Who here is so deadset against certain dem that they'll be ok sacrificing the US Supreme Court.

[LynneSin]

Because that's what is at stake in 2008.

I don't care who you vote for in the primaries for all of them are on the side of choice. I'm talking about the general election.

Sure, it's been a rallying crying for probably the past 20 years but right now the Supreme Court has 4 guaranteed right-wing votes (Thomas, Scalia, Roberts & Alito), 4 guaranteed left-wing votes (Ginsberg, Souter, Brenner & Stevens) and one person that sways back & forth (kennedy).

Back in 1973 women were finally given the rights to make decisions for themselves when RoeVWade was passed. It's now 34 years later (or as I call it - my reproductive lifetime) - are you ok with giving future generations of women no choice in what happens to their body? Because even the most moderate of republican candidates (Guiliani) are sucking up to the uber right-wing nutjobs and xtian fundies. This doesn't give me much hope that our right to choose will be safe even under a Guiliani White House.

And RoeVWade is probably one of the most vocal decisions that could be overturned if the wrong person gets in the white house. What about other personal rights & liberties? What else could be overturned or changed if we have a 5-4 favor for republicans?

Never more than now are we on the bring of going back to the age of rogue men with coat hangers in back alleys. And no matter what the abortion laws are on book, these are laws that will never ever affect the wealthy - disgraced daughters can simply be flown overseas to take care of unwanted 'lil mistakes'. RoeVWade is a law that gives ALL people access regardless of their economic status.

So tell me, who here is ok with giving away our Supreme Court in order to not vote for the ultimate democratic nomination?

[Midlodemocrat]

1. A whole lot of people apparently, but I'm not one of them. I will vote

for the dem in the GE regardless of who it is. SCOTUS is WAY too important.

[LostinVA]

4. Why do you hate poor people?

[Midlodemocrat]

8. sniffa? Is that you?

[LostinVA]

21. Nope -- I'm LeftyMom

[LeftyMom]

54. Dude, does that mean I'm married to haruka now?

I feel like I fell asleep and woke up in flvegan's subconscious.

[Midlodemocrat]

57. He is one happy dude right about now, that's for sure.

:rofl:

[LeftyMom]

63. jesus, when he reads that he'll black out from the sudden drop in BP.

Poor guy.

[LostinVA]

65. I don't know -- I've been very confused the last few days

It all started when I made soup, then halfway through dinner, Haruka goes, "Hahahaha -- you're eating vegan soup. You should tell LeftyMom."

[LeftyMom]

75. We were wondering how you guys were doing last night, oddly enough.

I had to explain to my son (again) yesterday that I didn't get married, that you guys did. He's a bit confused about the whole thing. :rofl:

That's awesome about the soup. :)

[LostinVA]

81. "Wait, Mommy's a lesbian?"

Anyway, here's the recipe for the soup. It originally called for chicken broth, but there's no sneaking that past the woman, so we used vegetable broth.

6 large sweet potatoes
1 large chopped cooking onion
1 T EVOO
1/2 head roasted garlic (but we used more)
6 cups vegetable broth
1 or 2 cups of water

Preheat oven to 350F. Slice potatoes in half lengthwise. Rub cut surfaces with EVOO and place cut side down on baking sheet. On same baking sheet, place whole garlic and drizzle with more EVOO. Bake uncovered in center of oven until sweet potatoes are soft, about 45 minutes.

Meanwhile, heat EVOO in a saute pan. Add chopped onion and saute until clear and soft. Place in food processor. Remove potato pulp from sweet potatoes and place in food processor. Squeeze roasted garlic into food processor. Run food processor until smooth puree forms. Place puree into large sauce pan. Add broth and water until desired consistency. Cook on medium until heated through.

We actually let it cook down for about half an hour, and Haruka made toast points with stale Italian bread and EVOO.

[LeftyMom]

82. That sounds really good.

flvegan, that means THE SOUP, NOT CATCHING THE GAY. Mind out of the gutter.

[LostinVA]

85. It was really good

It's really filling, too. It was enough that we got two days of dinners out of it and a lunch (for me).

[dapper]

149. Amazing....

I'm not sure who you were talking to LeftyMom but all I see is "IGNORE".

Who ever it was must have had a lot to say and it continues throughout this thread :-)

I love the Ignore function

Dap

[LostinVA]

2. I am

Just kidding, sissie.

:pals:

[Midlodemocrat]

3. You're silly.

[LostinVA]

7. Nice post, Agent Franzia

[SteppingRazor]

5. I think any of our primary candidates would make a great president...

some would just make a greater president than others. :P

In any case, I'll vote for whichever one gets the nod.

[Midlodemocrat]

12. My puppy would make a greater president than any of the Repubs running.

Except she poops in the sunroom. That could get problematic at state dinners.

[SteppingRazor]

15. Who's to say none of the GOP nominees would do the same?

:evilgrin:

[Midlodemocrat]

19. You know. That's a good point. At least the puppy uses the wee wee pad.

Sometimes. :evilgrin:

[MuseRider]

16. Nah

*snort* Everyone is used to that by now. :)

[LynneSin]

18. I killed a spider yesterday - that dead spider would be a better choice than republicans

:D

[Midlodemocrat]

24. And far less creepy.

[LostinVA]

25. You didn't pick it up by hand and calmly carry it away, while talking about Fiddler Crabs?

[LynneSin]

39. I felt bad I killed it - I thought it was a roach

I kill roaches.

I gave the spider a lovely funeral - burial at sea, so to speak

[LostinVA]

68. A toilet in Delaware is not the sea

[superkia]

157. You are right and we should focus on choosing the best one...

not on whether or not everyone will support CERTAIN ones. I see too much energy wasted on whether or not we are democrats if we would support a candidate that hasn't even been picked yet, we should focus this energy on getting it right so that we KNOW everyone will support our candidate, its the win, win situation for the country. Why do so many insist on the situation that could be win or lose? Lets stop playing the its my candidate or else shit and get it right, our country needs us to do the right thing this time.

[terrya]

6. Someone here posted that 3 Justices may retire soon.

Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. Along with Breyer, those are basically the only friends we have on the Supreme Court right now.

Does it need to be repeatedly said over and over? There are very, very serious repercussions for us if a Republican wins the White House in 2008.

[wuushew]

9. Who says any of them will die or retire?

They say 90 is the new 80.

[terrya]

13. Justice Stevens is 85.

FYI.

[wuushew]

20. See he, wouldn't even be 90 by 2012

he just needs to last another four years.

