4 Inconvenient Facts The Right Ignores

[Sallow]

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.

Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, doubled the stock market, created 16 straight quarters of GDP growth, created 50 months of private sector job growth, got Bin Laden, got Gaddafi, and got us out of Iraq.

Obama has done a very good job.

LOL You are a nut!

He saved the economy from a great depression? Fail.
He rebuilt GM? Fail.
Reformed health care for the worse. We have dozens of companies who have said openly without waviers from ObamaCrap, they would cancel insurance, and meanwhile insurance premiums have drastically increase more than ever before. Fail.
Reformed Wall St? LOL!!! FAIL!
Doubled the Stock Market? Huh? How did "Obama double the stock market"?
Created 16 straight quarters of GDP growth? Obama doesn't 'create growth'. Companies and business create growth.
Same with job growth. Obama hasn't created a single job. Business and private citizens creating the economy did that.
Got Bin Laden? What exactly do you think Obama personally did to 'get Osama'? Osama was caught by a decade plus of hard difficult work by CIA and the military. Obama saying "ok, do it", is not exactly grounds for complete credit in my book.
Got Gaddafi? So? Between Osama, Saddam, and Gaddafi, Gaddafi was a non-issue. Yippy skippy.
Got us out of Iraq? LOL FAIL! Obama didn't do jack about that. Bush is who won the Iraq war, and smashed the subsequent insurgency. If Bush had left Iraq for Obama to clean up, he would have handed it to Al Qeada and ditched them.

You are just spewing ignorant talking points now. Some of those claims, are so ridiculous, you are just making yourself look like a clown. Obama rebuilt GM.... LOL Oh my goodness you are delusional if you really believe that.

This is fun.

Because it puts on display you folks live in a completely alternative universe.

As to your points.

1. There was no fail. What happened was nothing short of a miracle. You folks don't seem to understand the scope of the economic meltdown. Every financial institution in America was about to collapse. Lehman was just the beginning.

2. Had GM dissolved? And that's what it was going to do, that would have been the end of auto manufacturing in the United States.

3. This is essentially a conservative talking point. Prior to the ACA? Costs were rising and our level of health care was causing 47,000 deaths and many more bankruptcies each year. We ranked 37th in the world. Now? Costs have been staggered and people are getting insurance.

4. Frank/Dodd and the consumer protection board have put some very real regulations on wall street. That and now banks are stressed tested for viability.

5. The Obama administration's economic policies floated the financial markets long enough that recovery has been both strong and long lasting, albeit slow. And this is what REAL recovery looks like. The administration made some foundational changes that have made America an attractive country to invest in again.

6. The Bush administration gave up the search for Bin Laden, as if they were really trying to "get" him in the first place. 9/11 was a convenient excuse for their real agenda, invading Iraq. Under Obama, the CIA was directed to really hunt for and kill Osama Bin Laden. That was a 180 degree shift from the prior administration. That's why he is dead.

7. Gaddafi was a real live terrorist leading a country. That's a terrible message to send the world.

8. Bush created a huge mess in Iraq. It was a self inflicted wound. And NOTHING was "crushed" there. What happened was the "insurgents" were paid off. And there never would have been an insurgency had Bush not disbanded the Iraqi army, putting 300K well trained war fighters out of work.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I NEVER said Republicans proposed no viable alternative in 1993.

Game, set, match...Bfgrn.

So then why is Sallow shadowing you with "Republicans passed no viable alternative"?

Then direct your immense intelligence at Sallow. You know, the one who actually said something you want to refute. That's called "debating".

Good luck.

Did you come here just to be a troll... or were you debating? Or...?

 

[Sallow]

I rest my case. I love how you conveniently forget Hillarycare, accuse Republicans of passing no viable alternative when in the same argument listing what they proposed, then call me a 'pea brain.'

Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Your lack of an argument had to be demonstrated.

They didn't pass any viable alternative.

Once "HillaryCare" was defeated? The Republican alternative was dropped. And didn't get picked up again, until Romney used it in Massachusetts.

You want to try this again?

Seriously? The Republicans Have No Health Plan? - Forbes

Try what again?

They didn't pass anything, nationally.

Romney only passed his plan because he was about to lose federal funding.

After Clinton left office? The Republicans had 2 terms of Bush.

He did nothing but hand big Pharma a huge gift.

Part of Obama's platform was healthcare reform. McCain's alternative? Was to tax "Cadillac" healthcare plans and tort reform. That was it.

