism acquires its soul at the instant of conception, and that conception itself is a gift from God which is not man’s part to rescind. Whether or not I personally agree with that belief, I respect it; and if I disagree with those who hold such beliefs, let my disagreement be recognized and known as a respectful one.
In fact, I do not disagree with them on the issues of divine gift, the existence of the soul, or moral prohibition on taking of innocent life. I only disagree with them on the matter of whether they, or I, have a right to impose (through law and force) our beliefs on others who do not share our beliefs.
@20 Well yes. This isn’t a one-issue election (and I’m not a single-issue voter). Hutchison is conservative; I’m liberal. We agree on almost nothing. But more than that, she’s dishonest. And even if I shared conservatives’ espoused antipathy to taxes (who likes paying taxes?), based on experience I don’t believe Republicans will tax me less; they’ll just spend it on different things. For all these reasons, Hutchison won’t get my vote. I’m a Democrat, and I vote for Democratic policies. I’m anti-abortion, but pro-freedom. In the latter respect, I’m more conservative than any Republican, because their views on reproductive freedom are authoritarian, not conservative.
On the other hand, while God has taken the lives of countless blastocyst Americans, I don’t believe God has ever shot an abortion doctor or strung up a census taker. Perhaps it’s well to conclude that abortion doctor killing wingnuts just aren’t quite as godlike as us baby-killing liberals.
RR: I won’t pretend to know where to draw the line either. Thus the great debate
Regardless of what happens (or not)
There will always be free will
Abortions aren’t going away any time soon.
Therefore:
I don’t condone the procedure
I don’t want gov’t paying for it
I don’t want Healthcare providers forced to do the procedure.
Dispite what Steve would have you believe:
I don’t endorse, applaude or celebrate the murder of abortionists, census takers or any one else.
Of course my druthers (as well as yours)and what actually happens are usually two different things.
@33 If you rephrased that to say, “abortion doctor killing wingnuts aren’t godlike,” I’d reply that’s as obvious as the rising and setting of the sun.
@34 I’m unaware of any healthcare providers being forced to perform abortions. Do you know of any?
And don’t say pharmacists, because it isn’t the pharmacist who decides whether to swallow a morning after pill.
As for government paying for it, that’s a dicier question. Does being forced to pay taxes for Medicaid abortions make you complicit, if you had no choice in paying the taxes? Couldn’t the same argument be used relative to taxes that pay for war? What I’m suggesting is that’s a gray area, because under our form of government, the majority has a right to require everyone to pay taxes for purposes chosen by the majority, subject to some restrictions defined by our concepts of individual rights and freedoms, so you get into some pretty difficult line-drawing. It seems to me any argument against tax-supported abortions can also be used against the compulsory taxation that supports military spending.
There’s nothing new about my personal views on abortion that I’ve reiterated in this thread today; but just wait, some trollfuck who can’t read is going to post crap accusing me of being a “baby killer,” even though I’m probably the most firmly anti-abortion liberal on this blog. Wait and see, it’s gonna happen, because these ignorant rightwing fucks are so prone to shoot from the hip without even bothering to ask questions later.
RR @ 20: I agree.
I’d also like to add that if Roe vs. Wade is reversed, and it’s left up to the states, that a great majority of the states will eventually vote to continue abortion – the majority of Americans want to have the right to have an abortion in case they decide they need one. Until we change those numbers, the fight over Roe vs. Wade is useless.
But I’ve never thought that the forces which really control the Republican Party were really that interested in the abortion issue. For them, it’s a “wedge issue” which rallies a part of their base and brings in votes and contributions on a predictable basis.
But what have the Republicans really done for the right-to-lifers? Sure, they’ve cried that they were powerless due to the “liberal judges”, but that’s not true. There are avenues other than a Constitutional Amendment they could have pursued. For example, they could have limited the jurisdiction of the courts over abortion issues (abortion is not within the original grant of jurisdition of the court). But despite having effective control of Congress, the Presidency, and the majority of the Supreme Court for almost 2/3 of the last thirty years, all they have done is talked about it. They haven’t been willing to sacrifice their political capital for the issue. Instead, the Republicans use all their political capital in giving tax breaks to the wealthy and supporting de-regulation and union-busting. When it comes time for the right-to-lifers to get their rewards, they turn their empty pockets out, shrug, and say in effect: “wait until after the next election – just keep sending in those contributions”.