[Midlodemocrat]

58. Maybe we could learn how to stop time!!!!! That way,

he could stay on the court forever!!!!

:woohoo:

[LostinVA]

91. And I know just the man to help

He has this really cool DeLorean.

[More Than A Feeling]

10. Then the party probably shouldn't nominate a candidate that would inspire such a response.

[Midlodemocrat]

17. DU isn't the real world. And, in the real world, HRC has a lot of support.

I haven't decided who I will vote for yet, but it's undeniable that she is very popular in certain areas, (New York City) and others.

It could be that she is a woman. It could be that people are longing for the 'Big Dog' Years, but you can't deny that she is popular with a pretty big section of democratic voters.

[More Than A Feeling]

If that's true, then the Supreme Court is safe, and there is no need

to try to preemptively shift blame for losing the court from the people who would nominate Hillary to the people who won't vote for her, right?

But people who bring up the court seem to think that the anti-Hillary contigent DOES have the power to deny her election. So if that's the case, aren't they being obtuse and irrational in wanting to nominate her anyway, in spite of that risk?

[Midlodemocrat]

46. I think the point trying to be made here is that

Bush wouldn't have been able to steal the election in 2000 if not for Nader. So, it DOES matter who we vote for in the GE. If we are truly democratic voters, we need to vote for the democratic candidate, regardless of who it is.

[More Than A Feeling]

56. And I'm saying its the responsibility of the party to nominate a candidate

that can attract as many votes as possible.

It is not the responsibility of voters to swear loyalty oaths. Their vote belongs to them, not the party. It's the party's job to win that vote, and if the party fails, blaming the voter for what happens next isn't right. It just sends the message that if the voters won't let the party take them for granted, its the voter's own fault. That's a formula for unaccountability and lack of representation. Is that the kind of party we want?

[unpossibles]

98. of course it is

but it's also our responsiblity as voters to make good decisions.

To use an analogy, if someone said "eat this dog turd or kill someone" I would eat the dog turd, which is something I normally would not do.

[More Than A Feeling]

99. No, the better analogy is if someone said "eat this dog turd, or I kill someone"

If you refuse, who is responsible for the killing? Isn't it ultimately the person who put you in that situation in the first place? If they then put all the responsibility on you, wouldn't you call them a liar and a murderer?

[unpossibles]

103. well, except that the Constitution says

"We The People" are the ones with the power, not the Party.

While I am not into loyalty oaths (frankly, I am and have always been an independent for this reason), I also steadfastly refuse to let the Republicans win again.

[Stinky The Clown]

138. The party doesn't nominate the candidate, the voters do.

Id 'the party' wanted to nominate Mario Cuomo (who would thrill me if he were nomintaed) it won't fly unless he wins primaries.

If HRC wins the primaries, that's because she got the most votes. "The Party" didn't cause her to win.

((google: civics 101)

[More Than A Feeling]

144. Perhaps I'm not being clear.

If the majority of the voters of the party nominates a candidate who goes on to lose because the minority of the party won't accept that candidate, and the majority knows that the candidate is that unacceptable ahead of time, then if the majority wants to win the election, they will select a different candidate, otherwise they are being obtuse and irrational.

Is that clear enough, or do I have to patronize you by recommending an insulting google search?

[Stinky The Clown]

150. You logic seems a bit off kilter

How can the majority of the party elect a person the majority of the party rejects? :shrug:

If you say this because the majority of the party doesn't vote and it is the majority of the minority that DOES vote, then I say "tough shit" ..... or ...... you get what you get when you're uninvolved ....... or ..... they know who's running and are okay with the front runner.

Sorry, but that's called small-d 'democracy'. I find no need to suggest another google search.

[More Than A Feeling]

153. Read it again.

I said "minority of the party rejects" so you don't have to act like I'm playing language games. The majority is indeed hostage to the minority if the minority, in truth, does have the power and the will to scuttle the nominee in the general. People who want Hillary, and people pushing unity loyalty oaths, clearly are afraid that if Hillary does get the nomination, the anti-Hillary contigent, who would be a minority in that scenario, does have the power to throw the election by staying home or voting third party.

Is that democratic? Yes, actually, because they are making their own choice rather than allowing themselves to be taken for granted by a nominee who they feel would not represent them.

[HughBeaumont]

173. DAMN I wish I could nominate a post.

I get the same thing from the "loyalty oathers" when I mention this. Believe me.

[CT_Progressive]

106. "The Party" ? Um, *WE* are the party, The nominee will be who WE choose.

Stop referring to "them". There is no "them". Its *US*.

[More Than A Feeling]

114. In that case, Dennis Kucinich will be the nominee.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3649440&mesg_id=3649440

[Stinky The Clown]

155. Wow. 36% of a thousand and 45 people choose Kooch.

How significant. How overwhelming.

How unrepresentative of reality.

For what its worth, my favorite in the race right now is ...... Kucinich.

[HughBeaumont]

172. Possibly the most rational and sensible post of the day.

And yet it's met with derision.

Classic.

I mean, hey, what's wrong with nominating someone who you KNOW is going to divide the left and the center and bring every backwoods, hellfahr 'n' brimstone rapture nutcase out from under their porch steps in droves for the sole purpose of "stickin' it to them anti-Murkin commeh Clintons once and fer all!!!!" besides, I don't know, EVERYTHING?!?!?!?!?

[Catherine Vincent]

11. There's one group that probably won't answer you.

And I think you know which group I'm talking about.

[Buzz Clik]

26. The Silent Majority? The Carthusian Monks?

People living in a vacuum?

[More Than A Feeling]

67. .

:rofl:

[Buzz Clik]

14. It will be interesting to see how this goes.

A lot of DUers have been making a whole lot of noise ("My candidate ONLY").

I, for one, am not willing to have a petulant fit and rubber stamp another 8 years for the GOP.

[Tesha]

28. Almost no one says "my candidate only".

> A lot of DUers have been making a whole lot of noise
> ("My candidate ONLY").

Almost no one says "my candidate only". In fact, I can't
think of anyone.

A lot of us, though, say, essentially, "any Democrat
*BUT* Clinton".

It's a rather important distinction that your reply
distorts.

Tesha

[Buzz Clik]

43. Here are two threads that I've read with that attitude:

It's a rather important distinction that your reply distorts.

Just because you aren't aware of these people does not mean they don't exist. Here's the result of a 30 second search for threads I've read:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2171405
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3658431

I read about only 10% of the DU titles, and I read only about 10% of those threads. I'm guessing there are at least 10 to 100 times that many out there that declare 3 or more of the candidates as so totally unacceptable that they would never support them.

