... And the entire thought behind line-item legislation, then, would be to make sure that the executive branch only gets one bill at a time, so that he/she cannot veto the whole thing for the sake of one nitpicky clause. Yes, that would be them being involved. Opposite sides, same coin.
Are you actually telling me you beleive it's ok to abort a baby at any point? You're ok with late term abortion? Would you actually support legislation that would allow a child to be aborted while the mother was in labor? (for the sake of argument, let's assume the mother and child are both perfectly healthy) There is a point past which the kid can survive outside the womb -- when it is, in fact, a child. But that's never what's under discussion. I'm sure folks much wiser than me on this thread can detail the intricate dance of attempts to deny women counseling, first- and second-trimester abortion treatment, pre-natal care, etc., etc., etc. And, for the record, I am in favor of partial-birth abortions... but those are never used when the kid is "perfectly healthy", a fact which is always glossed over.
Gee, ya think maybe this is why I'm not a republican? Honestly, you could've fooled me. I recall one or two mentions that you consider yourself Libertarian, but it seems to me you take the Republican line quite a lot. Which is fine, your right and privilege. But you should realize what you sound like.
I happen to think you're wrong about the "each facet of the abortion issue handled on their separate merits" thing. One faction considers it to be a medical condition, which up to a certain point is the problem and responsibility of the mother alone. Another faction literally does consider it to be the murder of children. And you are not going to convince them otherwise. All you can do is decide, legislatively, if it is or if it isn't. If it isn't, it's gone. If it is, it's regulated, the same way other medical procedures are regulated. Except that's not what we've got. Pandering and posturing and playing both sides against each other for political gain have got us the current hodgepodge of not-compromises and vague wordings and by-state craziness and that, along with parental consent (a part of the whole mess), is certainly beyond the scope of this thread.
On the page count of the PATRIOT Act: We both were wrong. Actual page count is 342. I should've looked that up. On the other hand, it was ramrodded through Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act) out of naked fear and political expediency, and they fucking well should've bothered to read the damn thing. I want my Congress to read the goddamn laws they vote on, and debate them properly, and take the time to hammer out details, and write laws one at a time, and I told you we agree on that, just coming at it from different directions.
If a person slaps a statue-cleaning amendment onto the puppy-kicking ban, that makes it a badly written law. Is that so tricky to understand? I'm all too familiar with the back-scratching etc. in Congress, and I hate it, because it leads to shit like this. Ted Stevens' bridge to nowhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge) is a perfectly good example; the only reason for its construction would've been so that he could say how much government money he'd brought to Alaska.
And, is the pill legal? If so, we tell him to do his job. (And please don't bring Brave New World into this, either.)
Re: You Wanna Play Snark? I Can Play Snark
...
... And the entire thought behind line-item legislation, then, would be to make sure that the executive branch only gets one bill at a time, so that he/she cannot veto the whole thing for the sake of one nitpicky clause. Yes, that would be them being involved. Opposite sides, same coin.
Are you actually telling me you beleive it's ok to abort a baby at any point? You're ok with late term abortion? Would you actually support legislation that would allow a child to be aborted while the mother was in labor? (for the sake of argument, let's assume the mother and child are both perfectly healthy)
There is a point past which the kid can survive outside the womb -- when it is, in fact, a child. But that's never what's under discussion. I'm sure folks much wiser than me on this thread can detail the intricate dance of attempts to deny women counseling, first- and second-trimester abortion treatment, pre-natal care, etc., etc., etc. And, for the record, I am in favor of partial-birth abortions... but those are never used when the kid is "perfectly healthy", a fact which is always glossed over.
Gee, ya think maybe this is why I'm not a republican?
Honestly, you could've fooled me. I recall one or two mentions that you consider yourself Libertarian, but it seems to me you take the Republican line quite a lot. Which is fine, your right and privilege. But you should realize what you sound like.
I happen to think you're wrong about the "each facet of the abortion issue handled on their separate merits" thing. One faction considers it to be a medical condition, which up to a certain point is the problem and responsibility of the mother alone. Another faction literally does consider it to be the murder of children. And you are not going to convince them otherwise. All you can do is decide, legislatively, if it is or if it isn't. If it isn't, it's gone. If it is, it's regulated, the same way other medical procedures are regulated. Except that's not what we've got. Pandering and posturing and playing both sides against each other for political gain have got us the current hodgepodge of not-compromises and vague wordings and by-state craziness and that, along with parental consent (a part of the whole mess), is certainly beyond the scope of this thread.
On the page count of the PATRIOT Act: We both were wrong. Actual page count is 342. I should've looked that up. On the other hand, it was ramrodded through Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act) out of naked fear and political expediency, and they fucking well should've bothered to read the damn thing. I want my Congress to read the goddamn laws they vote on, and debate them properly, and take the time to hammer out details, and write laws one at a time, and I told you we agree on that, just coming at it from different directions.
If a person slaps a statue-cleaning amendment onto the puppy-kicking ban, that makes it a badly written law. Is that so tricky to understand? I'm all too familiar with the back-scratching etc. in Congress, and I hate it, because it leads to shit like this. Ted Stevens' bridge to nowhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge) is a perfectly good example; the only reason for its construction would've been so that he could say how much government money he'd brought to Alaska.
And, is the pill legal? If so, we tell him to do his job. (And please don't bring Brave New World into this, either.)