That's part of the reason he lost.

And Obama? Dropped single payer and went with the Republican plan. Yeah..that's what he did.

Republicans have been trying to kill it ever since.

 

[Bfgrn]

I rest my case. I love how you conveniently forget Hillarycare, accuse Republicans of passing no viable alternative when in the same argument listing what they proposed, then call me a 'pea brain.'

Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Your lack of an argument had to be demonstrated.

I NEVER said Republicans proposed no viable alternative in 1993.

Game, set, match...Bfgrn.

So then why is Sallow shadowing you with "Republicans passed no viable alternative"? You two are of the same liberal stripe, perhaps you should disprove him?

Probably because Republicans passed no viable alternative.

 

[TemplarKormac]

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.

Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, doubled the stock market, created 16 straight quarters of GDP growth, created 50 months of private sector job growth, got Bin Laden, got Gaddafi, and got us out of Iraq.

Obama has done a very good job.

LOL You are a nut!

He saved the economy from a great depression? Fail.
He rebuilt GM? Fail.
Reformed health care for the worse. We have dozens of companies who have said openly without waviers from ObamaCrap, they would cancel insurance, and meanwhile insurance premiums have drastically increase more than ever before. Fail.
Reformed Wall St? LOL!!! FAIL!
Doubled the Stock Market? Huh? How did "Obama double the stock market"?
Created 16 straight quarters of GDP growth? Obama doesn't 'create growth'. Companies and business create growth.
Same with job growth. Obama hasn't created a single job. Business and private citizens creating the economy did that.
Got Bin Laden? What exactly do you think Obama personally did to 'get Osama'? Osama was caught by a decade plus of hard difficult work by CIA and the military. Obama saying "ok, do it", is not exactly grounds for complete credit in my book.
Got Gaddafi? So? Between Osama, Saddam, and Gaddafi, Gaddafi was a non-issue. Yippy skippy.
Got us out of Iraq? LOL FAIL! Obama didn't do jack about that. Bush is who won the Iraq war, and smashed the subsequent insurgency. If Bush had left Iraq for Obama to clean up, he would have handed it to Al Qeada and ditched them.

You are just spewing ignorant talking points now. Some of those claims, are so ridiculous, you are just making yourself look like a clown. Obama rebuilt GM.... LOL Oh my goodness you are delusional if you really believe that.

This is fun.

Because it puts on display you folks live in a completely alternative universe.

As to your points.

1. There was no fail. What happened was nothing short of a miracle. You folks don't seem to understand the scope of the economic meltdown. Every financial institution in America was about to collapse. Lehman was just the beginning.

2. Had GM dissolved? And that's what it was going to do, that would have been the end of auto manufacturing in the United States.

3. This is essentially a conservative talking point. Prior to the ACA? Costs were rising and our level of health care was causing 47,000 deaths and many more bankruptcies each year. We ranked 37th in the world. Now? Costs have been staggered and people are getting insurance.

4. Frank/Dodd and the consumer protection board have put some very real regulations on wall street. That and now banks are stressed tested for viability.

5. The Obama administration's economic policies floated the financial markets long enough that recovery has been both strong and long lasting, albeit slow. And this is what REAL recovery looks like. The administration made some foundational changes that have made America an attractive country to invest in again.

6. The Bush administration gave up the search for Bin Laden, as if they were really trying to "get" him in the first place. 9/11 was a convenient excuse for their real agenda, invading Iraq. Under Obama, the CIA was directed to really hunt for and kill Osama Bin Laden. That was a 180 degree shift from the prior administration. That's why he is dead.

7. Gaddafi was a real live terrorist leading a country. That's a terrible message to send the world.

8. Bush created a huge mess in Iraq. It was a self inflicted wound. And NOTHING was "crushed" there. What happened was the "insurgents" were paid off. And there never would have been an insurgency had Bush not disbanded the Iraqi army, putting 300K well trained war fighters out of work.

1. So, why did Democrats shoot down a bill that would have reined in the two main causes of the collapse? Of course. You don't remember a thing about that, do you?

2. We're forgetting Dodge and Ford, Sallow.

3. Costs are still rising AFTER the ACA, if not faster than ever.

Health Costs Resume Their Rise - Forbes

4. Sure, by allowing them to make the same risky loans to people that put this economy in the tank to begin with.

5. In terms of economic growth, this is by far the weakest recovery of any recovery in US history. The economy after the Great Depression grew by 9% or more the years afterwards. Not only that, our economy shrank by 1% this past quarter.