[Tesha]

123. I'm not so sure.

"Unwilling to settle" doesn't really seem to make it
clear whether they mean in the primary only or in the
general election as well.

Nor does "Heads up to all" make a clear statement.

I think you're reading these the way you want to
read them.

Tesha

[LynneSin]

35. I'd rather spend 8 years really really really pissed off at a democrat president

than being really really really pissed off at a republican president who will also put shit on our Supreme Court

[Buzz Clik]

44. ... another 8 years....

[LynneSin]

51. I could clone myself and get elected president and I'd probably still be pissed at me

That's the nature of politics

[blondeatlast]

129. It'll keep this place pretty lively, too. I'm with you--I'll bitch and moan and whine

and resent those that campaigned for the primary winner, no doubt, since I am way undecided, but I'll be voting single issue for the first time ever: SCOTUS.

[Tesha]

22. What a bogus question!

Bad Supreme Court nominees are well within the power of
a Democratic Senate majority to block. In fact, even a
motivated minority of 40 could do this.

But they haven't have they?

If the Supreme Court were such a big deal, why did our
Democrats keep all that powder dry instead of helping
to secure the Supreme Court for us?

Tesha

[hedgehog]

72. Tesha - you beat me to it! Enough of the rubberstamping already!

[Bake]

113. There's a difference between confirming good nominees

And blocking bad ones. ALL you will get from a Puke Prez are BAD nominees. So you block them. Or some of them. Nothing changes, except you've got some vacancies on the Court.

With a DEM Prez -- ANY DEM PREZ -- you get GOOD nominees in the first place. Let the Pukes try to block them.

Bake

[Tesha]

124. I no longer believe that.

> With a DEM Prez -- ANY DEM PREZ -- you get GOOD
> nominees in the first place.

I no longer believe that.


> Let the Pukes try to block them.

Strangely enough, *UNLIKE THE DEMOCRATS*,
they *DO* manage to block Democratic nominees.

Tesha

[Bake]

143. If 2008 is a tidal wave, the Pukes won't be blocking ANYTHING.

And then you'll see one hell of a difference.

I notice your avatar says "Smart Women Vote Democratic." And yet you seem to be saying there's no difference between the front-running Dem candidate and the Pukes. Doesn't that seem contradictory to you? It certainly does for me.

I'm shocked that any Dem would be willing to sacrifice the Supreme Court FOR AN ENTIRE GENERATION. Yet, you seem perfectly willing to do so.

If you can't see what's at stake with SCOTUS, then neither I nor anyone else here can help you. But you can be smug in your ideological purity.

Bake

[Tesha]

163. There are short-term tactics and long-term strategies

> I notice your avatar says "Smart Women Vote Democratic." And
> yet you seem to be saying there's no difference between the
> front-running Dem candidate and the Pukes. Doesn't that seem
> contradictory to you? It certainly does for me.

There are short-term tactics and long-term strategies
Voting for any asshole running as a "D" may seem like
a satisfying short-term tactic, but as a long-term
strategy it's deadly for our party.

It's precisely because we've tended to vote for any
asshole running as a D that our party has become so
littered with Right-Wing assholes, and that no one
can describe any longer what it is that Democrats
stand for. Because we don't stand united for *ANYTHING*
any more. Women's rights? Well, some Democrats are for
that and some are against that. Gay rights? Well, DOMA
to you! Civil rights? Some people are just too uppity.
War? Gotta support the President in a time of war?
Impeachment for obvious high crimes and felonies,
don't make me laugh about "misdemeanors"? Off the
table!

I'm willing to sacrifice short-term gains for longer term
decisive victories. And if that means rdding us of DLC
and Republican-Lite types via an electionloss, I'm
willing to do it. (And it should have been done long
and long ago, when it first became obvious that this
infection of Republican-wannabes was ruining our party.
(1992 might have been a good time to start.)

Tesha

[KitchenWitch]

23. Excellent post, Lynnesin - SCOTUS is exactly what is at stake here!

:yourock:

[Tesha]

31. SCOTUS is already lost. It was lost with Alito and Roberts.

But at least the powder's still dry!

Tesha

[LynneSin]

40. WRONG

Alito replaced Rehnquist who was already on the same team.

O'Conners hurt us but remember O'Conners also helped put Bush into the White House. She just also happen to support RoeVWade.

So in RoeVWade count we're 5-4

[Tesha]

122. Even though you used CAPS, neither you nor I know...

> So in RoeVWade count we're 5-4

Even though you used CAPS, neither you nor I know
how the next anti-abortion case will be decided.
But for most purposes, the Court now has an effective
five member conservative (white, male, Catholic)
majority.

Tesha

[2 Much Tribulation]

27. Supreme Court is already gone past point any one president to recover.

that being said, I dunno about the "sacrificing" dems part. Haven't been thinking about that.

[LynneSin]

36. I don't understand - there is a clear cut 4-4-1 right now on the court

Kennedy votes with the progressives on choice but can also end up with the conservatives on other issues.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

29. If talk is cheap

Then talk on an anonymous message board is bargain basement cheap.

In other words, I doubt that most of the posters making that claim really mean what they're saying.

[The Wielding Truth]

30. An amazingly glaring point. I will vote for democracy.

Although I will continue to support the best person running the job, Kucinich, of course, unless Al Gore steps in.

[FreedomRain]

32. The Supreme Court has always been my top issue

Seems most of the election talk is over issues that only (or mostly)the Congress can have effect on. SCOTUS noms are where the pres can really impact the country.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

33. Oh, hell no!

Not me!!!

[Touchdown]

34. When you're gay and don't belong anyhow...

...it makes not a whit of difference who is in the SCOTUS. Sorry to hear that you believe women's rights may go away, but gay people never had it, and I'm tired of supporting others rights and not getting any support back.

So many pink ribbons on this thread. Not one red ribbon (the original ribbon that all others aped).

Obama is dead to me. Want me on your side? Don't nominate him.

[Midlodemocrat]

37. Psst.

Pretty sure she's not talking about Obama.

[Touchdown]

69. Sure about that? Her OP was pretty broad.

If this is about a certain candidate, then her plea is quite disingenuous.

[LynneSin]

45. So then I guess you don't care about this Texas Sodomy Ruling being overturned then

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law

Ruling establishes new legal ground in privacy, experts say
Tuesday, November 18, 2003 Posted: 11:00 AM EST (1600 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a Texas state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex in a decision gay rights groups hailed as historic.