RR @ 36 & 37
I’m unaware of providers being forced to perform the procedure.
I listed it more as something I don’t want to happen than what’s already going on.
I’m not sure comparing abortion to Nat’l Defense isn’t apple-oranges…but that’s fodder for another day.
Is a trollfuck the same as a Reptard? **Just curious**
Forced Birth.
Found it here: http://oldfartravings.blogspot.....birth.html
I’d say that’s pretty accurate.
Hmmm, Puddy is sure the killing of abortion protestors was some nice human being just venting his frustrations.
Naaaaah Roger, we think you are a crazy feral dumb bunny but your personal and in-your-face abortion positions are well known for many years.
rujax, some of us who think right wonder were you and ylb arschloch are forced births.
Hey, ya never know!!!!!!!!
Kudos, Goldy, I love this post. She is vacuous, dissembling, and unqualified. Hell, I don’t even think she’s that pretty. Plus, she got fired from her last real job. But, somehow, she thinks she should be King County Executive. How these clueless Republicans come to believe they have something to offer the public is beyond reason.
Yeah wondering why your views are always losing. “Wondering” why you’re always on the WRONG side of the issues.
What a sick fuck this asshole troll is.
1) She has no real qualifications for this job.
2) King County Executive does have control of some health care money that goes to places like Planned Parenthood, no?
3)”soul-less heathens. You destiny is clear” I’m scared now. My destiny is that I don’t let a lot of Bible-thumpers tell me how to live my life. And, guess what? When I die, I’ll be dead. I don’t worry about the afterlife.
I’m curious about something.
Assume that a baby was trapped in a collapsed building. You don’t know if the infant is alive or dead. So you stop digging, right? I mean, absent evidence that the baby is alive, why attempt rescue?
That’s the moral quicksand liberals fall into. The bullshit about a womans’ right is just that. So it’s unfair that the woman bears the brunt of child bearing. Deal with it. Don’t take it out on innocent unborn children. Or here’s an idea! Use protection so that you don’t get pregnant in the first place. Oh, that’s too easy for the liberal mind. A mass holocaust of unborn children is much easier.
RE 47:
Nothing to do with bible thumpers buddy. Just whether you have the ‘right’ to murder babies.
Susan pickin n choosin Commandments?
why is it that progressives will defend the rights of terrorists to not be tortured, yet will celebrate the “right” to kill a child.
also, in many states, when a pregnant woman is murdered, the accused killer can also be charged with murder of the unborn child….yet when its a womans “choice” to the same thing, its called the “right to choose”…..
things that make you go hhmmmm……
liberals seem to respect and love extremist muslim terrorists bent on killing them more than they do unborn American children…
kinda sick n twisted….
@38 “But I’ve never thought that the forces which really control the Republican Party were really that interested in the abortion issue. For them, it’s a “wedge issue” which rallies a part of their base and brings in votes and contributions on a predictable basis.”
You’re absolutely right. A final resolution of the abortion issue is the worst thing that could happen to the Republican Party. If abortions disappeared they would go down the tube.
In other words…government mandated forced birth.
@39 “I’m unaware of providers being forced to perform the procedure.”
Perhaps that’s because there aren’t any.
“I listed it more as something I don’t want to happen than what’s already going on.”
There’s a lot of things you don’t want to happen that isn’t going on. I’ll leave it to you to make your own list. I’ve got mine.
“I’m not sure comparing abortion to Nat’l Defense isn’t apple-oranges…but that’s fodder for another day.”
Defending our country used to be reputable until the military-industrial complex turned it into a profit center and George W. Bush turned it into recreation.
“Is a trollfuck the same as a Reptard? **Just curious**”
A trollfuck is a Reptard who is fucking himself.
So the quick-sand of the conservative mind:
Do you force the woman to birth the child and THEN execute her for defying your orders?
Re 53
Seems to me the claim was the Hutchison was dodging the issue. Now the claim is that those sneaky republicans use it as a wedge issue.