U.S. Economy Shrinks for First Time Since 2011; Pent Demand Suggests Temporary Setback - Bloomberg

Edward Lazear: The Worst Economic Recovery in History - WSJ

6. The Bush Administration laid the groundwork. They never gave up looking for bin Laden up until the day (Bush) he flew off on Marine One on January 20th, 2009. Without the intelligence that they gathered, Obama would never have found him at all.

7. Sure, but Obama never killed him. The Libyan people did.

 

[WillowTree]

She's not a liberal, she is hard core progressive.

But like all progressives, she doesn't like to be identified as such, because everybody knows that progressives are vile, dishonest, and dangerous.

sweetheart, the only people who think i'm a progressive are people who are so far gone they think rick santorum could be president.

i wouldn't find it insulting if it were true. but i'm pretty sure that a real progressive (since I low my share) would think i'm particularly right leaning on many issues.

but you'd have to live in reality to understand that.



theocrats generally aren't capable.

Upon which issues dost thou lean right dear Jillian?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I NEVER said Republicans proposed no viable alternative in 1993.

Game, set, match...Bfgrn.

So then why is Sallow shadowing you with "Republicans passed no viable alternative"? You two are of the same liberal stripe, perhaps you should disprove him?

Probably because Republicans passed no viable alternative.

You just now contradicted yourself. Thank you. Mister "I never said Republicans proposed/passed an alternative." Both of you are forgetting how many times in their attempts to repeal the ACA that they proposed and passed alternatives to it.

 

[Sallow]

1. So, why did Democrats shoot down a bill that would have reined in the two main causes of the collapse? Of course. You don't remember a thing about that, do you?

2. We're forgetting Dodge and Ford, Sallow.

3. Costs are still rising AFTER the ACA, if not faster than ever.

Health Costs Resume Their Rise - Forbes

4. Sure, by allowing them to make the same risky loans to people that put this economy in the tank to begin with.

5. In terms of economic growth, this is by far the weakest recovery of any recovery in US history. The economy after the Great Depression grew by 9% or more the years afterwards. Not only that, our economy shrank by 1% this past quarter.

U.S. Economy Shrinks for First Time Since 2011; Pent Demand Suggests Temporary Setback - Bloomberg

Edward Lazear: The Worst Economic Recovery in History - WSJ

6. The Bush Administration laid the groundwork. They never gave up looking for bin Laden up until the day (Bush) he flew off on Marine One on January 20th, 2009. Without the intelligence that they gathered, Obama would never have found him at all.

7. Sure, but Obama never killed him. The Libyan people did.

1. What bill? This ought to be good.

2. All the major car companies would have collapsed. There are a lot of dependencies between them.

3. Actually, no. They have not been going up "faster than ever". You folks seem to forget what things were like prior to the ACA. Costs were sky rocketing. That's why Obama was elected.

4. Wait what? What risky loans? What are you talking about?

5. This really shows little understanding about the financial markets. And? Where are the Hoover Towns? Where are the bread lines? Where are the people dying in the streets? Those things happened during the great depression.

6. They didn't lay any ground work. They screwed the pooch. Very publically. Obama's attempt at Bush face saving not withstanding.

7. Which never would have happened without American air power. Prior to America's entry into the revolt? The Libyans were losing.

 

[Sallow]

So then why is Sallow shadowing you with "Republicans passed no viable alternative"? You two are of the same liberal stripe, perhaps you should disprove him?

Probably because Republicans passed no viable alternative.

You just now contradicted yourself. Thank you. Mister "I never said Republicans proposed/passed an alternative." Both of you are forgetting how many times in their attempts to repeal the ACA that they proposed and passed alternatives to it.

Seriously?

I haven't forgotten.

It was pretty unique.

Republicans have been "governing" like they control everything and don't have to compromise on anything.

The house has been setting record after record in terms of obstruction.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Jillian,

Your facts are a bit off.

1. Plenty of liberals and moderates supported segregation and/or opposed integration, such as Senator William J. Fullbright, who, by the way, was also an ardent opponent of the Vietnam and was despised as a "dove" by conservatives. And many evangelicals, along with many liberlas, did not oppose integration in principle but did not like the "solution" of having their kids bused 20-40 miles.

True enough, no government should have the power to force you to make your child to attend a black-only or white-only school. But it's also true that no government should have the power to force you to send your child to a school 20-40 miles away when there are better schools much closer that you would like your child to attend.

