April 24, 2007 7:56 AM
When Colorado was ground zero in abortion battle
Forty years ago today, Colorado became the focal point of the nation's abortion debate when Gov. John Love signed the nation's first bill widening the access to legal abortion, reports Lisa Ryckman.
Mary Rita Urbish remembers perfectly the moment 40 years ago when Colorado became ground zero in the battle over abortion.
It was April 25, 1967 - the day a proposal by a legislator named Lamm was signed into law by a governor named Love, making the state the first in the nation to liberalize its abortion law. In that moment, as supporters cheered the potential end of illegal abortions, a social movement was born.
"I was so angry," said Urbish, one of the founders of Colorado Right to Life. "It's like a continuous loop in my mind that just runs and runs and runs and runs. It makes me mad to think about it, even now, 40 years later."
The bill, introduced by Richard Lamm - then a freshman state legislator, later the governor - in the wake of the consequences of illegal "back-alley" abortions and the number of births by girls ages 12 to 19.
His proposal, based on the recommendations of the American Law Institute, allowed a three-doctor panel to approve abortions in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal defects, to save a woman's life or if the pregnancy threatened her physical or mental health.In 1966, just one therapeutic abortion was performed at Denver General Hospital under the old law, which allowed abortion only to save a woman's life or prevent serious bodily injury. That same year, 27 women were admitted to the hospital because of botched abortion attempts, and 208 girls ages 12 to 19 gave birth there.
"Prior to that bill, it was just totally illegal, and all the abortions were in back rooms," said John Bermingham, a Denver Republican who was the bill's chief Senate sponsor. "(The bill) just seemed like the right thing to do. Back-room abortions were disgraceful."
The University of California School of Public Health estimated that before 1966, an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 women died each year in the U.S. from complications of illegal abortions.
April 24, 2007
8:19 AM
chris writes:
Although Colorado was the first to endorse this shameful practice, I am confident it will be one of the first to undo the evil of abortion. The sea change in Coloradans' thinking on this issue has been very encouraging for the pro-life side.
National Journal ranked us, if I'm correct, the 8th most pro-life state in the country. We have one of the lowest abortion rates around. These are things to be proud of--not the ignominious abortion law passed in the 60s.
April 24, 2007
8:41 AM
Daisy writes:
Abortions are caused by unwanted pregnancies. In this day and age there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy. Providing sex education and available birth control would stop a lot of abortions. Why is it when this is pointed out that the Pro-Lifers just clam up? Is it really about reducing abortions or is it about forcing religious beliefs on everyone else?
April 24, 2007
8:48 AM
chris writes:
We don't clam up. We'll tell you straight up what we feel about birth control and sex education: No.
Abortion is a conscientous choice. People choose to have abortions whether or not they've had sex ed. Abortion is not a natural extension of sexual ignorance. Sex ed and abortion are two separate issues.
Abortion is wrong because you are killing the unborn. Contraceptive education is wrong because you are sexualizing young kids without imparting the values of delayed gratification and abstinence which most parents favor.
You may choose to have sex with or without condoms. You may or may not get pregnant. Either way, you should not have an abortion. Period.
April 24, 2007
8:55 AM
JW writes:
"National Journal ranked us, if I'm correct, the 8th most pro-life state in the country."
The stats Ive seen from 2005 say we are pro-choice by about 10%. Those same stats show only 11 states as pro-life, and only 5 of those are by a margin of over 4%.
April 24, 2007
8:57 AM
Anonymous writes:
Alright Chris, while you think you are saving the world, let's dump the unwanted babies at your home and let you raise them. Have fun buddy, and it's pretty costly, hope you have a trust fund b/c your sure not going to get financial aid from your peers.
Oh, whatever your response is saying it's financially possible-it's not buddy. Time tested, our social system has been stripped and it's broken.
April 24, 2007
8:58 AM
JW writes:
"Abortion is not a natural extension of sexual ignorance. Sex ed and abortion are two separate issues."
Which is why the Netherlands and Belgium have the lowest rates of abortion on the planet. They have some of the most liberal laws regarding abortion in existance, and great sex ed and contraception availability.
Ignorance is an ugly thing.
April 24, 2007
8:59 AM
Tbone writes:
So, chris, then it IS about forcing your beliefs on everyone else. Thanks.
Tell me - why don't you want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies? Would this not lead to a fewer number of abortions?
As much as the current crop of republics like to do it, burying your head in the sand is not the solution.
April 24, 2007
9:18 AM
Today we celebrate murder writes:
And with a single stroke of his pen he sentenced hundreds of thousands of innocent Coloradans to death. BRAVO!
April 24, 2007
9:50 AM
from the article writes:
"The first abortion under the new law was performed on a 12-year-old rape victim"...what was celebrated was a woman's right to choose
April 24, 2007
10:00 AM
jay writes:
Surely not...are we actually discussing abortion again here at the ol' RMN?
Here's that same tired data for those that are interested:
CNN/Gallup Poll. Jan. 19-21, 2007. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?"