The 6-3 decision by the court reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

Legal analysts said the ruling enshrines for the first time a broad constitutional right to sexual privacy, and its impact would reach beyond Texas and 12 other states with similar sodomy laws applied against the gay and lesbian community, and into mainstream America.

Here's your vote:

Six who overturned the Sodomy Laws:
Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburgh, Breyer, O'Conners

Those who wanted to uphold the laws - wanting to peak into your bedrooms and see what 'naughty' things you are doing:
Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist.

Now let's do some math:
For our side we no longer have O'Conners - replaced by Roberts who will clearly vote with their team.

So right now - if someone brought a similar case like this back to the Supreme Court we're sitting 5-4.

We lose one person on our team and homosexuals could be tossed in jail for doing what is part of a normal relationship.

Yeah, you're right - gays aren't affected at all by the Supreme Court :eyes:

[Touchdown]

66. Of course I do. Can I join the Navy now?

How about buy a house with my lover? Marry him? Adopt a child with him? No, I guess it's just no "politically expedient" to do that just yet. Just tell me to wait a little longer. I'm used to that now.

Also, don't patronize me with your rolling eyes. You OP had no mention of striking down sodomy laws, only about reproductive choice. Don't you dare pull this issue out of you ass as if you truly care about us. I can see right through it.

So then, I should just embrace and love Obama as he stabs me in the back, because Guliani would stack the SCOTUS, even though he has a much better track record of being supportive of gay people. Help me put any of the other Dems in, and I'll be on your side. Obama? Side with that guy without me. If it's any consolation, Guliani won't get my vote either. I'll just skip the Prez section.

Interesting that you bring up the Sodomy ruling, because that very law was upheld in the 1980's with Bowers vs. Hardwick...and that's when liberals had a much stronger position in the SCOTUS.

[LostinVA]

74. Lynne is one of the LAST people to tell you to wait longer for your rights

Jesus, she attended my GAY wedding in September.

And she does not support Obama. I don't have any clue where you got that from.

[LynneSin]

80. Thank you sissy!!

The Texas Sodomy ruling was just a great step in the right direction. We have states like Massachusetts and New Jersey (woohoo sissy) who have opened their eyes to the reality that there are people out there who are great citizens, in loving relationships who want the same rights as everyone else. You give the supreme court to the right and I highly doubt those laws in MA and NJ are going to last much longer.

Just because Rosa Parks refused to sit at the back of the bus didn't mean that Civil Rights occured Immediately. It takes years, sometimes decades to fight the system. Electing a republican and giving them the supreme court could set us back decades. Let's not let this happen

[Touchdown]

93. Her OP mentioned no candidate.

It was only a scolding on party loyalty.

If her OP was about a certain specific candidate, then she's being disingenuous in the OP, and should have called out whoever it is that won't vote for her preferred candidate.

If she's not for Obama, then I'm knocking on doors with her and buying her lunch...as long as none of the others pulls the same shit he did.

[LynneSin]

108. I use to think I'd support Obama but yeah, he's on my shit list now

but if he gets the nomination (and after this mess - I doubt he will) then I will vote for him in the primaries.

You can be a candidate of faith and still be supportive of all types of people regardless of faith

[Der Blaue Engel]

61. You are so wrong

Republican-appointed judges will seriously affect you. It can get MUCH worse.

I'm sorry you don't care about anyone else's rights, but for gods' sakes, wake up and realize what is at stake here for YOU.

I believe in EVERYONE'S civil rights, and I know that the Democratic nominee, even if it Barak Obama, who I am NOT voting for in the primary, will be better for EVERYONE than any Republican.

P.S., There are pink ribbons here because October was breast cancer awareness month, and a DUer's wife just died as a result of breast cancer, which touched many of us. And in case you weren't aware, lesbians and bi women (and even gay men) can get breast cancer. In fact, there have been studies saying lesbians may be more likely than their straight counterparts to be at risk. Many lesbians and bi women have stood by the gay male community during the worst of the AIDS crisis, cared for our dying friends, walked, biked, and danced to raise money for AIDS research, and participated in civil disobedience to bring attention to the cause. I sat and watched my friend struggle for his last breaths, knowing there was fucking nothing I could do. I went to the funeral and endured the nasty comments of the minister about my friend's "lifestyle." And when people dare to suggest that because I care about breast cancer (which killed my mother), I don't care about other diseases, you not only insult me, but you wound me and everyone who has ever been touched by either disease.

[Touchdown]

86. Don't put words in my mouth.

I do care very much about women's autonomy over their own lives and bodies. I care about a lot of things that have nothing to do with GLBT rights, especially breast cancer (which has been affecting my cousin for 6 years now). Don't presume that I don't care about things when I say nothing disparaging about them.

BUT!!!!

If I'm supposed to put my interests on the back burner just one more election "because this one is really important" as in all other elections, then it gets really old. Ask your LB friends if they should embrace a bigot panderer just for "one more election", and see what answer you get. Don't sugar coat it either. That's exactly what Barak is! Remember when NJ passed Civil Unions? We were going to lose the 2006 election because of that, and 3/4 of DU were scoding glbt people that it was to be all our fault. So, excuse my ultra-sensitivity on being lectured about party loyalty, principals be damned. I am tired of being sacrificed on the altar of political expediency every election.

[LostinVA]

89. Lynne doesn't support Obama

And she's not telling anyone to wait for their rights. There's plenty of people around here to be genuinely angry about, but Lynne is not one of them.

[Der Blaue Engel]

119. I'm not putting words in your mouth, these were your words:

"Sorry to hear that you believe women's rights may go away, but gay people never had it, and I'm tired of supporting others rights and not getting any support back."

You said you were tired of supporting "others" rights. I called you on it.

It's funny that you just automatically assume I'm not Family, btw. I don't have to ask my "LB friends" in order to form an opinion about my own life. This affects me directly, I just know better than to cut off my nose to spite my face. I'm not going to embrace Obama, and yes he is a panderer, but I will NOT let them have SCOTUS over this, so if he gets the nomination I will damn well vote for him.

[Touchdown]

126. Sorry on the Hetero assumption.

We all fall back at times on that.:blush:

However, Saying I'm tired of it, is not the same as not caring any more. I would just like a little reciprocation here. I don't believe that's too much to ask.

Barak's transgressions are a little more egregious with me than to characterize it as pandering. I guess I'm bent out of shape over him. I truly liked him before he pulled this shit. Betrayal! If he does get the nom, I don't know what I'll think then. Maybe he'll reconcile, maybe I'll get over it (I'm a guy, we forgive to easily) with time, and vote for him anyway.