2. Well, of course the NRA did not used to be so anti-gun control. Why? Because when the NRA was formed no credible politician suggested the kind of illegal, unconstitutional, and impractical gun control laws that liberals began proposing in the '80s and '90s and that they are doubling-down on today.

3. Many conservatives opposed Common Core from the outset because they feared it would become exactly the monster it is starting to become. Heck, even some leading liberal educators have now come out against Common Core, e.g., Diane Ravitch:

Public School Maven Predicts Public School-Free Cities in Ten Years

 

[Bfgrn]

Jillian,

Your facts are a bit off.

1. Plenty of liberals and moderates supported segregation and/or opposed integration, such as Senator William J. Fullbright, who, by the way, was also an ardent opponent of the Vietnam and was despised as a "dove" by conservatives. And many evangelicals, along with many liberlas, did not oppose integration in principle but did not like the "solution" of having their kids bused 20-40 miles.

True enough, no government should have the power to force you to make your child to attend a black-only or white-only school. But it's also true that no government should have the power to force you to send your child to a school 20-40 miles away when there are better schools much closer that you would like your child to attend.

2. Well, of course the NRA did not used to be so anti-gun control. Why? Because when the NRA was formed no credible politician suggested the kind of illegal, unconstitutional, and impractical gun control laws that liberals began proposing in the '80s and '90s and that they are doubling-down on today.

3. Many conservatives opposed Common Core from the outset because they feared it would become exactly the monster it is starting to become. Heck, even some leading liberal educators have now come out against Common Core, e.g., Diane Ravitch:

Public School Maven Predicts Public School-Free Cities in Ten Years

What "illegal, unconstitutional, and impractical gun control laws"?

 

[Sallow]

Jillian,

Your facts are a bit off.

1. Plenty of liberals and moderates supported segregation and/or opposed integration, such as Senator William J. Fullbright, who, by the way, was also an ardent opponent of the Vietnam and was despised as a "dove" by conservatives. And many evangelicals, along with many liberlas, did not oppose integration in principle but did not like the "solution" of having their kids bused 20-40 miles.

True enough, no government should have the power to force you to make your child to attend a black-only or white-only school. But it's also true that no government should have the power to force you to send your child to a school 20-40 miles away when there are better schools much closer that you would like your child to attend.

2. Well, of course the NRA did not used to be so anti-gun control. Why? Because when the NRA was formed no credible politician suggested the kind of illegal, unconstitutional, and impractical gun control laws that liberals began proposing in the '80s and '90s and that they are doubling-down on today.

3. Many conservatives opposed Common Core from the outset because they feared it would become exactly the monster it is starting to become. Heck, even some leading liberal educators have now come out against Common Core, e.g., Diane Ravitch:

Public School Maven Predicts Public School-Free Cities in Ten Years

What "illegal, unconstitutional, and impractical gun control laws"?

Probably the ones that Reagan signed into law..

 

[Bfgrn]

Jillian,

Your facts are a bit off.

1. Plenty of liberals and moderates supported segregation and/or opposed integration, such as Senator William J. Fullbright, who, by the way, was also an ardent opponent of the Vietnam and was despised as a "dove" by conservatives. And many evangelicals, along with many liberlas, did not oppose integration in principle but did not like the "solution" of having their kids bused 20-40 miles.

True enough, no government should have the power to force you to make your child to attend a black-only or white-only school. But it's also true that no government should have the power to force you to send your child to a school 20-40 miles away when there are better schools much closer that you would like your child to attend.

2. Well, of course the NRA did not used to be so anti-gun control. Why? Because when the NRA was formed no credible politician suggested the kind of illegal, unconstitutional, and impractical gun control laws that liberals began proposing in the '80s and '90s and that they are doubling-down on today.

3. Many conservatives opposed Common Core from the outset because they feared it would become exactly the monster it is starting to become. Heck, even some leading liberal educators have now come out against Common Core, e.g., Diane Ravitch:

Public School Maven Predicts Public School-Free Cities in Ten Years

What "illegal, unconstitutional, and impractical gun control laws"?

Probably the ones that Reagan signed into law..

Which Reagan?

This Reagan?

