So we've regressed back to 1971 right along with the Regressives

[linazelle]

...and the battle hasn't even begun.


Iraq took us back 15 years.

There was that guy from Iran two weeks ago from 1975 who threatened to take us back 30 years?

And now, we're on the way back to 1971 and Roe v. Wade?


Pretty soon we will be back in the '60's arguing civil rights. Then it's on to the women's suffrage movement. Slavery can't be far behind because obviously, there's nothing important happening in the new millenium.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Yes. And, we shouldn't resist, because it's not "realistic" politics.

We should just accept the inevitable without a whimper and hope the Republicans will like us if we go along.

[Guaranteed]

7. Here is where we understand each other.

We've disagreed so much, but, here- we are entirely agreed.

[linazelle]

22. ????

[Guaranteed]

26. I was agreeing with the idea behind the sarcasm. nt

[Erika]

2. The bad things are our increasing poor and uninsured

I imagine Roberts will rule them as detrimental to society and arrange for them to work for Wal-mart and housed on cots in the stock rooms.

[linazelle]

14. Of course, that's new news, nobody wants to hear THAT.

What's wrong with you? :crazy:

[efhmc]

3. You are VERY wrong about 1971. That was a year

of great forward movement for women and other minorities. That was a year of hope and striving for a new and better America. If you went back to 1971, you would be going back to a forward pushing movement, as opposed to being in 2005 where you are in a backward pushing movement.

[kevsand]

6. Plus, I could relive my senior year in high school.

Hell, maybe even live my life right this time, without so many mistakes...

[linazelle]

12. I take it that's a vote for Regressives? DU is a progressive forum...

or at least it's supposed to be.

[kevsand]

15. It's not a vote for anything.

It was just a smartass remark, and was the first thing that popped into my head after seeing efhmc actually agree with you and still miss the whole point of your post at the same time. Neat trick, that.

[linazelle]

18. It could have been taken several ways. I'm sorry I took it the wrong way

but you could have given a clue that you were being sarcastic.

[kevsand]

20. But I wasn't being sarcastic,

at least not entirely. Haven't you ever thought about what it would be like if you could go back and do it over? I guess I was being more frivolous than sarcastic. On the other hand, this is probably more time than it deserved. No harm, no foul.

[linazelle]

8. The point is not whether it was a good or bad time...it's that

we are not moving forward but backwards along with the Regressives.

[ultraist]

17. YEP! And two years later, in 1973, ROE was ruled on

Abortion was legalized, nationwide; a women's RIGHT TO PRIVACY, that included HER BODY, was estabished by that ruling, thanks to the FEMINIST MOVEMENT that had been working, relentlessly, for women's rights in the previous years.

[linazelle]

21. This thread is about the continuing pattern of regressivism

that is the hallmark of the Regressive party--not nostalgia.

[ugarte]

4. Back to the Fifties

Stay-at-home moms, Father Knows Best, everybody's white. John G. Roberts' America.

[seabeyond]

5. this is what happened with a vote to bush

right here. would be cool if people would put the ownership on the people that created this. like those that didnt vote, or voted for other party, or those that voted for bush, or go figure,.....bush himself. but i am seeing it mostly is being pointed at other people on this board or the dems in minority. wtf

[Guaranteed]

10. WTF. wtf? Bush's election wasn't the end.

You still have the opportunity to fight, yet you want to give it up and start pointing fingers?

[seabeyond]

13. it is not a matter of give up. it is a matter of this is what happens

a president gets to pick sc justice. this is what they ran on. they are not going to pick a liberal pro choice pro enviroment pro civil right justice. are you really suggesting to me if we fight this, we will get what we want. are you suggesting

if we fight this
we will get a pro choice, pro civil right justice

because i say, no way, no matter the fight, the repugs are not going to give us this. i give up? not in my book dude. i am just not batty

[kevsand]

19. The president doesn't get to pick,

he gets to nominate, and then the Senate gets to approve or disapprove. In the course of that, we get to paint them once and for all as out of touch with the majority. And maybe, just maybe, force them into a stalemate until they start going to jail, and we take Congress back in 2006.

[Tweed]

9. That's an amazingly simple analysis

I fail to see how we are back to 1971. For crying out loud, the Senate hasn't even met to discuss Roberts LET ALONE have Roberts hear a case that deals with abortion!

[linazelle]

11. All the discussion about Roev.Wade is nothing if not regressive.nt

[WeirdOne]

23. Absolutely correct

Both sides continuously fighting a battle that was won over 30 years ago is most definitely regressive. Reminds me of those Civil War reenactors.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Soon the reenactors will be replaced with real bullets

that is what they are pressing towards... mark these words

[newyawker99]

27. Hi WeirdOne!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Rich Hunt]

16. oh well

....at least Americans will finally learn some history.

:(

[linazelle]

24. I doan theeen so. It's being rewritten by the backwards-thinking

people in power.

[GeekMonkey]

28. Bush thinks Roe vs Wade is just a debate about

how to cross a stream.