Really the party that uses it as a wedge is the democrat party. Make a lot of noise about something that may come up a few times in a legislative career, win elections, and destroy the country as we know it. Isn’t that a fair summation of the democrat strategy?
Just so you know, the woman and the man (you guys keep forgetting that man part, despite that liberal sex ed thing) made a choice. They made a choice to have sex, which that sex ed thing suggested might result in a miniature person.
‘Forced birth’ is like ‘right to choose.’ The choice was made in conception. Adults, as opposed to liberals, deal with the consequences of their choices. In this case a pregnancy that could have been prevented shouldn’t result in the cold blooded murder of an innocent child.
Execute her? Your words, not mine, nor even in my thoughts.
@41 First of all, there has been no killing of “abortion protesters” (plural). To date, only one abortion protester (singular) has been killed.
Secondly, the suspect killed another person — a local businessman unconnected with abortion protests — the same day, which strongly suggests the motive (whatever it was) wasn’t political. In fact, “Prosecutors said … they were uncertain whether the … political message of the protests was at issue.”
Prosecutors said that the suspect had singled out Mr. Pouillon because of the visible style of his regular protests at the school, but that they were uncertain whether the broader political message of the protests was at issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09......html?_r=1
So, calling this a political killing of an abortion protester is nothing but speculation, and a hell of a stretch at that.
But you can always count on Pointyhead to fix the selective facts around the point he wishes them to support.
By the way, still don’t see an answer to the basic question raised by me and one other poster here. Why is a welcomed pregnancy a life, and an unwelcomed one a fetus?
@42 I may be only a feral rabbit, but I’m still smarter than you. What’s your excuse?
@44 She not only got fired from her job for behaving like a jackass, but she sued the employer! Republicans only hate lawyers until they need one. Then they come running into our open arms.
@60…because if liberals ever admitted to themselves that they were killing a child, their logic(if you can call it that) would fall apart….in other words, they are in a state of denial out of convenience.
pregnant mom kills unborn child = right to choose
rapist kills unborn child = murder.
go figure.
@48 That’s nothing compared to the moral quicksand righties fell into when they wanted to launch a pre-emptive nuclear war against the Soviet Union back in the ’50s (no qualms about killing tens of millions of Russians merely because their government might want to attack us some day), or the moral quicksand that Republicans fell into when they invaded a country that didn’t threaten or attack us and then tortured that country’s innocent civilians. I guess my point is that someone like you lecturing someone like me about morality is sort of like Richard Nixon lecturing the nation’s police chiefs on law and order.
@64..LMFAO…now THAT is an example of desperation and reaching…hahahahhaa, god you look like a dipshit rabbit turd.
@49 What is a “baby,” and when does a zygote become a “baby”?
@51 We defend the rule of law, not the terrorists, dumbshit.
Just to show you what an ignorant ass you truly our, our military leaders are against torture in all circumstances, because they believe (with historical justification) that if we do it, then our enemies will do it to our captured soldiers.
Torture is also a moral wrong, but naturally I don’t expect a morally bankrupt slimebucket like you to understand that.
And here’s a fact that may have escaped your attention: The vast majority of the people who were tortured by the Bush criminals weren’t terrorists at all but merely innocent civilians scooped up by Bush’s incompetent Keystone Kops.
@52 I’m for killing all terrorists, both foreign and domestic.
@67…so torture of crazed terrorists bent on our death is wrong, but killing unborn children – even viable ones, is OK? hhmm….liberal logic???
@52 (continued) Speaking of which, why did the Bushevik regime hold Sheik Khalid, mastermind of 9/11, for years and years without putting that motherfucker on trial so he could be executed? Republicans are appeasers.
@68…well fuck it then, if we are gonna kill them, lets at least get some info first. they barely register as human anyway…..
@70…straw man diversion time? or taco time?
RE 66
For the slower members of the class, let’s go back a bit.
That was the whole point of the illustration of the collapsed building. You don’t know the answer to that and neither do I. You may quote the bull from Roe V Wade, or subsequent nonsense, but you really don’t know. Given that how can you dare champion has even the possibility of being infanticide?