And being L or B (I wish you'd tell me Sis), you should also remember Bowers vs. Hardwick. The first Sodomy challenge that went before the SCOTUS and held up...which was pre-Clarence Thomas, and a SCOTUS much less conservative than it was with the 2nd ruling that overturned Sodomy. No guarantees on liberalism where GLBT rights are concerned is all I'm saying.

[Der Blaue Engel]

140. No problem

I'm a B, by the way. :) Sometimes I use the term "bi dyke" because I feel dyke-oriented even though I'm currently partnered with a man.

I agree there are no guarantees, but I know it will always be worse under RW control, no matter what. Believe me, I'm very angry at the Obama/McClurkin situation, but I'm scared to death of how much worse it could get if we don't get the White House (and thereby SCOTUS) away from them.

[Gato Moteado]

70. so if obama is our candidate you'll vote for romney or giulliani or...

..whatever dried up fascist wins the repuke nomination?

sounds like a winning plan! :sarcasm:

[Touchdown]

90. No.

Are you dense on purpose, or are you auditioning for Big Brother 16?

There are ways to skip the Prez section entirely, even on DRE machines.

[Gato Moteado]

96. i must be dense because i don't know what big brother 16 is....

..and while i realize you can skip the vote for president, the point should be clear to you. the candidate with the less votes loses. while you might think you're making a statement by not voting for any presidential candidate, the fact is that if enough democrats do that then the other guy will end up winning the election.

so because you think obama slighted the gay community by saying something stupid, you're willing to concede the presidential race to a fundy-pandering, fascist goon like romney (or one of the other repukes) who'd like to see gay people herded and put into prison camps.

good strategy you got there.

[Touchdown]

100. Are you telling me Obama won't put me in a camp?

He embraced an ex-gay bigot who decared war on homosexuality. Clinton banned gay marriage and gave us don't ask, don't tell. Republicans? As much heartburn this next statement is going to make me get, Bush has done less legislative damage to gay people than Bill Clinton did. Bush just destroys everything else. He wanted that Amendment, but dropped that one pretty quick when he found out that Social Security would make him richer. So don't condescend to me that the Democrats are any saints when it concerns GLBT people.

We're thrown under the bus by both parties.

[LostinVA]

109. Repeat after me: Hillary is not Bill

[Touchdown]

117. Hillary is not Bill.

So now what?

[LostinVA]

118. Well, all the reasons you listed against Hillary were things Bill did

[Touchdown]

121. No Lost. It's about trust in the Party, not in Hillary.

I was citing examples of Democratic betrayals or "triangulation" or whatever lipstick it is of GLBT rights. Bill Clinton was a Democratic President. Sam Nunn, who forced Clinton's hand on gays in the military was a Democratic Senator. Barak Obama openly allowed a hatemonger to speak/Emcee for him at a concert. Obama is a Democrat.

I was retorting the other poster's idea that some Repug Prez would throw me in a Gulag, and that a Democrat wouldn't. He has no proof of that, or even a well reasoned summation that the likelihood would be less if Obama were President. None of the Repug Candidates spotlighted in their fundraiser events an avowed "ex-gay" hatemonger who declared a "war on gay people" on Pat Robertson's 700 Club, but a Democrat, Barak Obama, did.

I got some issues with Hillary, but I don't think she'll be like her husband where gay people are concerned. At least I've seen nothing yet.

EDIT: fractured sentences.:blush:

[Gato Moteado]

154. you're crazy if you think the repukes are better for the gay community

you're seriously crazy if you think that.

additionally you didn't tell me what big brother 16 is.

[Touchdown]

158. I didn't say that. Jeez the humidity down there must be harming your brain.

All I said was that the Democrats aren't much better. The Repugs just don't lie about how they feel about us. Kucinich is the only one who is fully for us, and I'm leaning toward him for my Caucus.

Big Brother is a BS reality game show on CBS. Watched it once, and that's all I needed to.

[Gato Moteado]

159. my brain was harmed long before i came down here

nt

[backscatter712]

38. I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary next November, but...

The only reason is because Giuliani, Romney and the other Republicans (with the exception of Ron Paul) are ten times worse than Hillary, even with her hiring of Blackwater Mark Penn, her equivocating and obfuscating around her votes for the war in Iraq, and so on.

Don't you think I'll like it though.

[LynneSin]

47. Ron Paul is very anti-choice

which makes him no better than the other candidates

[Midlodemocrat]

62. Yup.

:thumbsup: LynneSin.

[LynneSin]

83. Did you see all those deleted messagess

those were me.

I guess dumbass isn't allowed


:cry:

[LakeSamish706]

41. I'm glad that you prefaced your post with this....

"I don't care who you vote for in the primaries for all of them are on the side of choice. I'm talking about the general election."

Because that is really what is at issue on DU right now in my opinion. Who will best be suited to run as the Democratic GE candidate come next November. Some on DU are taking issue with their candidate being criticized, but I really think that now is the time to both criticize and question who is the best candidate.

[LynneSin]

49. My concern is when I see posts that take it beyond the primaries

there are people here already dead set against voting for certain democratic candidates - this message is for them and I can guarentee none of them will post in my thread

[magellan]

160. I'd like a return on that guarantee

Because I'm one of "them", and I left this place four months ago because of posts like yours. I'm supporting Kucinich in the primaries (if it even matters, I'm in FL), and will either write him in or not vote for Prez in the general election, I haven't decided which yet. But I won't vote Dem no matter what or who just because I'm afraid of the alternative. I am, but that kind of panicked thinking on BOTH sides has ruined the election process by sending up unsuitable pre-approved candidates, given us a Dem-controlled Congress with as much bite as the Repugs have morals, and sent our entire government to the right over the years. NO MORE. I won't settle again. People are abstaining and voting 3rd party for a REASON. They're tired of the bullshit, of being pandered to for votes and forgotten once elections are over, and so am I.

Here's my guarantee: you all will learn too late that what you're doing with the fear tactics and vote-herding is undermining what little control we have left over our government more surely than anything else. Why should either party bother themselves with who and what's best for the country when they know they can count on votes from people who are simply "afraid of the alternative"?

Bash away. I've heard it all before and the abuse doesn't move me anymore. Except to tell you you're dead wrong.

[lateo]

42. I'm not voting for any Dem who supports the wars.

And by wars I mean war on terror, war on drugs, war in Iraq. All of these "wars" need to end and we need a candidate who will push for an end to them.

[LakeSamish706]

48. And how are you going to get that concession out of a Republican President? n/t

[LynneSin]

50. Or out of an electorial system where 3rd Party candidates affect those on the same side of the

political spectrum?