Or this Reagan??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

4 inconvenient facts conservatives conveniently ignore

1. The religious right started because of segregation, not abortion.

As Randall Balmer, a Darthmouth professor writing in Politico, explained in a recent article, the organized religious right started as a movement to protect white-only schools from federally mandated desegregation. As Balmer explains, there were many other attempts to rally evangelical Christians to become a conservative movement to support Republicans—“pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion”—but none took. Under the guidance of Jerry Falwell, however, it was discovered that evangelical leaders would rally to keep black students out of private schools set up specifically so white kids didn’t have to go to desegregated public schools. Even though it was actually the Nixon administration that kickstarted the process of the IRS stripping tax-exempt status from “whites only” school, Falwell and his buddies blamed Jimmy Carter and used the issue to start rallying support for Ronald Reagan’s challenge. It was only after the evangelical right was organized that they started expanding into other issues, like abortion.

2. NRA used to support gun control.

The NRA is a gun industry lobby that likes to present itself as a “rights” group. With that level of deceit, no wonder many people, especially on the right, assume that the group has always existed to lobby against any restriction on access to firearms, or that gun control is a relatively new phenomenon only invented by pansy liberals in the past few decades. In reality, the government has been controlling access to guns for a long, long time. While there have been limits on gun ownership throughout the country’s history—often for sexist and racist reasons, such as bans on black people owning guns—the first modern federal gun control law passed in 1934, to stop the proliferation of automatic sub-machine guns that were popular with organized criminals. Prior to that, many states passed laws regulating guns, laws conservatives would reject today, such as waiting periods and requiring gun sellers to share information with police. The NRA actually helped write these laws.

And why not? The NRA was started as a marksman and sporting club, so there was no real reason to oppose gun control laws, until recent decades when it morphed into a lobby to protect the profits of gun manufacturers. Even as late as 1963, the NRA supported gun control laws. It was only as the culture wars began to build and the conservative movement developed that the NRA turned into the organization it is now, feeding paranoia and faux-patriotism to gullible conservatives in order to convince them to buy more guns.

3. Conservatives have always been the voting bloc to stop civil rights.

A lot of pundits and other charlatans like to deflect discussion of modern racism by claiming that Democrats were the ones who tried to stop the Civil Rights Act and Republicans were the ones who tried to pass it. Considering that it was a liberal Democrat—Lyndon B. Johnson—who signed the CRA, it’s clear that it was much more complicated than that. Yes, it’s true that some Democrats opposed the CRA and plenty of Republicans supported it. But the party lines were not drawn the same back then. Back then, both parties had a mix of liberals and conservatives, and since then, the parties have realigned, with all the conservatives—who voted against the CRA—stampeding to the Republican party and all the liberals—who voted for the CRA—running to the Democrats.

As Harry Enten, writing for the Guardian, notes, party was a poor predictor of a politician’s vote for the CRA in 1964. A far better predictor was state of origin. In the House, 90 percent of politicians from former Union states voted for it and only 8 percent of politicians from the South did. In the Senate, 92 percent of lawmakers from the Union states voted for the CRA, but only 5 percent—1 out of 22—of Southern senators did so. In other words, the votes against it came primarily from what we now consider the immovable “red” states—a permanent bloc of Republicans. And it was anger over the CRA that switched those previously Democratic states to Republican voters. The only states that voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964, besides Arizona,were Southern states.

Indeed, the best way to understand what happened in 1964 is that the CRA kicked off a process where the Republicans started to gather up all the conservative voters and Democrats expelled the racist vote but picked up all the liberals. Focusing on race instead of ideological leaning is a fundamentally dishonest tactic, when any honest assessment of the situation shows that the real divide was between conservatives and liberals, which remains the divide that governs our country today, even as the parties have rebranded themselves.

4. They were for Common Core before they were against it.

The most recent and possibly silliest about-face of the modern conservative movement has to be the turnaround on Common Core, a program initiated by the National Governors Association to standardize and elevate educational standards across the country. Originally, conservatives were indifferent to outright supportive of the program—many Republican governors considered themselves fans—and pretty much all the criticism came from people on the left, who were concerned that it would be used as cover for attacks on teacher’s unions and would favor “teach the test”-style memorization over actual education.

Then President Obama endorsed it in 2012. Immediately, the right decided that Common Core was a sinister conspiracy to shove liberal ideology down children’s throats (never mind that many educational experts on the left are against it). Liberals make measured criticisms of Common Core, saying it might squelch imagination and writing skills. Conservatives, on the other hand, have taken to accusing the Obama administration of using Common Core to steal children away and teach them to have sex and get divorced so they’ll vote for Democrats. A calm, rational discussion of the program is basically impossible, because the entire debate has been taken over by right-wing nuts who have forgotten that, a mere two years ago, they were cool with a program they now compare to Nazi indoctrination.