As for your post at 64, I wasn’t even born in the 50’s, so with your permission I’ll bow out of that. Iraq was ill adivised, and some troops got out of control. In the entire history of warfare I’m absolutely certain this has never happened before. Illegal it wasn’t though, despite the cowardice of the UN in enforcing it’s own mandates. Hussein was in violation of the right to inspect. We warned him to allow inspection or be invaded. He played chicken and lost.
And spare me the ‘someone like you.’ You don’t know me from Adam, pal. I assume you to be a decent tax paying person who happens to be liberal and wrong about most things. Often liberals assume political opponents to be diabolical instead of oppositional. You might have learned something about nuance in your supposed career as an attorney, but appear not to have done.
@70…your obsession with bush clouds your ability to see the bigger picture. Bush is irrelevant.
@57 “destroy the country as we know it”
You mean where a lawless president spies on innocent American citizens in violation of federal law and their constitutional rights?
You mean where a bloodthirsty president starts a war that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians because he’s pissed at their dictator for trying to kill his dad?
You mean where plutocrats beat down wages and grab ever larger slices of the national wealth to satisfy their own endless greed at the expense of workers?
You mean where a mean-spirited president let a city drown and then withheld drinking water from the survivors because he didn’t like how they voted?
Good riddance to the “country” we knew under Bush and the GOP. Only a sick selfish stupid bastard wants to live in a country like that.
@60 I’ve answered that. If you choose not to read that’s your problem.
@65 I don’t need to respond because the ugly facts speak for themselves.
@69 Well, that didn’t take long, did it? See #37.
@71 Do whatever you want to the bastards who attacked us on 9/11. I’ll look the other way. But if you torture even one innocent person, you’ll hang for it. Deal?
@73 Get your fucking facts straight. Saddam was cooperating with the UN inspectors when we invaded Iraq.
RE 76
Oh yes, a masterful answer. Really, were you an attorney or did you just play one on television?
A baby versus a zygote? As I already said, I don’t care to take the chance of infanticide. I’ll leave that to progressives. Especially as the definitions were made for political purposes, legislative or judicial, with no interest in the unborn baby as such.
Or is it the ‘republicans did a few bad things so wholesale slaughter of innocent unborn is okay’ argument? Wouldn’t want to build to much on that myself bunny.
@73 “I assume you to be a decent tax paying person who happens to be liberal and wrong about most things.”
2 out of 3 isn’t terrible, but it wouldn’t earn you a passing grade in most high school courses.
@73 “Often liberals assume political opponents to be diabolical instead of oppositional.”
Gee, I wonder how we got that way? Maybe because you assholes spied on us, arrested us, called us unpatriotic, threatened to put us in concentration camps, and so on? Do you suppose when your camp said things like that we maybe took you at your word?
@74 No, Bush is not irrelevant, and we’re going to spend the next 100 years making sure you scumsuckers don’t get away with trying to sweep his and his party’s criminal behavior under the rug.
@81 You’re even more sophomoric than you looked in your previous posts.
Re 80
Cite please. Or is this just another liberal opinon masquerading as fact?
Re 75
I didn’t and don’t support torture. I didn’t and don’t support domestic surveilance outside constitutional bounds and believe President Bush pushed far to hard on those, breaking them too often. As for your nonsense conspiracy theory about Bush letting New Orleans drown, one hack ‘journalist’ making stuff up does not reality make.
So we go the other way right? We’re out of both Iraq and Afganistan now, thank God. The economy is doing GREAT. Civil liberties are at an all time high with Obama rolling back the Patriot Act, redressing Bush wrongs etcetera. Oh wait, none of those things are true.
What is true is massive deficit spending on ill thought plans. What is true is that we’re flirting with massive currency deflation based on the policies of your boy wonder. What is true is the attempt to destroy the American medical system. What is true is that the Obama administration is asking Congress to revote for provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire.
@81 (continued) “Or is it the ‘republicans did a few bad things so wholesale slaughter of innocent unborn is okay’ argument? Wouldn’t want to build to much on that myself bunny.”
Neither would I, and I didn’t, but unfortunately you’re too dense to comprehend what I did write. Or perhaps you’re so hell-bent on putting words in my mouth that you never read it.
Re 85
And the answer is….resounding silence.
What was the response to the definition of a fetus, again? Oh yeah, didn’t have one.
What was the response to the moral equivocation you suggested? Still nothing.