[Milo_Bloom]

52. Why would I trust the compromisers with the Supreme Court???

Why would you expect me to put this decision in the hands of people like Edwards, Clinton, Biden or Dodd?

If we are going to get a conservative on the court, it might as well come from an actual conservative.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Milo_Bloom]

60. They voted for the war, The Bankrupcy bill, etc...

I ABSOLUTELY do not trust them on "choice" and will not even CONSIDER voting for any of them.

Putting one of them in office, gives us a corporate, compromise supreme court nominee who will likely wind up as conservative as souter has become liberal.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Milo_Bloom]

79. In some sense... YES.

I "trust" them in that I know exactly what I am getting and can prepare and fight against it.

When a dem sells out their principles as each and every one of the front running candidates has done, we become powerless because we are fighting against our own and, as such, we become "the fringe".

When half of the democrats vote for a war, those who argue against it, become the "lunatic fringe". When democrats vote for bills like Kly-Lieberman, we are going to have a very hard time stopping a war with Iran because our own party helped declare Iran's military a terrorist organization. When democrats line up to support a corporate funded bankrupcy bill meant to give more power to companies they prey on the weak, being against it becomes meaningless.

So yes, if "trust" is the only issue. I trust Ron Paul. I may not agree with 95% of what he says, but we can both predict EXACTLY what he will do. I don't trust Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards or Chris Dodd because they have proven over and over and over again what their stances on issue mean nothing and they will sell out the most basic principles for politics.

So the fact that they give lip service to being pro choice is cute, but I take it no more seriously than I take Edwards crocidle teared apology for his war vote or Clinton's many explanations for her IWR vote and vote on Kyl-Lieberman.

[cali]

77. Well, if you bothered to research who they

voted for and against, not only for the SC but the federal bench, you'd see that none of them will remotely nominate a conservative. If you're not capable of seeing that, your judgement is seriously off.

[Milo_Bloom]

94. So they will betray their other principles, but not this one?

And that is supposed to make me feel better?

Sorry, they have proven themselves untrustworthy and for that reason, I don't trust them to nominate to the supreme court.

[cali]

102. Aside from the war, and that's certainly a big one, what other

principles have they betrayed. Be specific please. They all have voting records on any number of issues, and by and large they all have consistently voted a liberal line.

[Milo_Bloom]

116. Bankrupcy Bill, Patriot Act, Homeland Security..

When the pressure is on, these people consistently folded up to that pressure and gave the president all the power he needed to continue to trample on civil liberties, conduct an idiotic war.

If you believe in civil liberties and the right of the people to free from illegal searches, you couldn't have voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 OR to RE-AUTHORIZE the Patriot Act in 2006. That time line was supposed to be a test.. and the act failed, miserably, but they voted to re-authorize it.

If you believe that the people need protection from predatory corporations, how can you vote for that bankrupcy bill? They just protected companies who knowningly get involved in risky loans. They OBVIOUSLY prize the money from the corporation and PROTECTING the corporation from the individual over the other way around.

How can you continue to authorize funding for a war that you supposedly believe is wrong? "Yeah, I know people are dying for no good reason, but I better keep funding them or else something bad might happen"

Even now they offered terrible "compromise" health care plans that don't address the actual problem... and that is the starting point of their negotiation. They have already given up on the basic principle of health care as a human right. I guess Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn't include being HEALTHY in their book.

At the moment, 'pro-choice' remains one of the few sacred cows left.. but how long before that one is slaughted along with the concepts of civil liberties, general welfare, war and life that once existed?


What amazes me is that people think they voted a "liberal" line... what the heck happened to the definition of liberal? It seems that in the new world, a liberal is someone who only wants to ignore SOME of your civil liberties can favor corporations over indidivudals on a regular basis, wants to give money to insurance companies and is okay with funding a war.

We have gotten so far away from any concept of liberal that if someone simply votes against a flag burning amendment, that vote is suddenly considered LIBERAL?!?!?!

Please.

[Lerkfish]

55. false dichotomy

you lay out only two choices:

vote for a dem or the republicans win.

when actually, all the following are possible:

vote democratic - democrats win
vote democratic - republicans win
don't vote -democrats win
don't vote- republicans win
don't vote -independents win
vote independent - democrats win
vote independent - republicans win
vote demcratic - independents win
vote republican - independents win
vote republican - democrats win
vote republican - republicans win

[LynneSin]

59. That's why electorial reform is so important

But that's what we're stuck with.

[Hosnon]

78. Whether something is merely possible is a very low threshold.

The OP is most likely speaking to probabilities and at the same time trying to influence them. If fewer people vote for the Democratic nominee, the chances of the Republican nominee increase (and, yes, so do the chances of an Independent candidate but the chance of such a candidate is still small). The OP's post is most effective against fence-sitters who see the potential damage to the Supreme Court as a greater risk than the potential damage of voting for someone they don't like but is a Democrat.

In American politics in 2007, whatever is possible is certainly not, for whatever reason, necessarily likely. Out of your list of 11 possible scenarios (which should include: vote independent - independents win) a third of them are extremely unlikely (i.e., independents win). That leaves 8 both possible and likely choices, all of which either result in a Democrat or a Republican victory.

I don't think the OP intended to set up a dichotomy of logical necessities, but one of probabilities. And if Americans don't vote for the Democratic nominee, the Republican nominee will likely win.

Edit: Style.

[LynneSin]

84. You know what's really sad

half the people won't even bother to vote

:cry:

Nice response!

[Hosnon]

97. I tell myself that people that tend not to vote tend to be Republicans.

:evilgrin:

Whether that is true I do not know...but it helps!

And I will be voting for the Democratic nominee. We have to get the country back on the right track and if that takes a moderate Democrat this time I am ok with that; I understand the practicalities involved. Once we get rid of Republican rule of the executive and solidify the Supreme Court as liberal, then we can push further...

Edit: Style.

[leftchick]

115. Oh I intend to vote all right

It just will not go to a right wing corporatist/AIPAC/DLC 'democrat' who will no doubt appoint a pro-business SC justice like alito and roberts anyway.

[yurbud]

71. the Hillary people are just desperate we skip the primary and get right to general election

so that we don't have any choice but vote for her.

[yurbud]

73. TRANSLATION: Hillary is inevitable. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated

[LynneSin]

76. Wowza - did you even see my sig-line

Hell, I've said enough times I'm not really keen on HRC as my nominee

Geez

[LeftyMom]

87. That's not even who she's voting for.

:eyes:

[antigop]

88. OK, I'll go through this yet again....

People whose lives have been adversely impacted by h1-b visas and outsourcing will not vote for a candidate who supports the very policies that destroyed their lives.