4 inconvenient facts conservatives conveniently ignore - Salon.com

Love it when Progs parrot the blatant lies that sustain them. They're like an alien species that cannot survive in our current atmosphere so they have to pollute it with the bullshit they thrive on

Was about this close to hitting the Neg, but if Progs didn't lie, what would they ever post?

 

[The Rabbi]

Love it when Progs parrot the blatant lies that sustain them. They're like an alien species that cannot survive in our current atmosphere so they have to pollute it with the bullshit they thrive on

Was about this close to hitting the Neg, but if Progs didn't lie, what would they ever post?

Frank, its because they project their own character on others. So they, therefore they assume everyone else is lying. THey flip flop, so they assume everyone else flip flops. They're hypocrites, so they assume everyone else is a hypocrite. It makes them feel better about themselves.

 

[Bfgrn]

Some other inconvenient facts the right ignores...

Baptist Press Initial Reporting on Roe v. Wade

I recently came across the initial reporting from Baptist Press on the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

The lead paragraph of a Jan. 31 news analysis about Roe says the decision “advanced the cause of religious liberty, human equality and justice.” The story also says the court was a “strict constructionist” court and not a “liberal” court. It also says there “is no official Southern Baptist position on abortion.”

The attorney who filed the initial lawsuit in Roe v. Wade was a Southern Baptist and member of Park Cities Baptist Church in Dallas.

January 31, 1973
High Court Holds Abortion To Be ‘A right of Privacy’
By W. Barry Garrett

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision that overturned a Texas law which denied a woman the right of abortion except to save her life, has advanced the cause of religious liberty, human equality and justice. At the same time ‘the court struck down a Georgia law that imposed unconstitutional procedures, in getting medical approval for an abortion…

The two decisions raise numerous other questions which Baptists and others should seek to understand. Among them:

Question: Was this a Warren type or “liberal” Supreme Court that rendered the decision?

Answer: No. This was a “strict constructionist” court, most of whose members have been appointed by President Nixon.

Question: Did the Supreme Court violate religious propriety by its abortion decision?

Answer: The Roman Catholic hierarchy insists that the Supreme Court blundered by making an immoral, anti-religious and unjustified decision. It has vowed to continue the fight against relaxed abortion laws.

However, most other religious bodies and leaders, who have expressed themselves, approve the decision. Social, welfare and civil rights workers hailed the decision with enthusiasm.

The Supreme Court itself recognized “the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy. It said, however, that “we need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus,” the court continued, “the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Thus, it appears to be the view of the court that it decided a constitutional question without attempting answers to the medical, philosophical or theological problems in abortion.

Question: What is the Southern Baptist position on abortion?

Answer: There is no official Southern Baptist position on abortion, or any other such question. Among 12 million Southern Baptists, there are probably 12 million different opinions.

Question: Does the Supreme Court decision on abortion intrude on the religious life of the people?

Answer: No. Religious bodies and religious persons can continue to teach their own particular views to their constituents with all the vigor they desire. People whose conscience forbids abortion are not compelled by law to have abortions. They are free to practice their religion according to the tenets of their personal or corporate faith.

 

[zeke]

What "illegal, unconstitutional, and impractical gun control laws"?

Probably the ones that Reagan signed into law..

Which Reagan?

This Reagan?

Or this Reagan??

Damn, are you gun nutters going to let those quotes of Ronnie Reagan stand without explanation? Or refute them? There has to be a reason that Reagan said these things. What was the reasons gun nutters? Could it be that he said what he believed? OMG. A much loved Republican President coming out in favor of gun control. What in the fuck is the world coming to?

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow, there were stupid people in 1973, who knew?

In what universe could Rowe be considered a strict constructionist decision?

 

[zeke]

Thank God Reagan is dead eh gun nutters. What would you do if he were still alive? Call him a Democrat?

 

[Misty]

The first civil rights act authored by republicans but not supported by democrats;


"Eisenhower, perhaps shocked by the news broadcasts of Little Rock, publicly supported the bill (it was, after all, his Attorney-General who had produced the bill). However, the final act became a much watered done affair due to the lack of support among the Democrats.

The Senate leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson, was a Democrat, and he realised that the bill and its journey through Congress, could tear apart his party as it had right wing Southern senators in it and liberal west coast ones


The 1957 Civil Rights Act