None out of 2 is bad, and wouldn’t get you a passing grade even in a public school.
Enough of this arguing with a fool. I have better things to do.
@86 I’m not your fucking research assistant. Look it up yourself, lazy oaf. That information is readily available.
Point and match.
Have a nice evening.
There are many sources for that information,* but you wingasses believed what you wanted to believe, and still believe what you want to believe, reality be damned.
* See, e.g., http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-119477970.html
You might also take a look at this while you’re at it: http://www.fpif.org/papers/iraq.html
@91 Off your Ritalin again?
rabbit boy gets his ass handed to him – again.
and yet here we are:
preggo mom decides to kill unborn child = “right to choose”
rapist kills preggo mom’s unborn child = murder.
funny how our attorney(LOL) seems to keep avoiding that little diddy.
now watch rabbit boy ramble on about bush and wars and yadda yadda that have NOTHING to do with abortion…
P3NED
@94 Too bad the rest of your mental process isn’t as energetic as your imagination.
Woger Wascally Wabbit,
Puddy will trust CNN faster than the NY Slimes any day of the week. Here is your daily beat down fool!
Police: Shooting suspect offended by anti-abortion material
SMACK “Authorities say the suspect, Harlan James Drake, was offended by anti-abortion material that the activist had displayed across from the school all week.” SMACK
SMACK “According to Sara Edwards of the county prosecutor’s office, authorities do not believe that Drake knew Pouillon.”SMACK
Just like your attempt at Stafford County SMACK
See ya dumb bunny! SMACK
Moron@46,
“Sick Fuck”? Just employing leftist terminology!
Sucks to be you Sucka!
@95 I said what I have to say about abortion. You asswipes wanted to talk about morality, so I did. Apologists for warmongers and torturers shouldn’t preach about morality unless they’re prepared to get their hypocrisy rubbed in their faces.
Our complaint that Republicans only care about human life before its born is firmly grounded in the ugly reality of their behavior.
@98 He’s only trying to help you, pudpuller. He gave you some good advice: Unfuck yourself. While you’re at it, pull your head out of your ass, too.
If she opposes infantcide then I am even prouder to support her.
Taking RHP6033 argument @ 38 to its logical fallacy:
The case at 102 should read [“Brown v. Board of education”] not Plessy, which was a Supreme court decision in 1896 upholding segregation. The point remains the same.
As numbers suggest, Americans (espectially the younger generation) are turning against the abomination that is abortion. It will be the great civil rights plight of our time, much as we look back in horror at slavery. “How can people have continued to supported that?” they’ll ask.
@101
Might be true for you and some others, but that wouldn’t be considered a winning electoral strategy with King County voters.
This is why Susan is trying to have it both ways on this issue or dodge it entirely.
I have no doubt that Susan is likely personally opposed to abortion.
The question is how do her personal beliefs intersect with King County providing various reproductive health services? She says she won’t interfere but given her lack of a track record it is mostly an empty promise.
lostinhisownasshole has obviously been studying at the pudddybudd stupid school for extra-stupid stupids.
Congrats! You’re getting your money’s worth.
Seriously, Rujax, try to learn the English language before writing in it. Here’s some of the basics beyond the 3rd grade.
1) Wit is actually funny, not just some morons’ attempt at adolescent obscenity. It can contain obscenity, but usually that’s the last gasp of the unfunny.
2) The same unhumorous joke repeated is still not funny.
3) Try advancing past ‘I see Sam’ to a chapter book, little Rujax. You might be surprised at the flexibility of words containing more than one syllable.
Good luck little boy in your continuing education, and in graduating elementary school!
I’ve just re-read all the postings.
Two observations:
1. Too much name calling. (Did they teach that in debate club or law school?)
2. I’m glad I don’t live in King Co.
lostinhisownasshole is still lostinhisownasshole.
rujax is gmans biznatch……
104
Why isit that you and everyone else cannot call it what it is. Pre-birth infantcide. Taking an innocent life in not reproductive choice.
Proborts are the proponents of slavery back in the 20th century…pro choice. When it comes to human rights, there is no such thing as choice. It’s either morally right, or morally wrong.
Proborts are morally wrong, they’re just too ignorant of history to realize it.