All they have left is their vote -- that's about it. And that vote won't go toward anyone who thinks outsourcing and h1-b visa increases are OK.

Besides, the Supreme Court is already lost. It has been takeover by the pro-corporate (anti-worker, anti-consumer) cabal:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042040.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily

With controversial rulings on abortion and campaign finance, the current U.S. Supreme Court has waded into some of the most explosive issues in American politics. Under the leadership of new Chief Justice John G. Roberts, the high court appears to be on the verge of rewriting vast tracts of settled Constitutional law. But there's another important emerging feature of the Roberts Court that has not drawn nearly as much attention: its sympathy to business.

<edit to add links>

http://www.forbes.com/business/2007/07/05/supreme-court-business-biz-cx_0706oxford.html?partner=rss
he U.S. Supreme Court has recently issued a series of business-friendly decisions, which will make it much more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in lawsuits against corporations.



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05legal.html

Court Nominee Has Paper Trail Businesses Like
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. has reliably favored big-business litigants as he has pushed the federal appeals court in Philadelphia in a conservative direction.

His extensive paper trail of 15 years of opinions reveals a jurist deeply skeptical of claims against large corporations. A review of dozens of business cases in which Judge Alito has written majority or dissenting opinions or cast the decisive vote shows that, with few exceptions, he has sided with employers over employees in discrimination lawsuits and in favor of corporations over investors in securities fraud cases.

[On the Road]

92. This is Very, Very Good in Keep in Mind

We now are close to the same type of court that were stuck in the Gilded Age and made it very difficult for FDR to implement his agenda. That alone is reason to prefer any Democratic candidate including those more neocon than Hillary.

[antigop]

95. Pro-corporate Dems can nominate pro-corporate judges. n/t

[LynneSin]

101. So I should just take a chance on the republicans to not do this

I swear some people are

[antigop]

104. No, I'm saying pro-corporate Dems can be just as bad

And if you had ANY idea of what some of us have been through re: outsourcing and h1-b visas, maybe you'd understand.

<edit to add> It's the CORPORATIONS that people should fear.

[LynneSin]

107. I work for the coporation

next concern?

And guess what - I'll STILL vote to ensure we have a democrat instead of a republican.

we have a primaries to fight it out to get the best democrat possible but in the end, this electorial system gives us 2 choices no matter how many candidates are running. I cannot risk another 4-8 years with a republican because even on a democrats worst day and a republican's best one - the democrat is still the better choice for me

[antigop]

127. I don't know what part of "We've already lost the SC" you don't understand.

Have you lost your job to an h-1b visaholder? Has your job been outsourced?

If not, then kindly ....

[LynneSin]

128. No I haven't and there is alot more than just one issue at stake for the Supreme Court

But hell - go ahead and fuck it up for everyone if it makes you feel better

[antigop]

131. HA ! You don't care about our jobs, but somehow we're supposed to care about what you want? n/t

[LostinVA]

134. Oh brother -- have whiplash yet?

[antigop]

136. Your "concern" is duly noted. n/t

[antigop]

133. Hang out on the tech message boards...you'll find out whom laid off tech workers won't support. n/t

[LostinVA]

147. Yup, you really care about textile workers, etc.

Ignore.

[antigop]

156. I care about US jobs-- ALL US jobs --can you direct me to a textile industry message board?

I referred to the tech message boards because the h1-b and outsourcing issues are particularly hot right now in the tech industry and the tech workers have organized to try to protect their jobs.

So can you direct me to a textile industry message board where h1-b and outsourcing issues are discussed?

I want a nominee who supports US workers, not the corporations.

[LostinVA]

132. But we haven't totally lost the USSC yet -- it's teetering on the edge of the abyss

BUT, with a GOPer in the WH, we WILL lose it for one to two generations.

And, my father works in textiles, the first industry affected by outsourcing, etc. It's been eviscerated. It's literally destroyed part sof NC and SC -- especially Western NC.

[antigop]

141. Read post #88. n/t

[antigop]

130. "the democrat is still the better choice for me"...

Yep. Those Dems did a fantastic job protecting our jobs and pensions, didn't they?

[antigop]

105. The Senate has to confirm it anyway n/t

[Joe Fields]

110. All we CAN do is vote for the eventual nominee. But I'd bet all of my

money, all of your money, and all of everybody else's money that if HRC gets the nomination it just won't matter. This country won't elect her, and so the presidency will remain in control of repukes. Why don't people get that? She is just too polarizing of a politician. Our job is to make sure she doesn't get the nomination, because if she does, we are really doomed to having someone even more incompetent than Bush in the White House.

[Bake]

111. Sure as hell not me!

But some may prefer to give away SCOTUS for an entire GENERATION (!!!!!!!!!!) in the interests of ideological purity.

I'm not.

Bake

[CTD]

112. The right isn't stupid. They'll never kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Notice that even with the courts, both houses of Congress and the White House in their pocket, they didn't even TRY to overturn Roe. It would be political suicide to do so. They need the motivated turnout of the religious zealots in order to win elections. Without an abortion issue motivating them to vote, they'll stay home.

[Der Blaue Engel]

125. I don't buy this for one minute

They'd fuck the goose on camera and eat the egg afterward if they thought it would get them what they wanted, which is more power.

Congress and the Supreme Court have been chipping away at Roe v. Wade in little increments, hoping no one but the fundies will notice. Meanwhile, it becomes more and more a state issue and the states are proposing and passing truly repressive laws, just waiting for their day in court.

[HughBeaumont]

175. I learned this in "What's the Matter With Kansas".

It's the same with TV getting worse as the years go on. Smutty TV will never be cleaned under Repuke rule or momentum . . . what would they have to bait voters with? What will one of their kingpin wedge issues be besides Abortion and Gay Marriage? They conveniently use these as bait but never make any effort to do anything about it.

Because THEN, they'd have to run on what they've actually done for the average citizen making less than $200,000 per year . . . which would be shizNIT in case you were wondering.

[HERVEPA]

120. Lynne, thanks for hanging in there.

I am getting so frustrated with the "Hillary is no different than the Republicans" crowd that I can't post very well without getting nasty.

[LostinVA]

137. My sissie is tops

Even if she's wrong about puppy mills.

:hide:

[depakid]

135. This argument wou;ld have a LOT more credibility

if the Senate Dems hadn't REPEATEDLY sold out the federal judiciary.....

And sorry to tell you- but Roe and Griswold are already pretty much dead- the Supreme Court is just waiting for the right set of facts to send the issues back to the states.

[antigop]

142. So do you agree with George Will? Roe V. Wade, Does it Matter?

http://www.sacbee.com/will/story/456333.html

Many Americans, foggy about the workings of their government, think that overturning Roe would make abortion, one of the nation's most common surgical procedures, illegal everywhere. All it actually would do is restore abortion as a practice subject to state regulation.

[depakid]

152. I have no interest in reading anything Will has to say

The man's a charlatan and a psuedo-intellectual- who rarely ever has an original thought (even about baseball).

Of course the principle(s) that the cases stand for (the controlling law is Casey NOT Roe).

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

And there are damn good reasons why we need a FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to privacy and reproductive and sexual freedom, which you may note if you've read and understood Lawrence v. Texas, we really don't quite have.

The major reason of course is that once the principle(s) are overturned (and my guess is that's inevitable in the next several years) certain states- probably in the South and lower midwest- and maybe Utah will indeed outlaw not just choice, but birth control- as was done before these cases came down.

Another reason is to protect against FEDERAL intrusions- which, given the nature of Congress AND the Court on these (and similar) issues- will preempt independent state protections.

The Dems have sold us out on those time and time again- which sadly makes one wonder about their commitment to these issues.

[Stinky The Clown]

139. The SC is even closer than you state in the OP ..... if you consider that Souter was Poppy's pick.

He went to the left when he got there. Had he stayed as was expected we'd be in even deeper shit than we are now.

[Bonobo]

145. Do you want to hear a secret?

DU is a no-risk environment where people (like me) can say things with no consequence in the real world (or little).

So when we come here and say "There is no way I would vote for Hillary. She is part of the problem.", we are, many of us, engaged in letting off steam, professing our hopes and trying to banish our fears.

In some cases, we may also be thinking strategically, such as -if I give away my vote so easily, I will be taken advantage of and have no infuence. ...And that is what we all want, some influence. No one likes to feel out of control. When you give your vote away -even in the form of a promise like you want to hear- it makes those of us who feel unrepresented even more out of control and without influence or say in the matter.

So, please relax. We will all (or most) dutifully vote for the Dem, unless, like me, we live in a state like Massachusetts which has 0% chance of going red and therefore our vote is essentially meaningless anyway.

[LeftishBrit]

146. Well...

I know too well what it is to be utterly betrayed by the leader of your preferred party; the person you thought would finally bring your country back to the left, and then continued to pursue right-wing policies; someone whom you hoped would represent a new decency in politics and instead turned out to be a warmonger. I know what it is to see him drag his party so far to the right that even his more left-wing successor is well to the right of moderate members of the conservative party in the past. I know what it is to end up left without a real choice on the political spectrum. I know what it is to feel unable to vote for a party with a chance of winning nationwide, and to vote regularly for a third or alternative party.

Ten years of Tony Blair. The worst-case scenario for 'holding your nose and voting for the party'.

And yet, for the world's sake, I would STILL beg everyone to vote for the Dem nominee, whoever it is. Because the world cannot afford any of the Republican candidates as president. The world cannot afford more of the destruction caused by Bush and those like him. Even a bad Democrat would be a safer choice for America and everyone else in the world.

[calico1]

148. Not me.

If Clinton wins the nomination, that is who I will vote for. I have no interest in helping the right take another election and then playing victim.

[Grandrose]

151. We absolutely must come together!

We must have a Democrat elected, those who vote otherwise will be causing themselves a self inflicted wound.
Hold your nose...if you must!:)

[hfojvt]

161. that's simply wrong. Let them overturn Roe v. Wade

That does nothing in Blue states. Abortion is still legal until a state legislature says otherwise. Over-turning Roe v. Wade does not ban all abortions, it only makes an anti-abortion law Constitutional. If abortion becomes illegal it will not be because of SCOTUS. It will be because of state legislatures and Governors.

Secondly I will bet that no Democrat running against any Republican will lose my state by just one vote.

[LynneSin]

164. But it's more than just RoeVWade

I reminded another poster about the Texas Sodomy Laws that were struck down thanks to a court in our favor. I'm sure I could spend all day going through other cases where the decision was narrowly decided by a 5-4 vote (including Bush v Gore).

Yes - you are correct, this will go back to the state goverments but let's face it, too many are controlled by the fundies and will set up restrictive laws that will mainly affect the poor. Cause like I've said many times - illegal abortions will never stop the rich from getting what they need but will stop the poor from getting any help.

RoeVWade is more than just giving women their right to determine the fate of their own bodies - it's proof that something as controverial as RoeVWade could feasibly be overruled if given enough time and push by the right people. We've had 6 presidents since it passed with three of them (Reagan, Bush and Bush) very actively stacking the bench in order to benefit their right-wing religious sponsers.

[DeepModem Mom]

162. K&R

[Raffi Ella]

165. Great post Lynnn.

we're way past the days when it was safe to be a purist holier than thou third party/write in voter;We don't have that luxury any longer in this corrupt fascist society.


The Democratic Nominee or the republik nominee will win - of that you can be certain.Which would you rather it be is the question.



One other thing,just IMAGINE what a different World we'd live in if Gore had actually assumed the Presidency when he was elected...remember all the hatred and venom towards him?Yeah.

Our Country is much worse off now than it was then.Remember that when you refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee b/c you just can't "compromise" your so called beliefs!

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteppingRazor]

167. "Sluts getting an abortion?" Seriously?

Wow. I've never wanted to actually pop somebody one in the jaw for what I read on DU until now.

By the way, jagoff, Bush Jr. appointed Alito and Roberts, Bush Sr. appointed Thomas, and Reagan appointed Scalia, so your theory about Republicans being pussies and nominating milquetoasts doesn't hold water.

As for the rest of it, I don't really know what to say. If you're actually convinced that abortions are solely the realm of "sluts," you've got a lot of growing up to do.

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

176. Damn -- I missed it

[Virginia Dare]

170. You're wrong longjohn..

people pick a pres based on horny dudes who can't keep their dicks in their pants...:eyes:

BTW, repubs aren't afraid of a fight. They just want to keep the wedge issues alive to keep their base stirred up. Groups like Focus on Family have their bread buttered mostly by the abortion and gay marriage issues.

[Didereaux]

169. SCOTUS is ABSOLUTELY the prize! n/t

[Bake]

174. I'll say this once again:

People need to read Jeffrey Toobin's new book, The Nine. If you read that, you'll understand better what's at stake here. Plus, it's an excellent read.

Bake