Would 29%
Would Not 62%
Unsure 9%
And Chris...data shows that similar majority views still exist in Colorado as well. Maybe you should move to North Dakota if you really think outlawing abortions in a single or handful of states will decrease abortions nationwide. JW is right...ignorant is a horrible way to live life. We always seem to come back to the same place on abortion on this blog ( not for lack of discussing it and a few other issues ad nauseum). Abstinence only sex ed increases unwanted pregnancies. Gutting the funding for programs that provide access to contraception increases unwanted pregnancies. Let's say it together class...unwanted pregnancies lead to abortions. If you really want to decrease the number of abortions in America, stop electing fools who base their decisions on religious dogma.
Until then, anti-choice crusaders will continue to be the puppets of politicians who do nothing but give them an unattainable carrot to chase every election season.
April 24, 2007
10:08 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
Today on RMN blogging, abortions. Tomorrow Immigration, Thursday we'll talk housing foreclosures and educational problems in public schools on Friday. Next week, gay rights.
Zzzzzzzzzz........
April 24, 2007
10:39 AM
JW writes:
On a less overly discussed note...
It begins.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267968,00.html
April 24, 2007
10:56 AM
Leslie Hanks writes:
"Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.
Bernard Nathanson, Founder NARAL
April 24, 2007
11:10 AM
Michael writes:
The reason this issue still plagues us all is that it was decided by 9 people. It needs to be thrown back to all 50 states and it needs to get put on the ballot in all 50 states or it needs to go through the legislative process and be soundly and thoroughly debated by that state's elected officials. Referendum by the people or legislative process - one or the other. But not by 9 judges.
April 24, 2007
11:16 AM
jay writes:
JW,
I would much rather the Dems continue to pass meaningful legislation (veto threat or not) and continue to concentrate on holding the Administration accountable for their mistakes instead of chasing down an impeachment case. I think making the American public aware of all the scandalous and deceitful actions the Republican Majority have perpetrated over the last 6 years will dole out the only punishment the far right seems to fear...loss of power at the polls. Either way, there is little doubt that we'll continue to see Republican officials doing the legal two step as Gonzales so clumsily illustrated last week.
Michael,
With a 2 to 1 margin in favor of not overturning Roe v Wade...do you really think there is progress to be made by the anti-choice movement in taking the matter to a nationwide vote? Seems like our politicians would get a lot more done if they didn't have to cater to fringes of their base...
April 24, 2007
11:27 AM
JW writes:
Leslie,
Way to be disingenuous. You should have said...
"Bernard Nathanson, Founder NARAL, Catholic convert and current Pro-Life activist."
Jay,
"I would much rather the Dems continue to pass meaningful legislation (veto threat or not) and continue to concentrate on holding the Administration accountable for their mistakes instead of chasing down an impeachment case. "
I don't know wheter to agree, or not. Basically, this guy has done some things that NEED to be looked at more indepth, particulary wiretaping and possible funding of terrorist organizations by proxy. The reality is this guy, lame duck or not, still has plenty of leverage as the president to make more mistakes regarding Iraq (and godforbid, Iran), and to come up with more ways to degrade the power of the constitution. It might be best just to get him out of there.
And I suppose it comes down to Iraq as always. The question in my mind is not whether or not we can have success, but when we want to bite the bullet and leave. Petreus has said that it will take longer than two years to clean up that mess. So what happens in two years? Most americans are sick of this war. The president can keep us there until he leaves office, sure, but if the net effect is that we leave Iraq in the same condition its in now in two years, why not just leave...now?
Anyway, right now its just a leftwing nut calling for this, and some groups with a bit of momentum. Lets see if this thing builds or not.
April 24, 2007
11:41 AM
jay writes:
JW,
Don't get me wrong...I think the Republican Majority and Administration have been the most unethical and damaging in our history. There are obviously breaches that need to be investigated fully. From a strictly political afficiando point of view... I agree they should make the case for impeachment....there is certainly plenty of ammo available. My thought, however, is that the Dems allow the voters to lay down the punishment rather than possibly appear as if they were getting revenge for the Rub's endless Clinton witchhunts. I am aware there is a fine line there....but I think from a political chess match standpoint, the Dems would benefit more from leaving the voters to be the jury and executioners.
April 24, 2007
11:45 AM
AMR writes:
If someone really wanted abortion to stop, they would NOT advocate an ignorance-only sex-ed agenda. They would NOT oppose the education and availability of contraceptives. They would NOT vote to take back the tax dollars that pay for the prenatal and postnatal medical care for the children of the underprivileged. Because these things CAUSE abortions.
Because you don't want the kids to know anything about reproduction, they will learn the hard way. Because they are not informed about how to properly prevent unwanted pregnancies, they will panic and resort to "extremes" like abortion.
An abstinence-only, ignorance-only agenda does not work. You'd have to go back in time 300 years for that approach to be practical at all. Ignorance helps no one. Only the properly informed and prepared can prevent unwanted pregnancy.
One open-minded sex-ed class, involving the safe and responsible use of contraceptives, prevents more abortions than a hundred million heavy handed "Thou Shalt Nots".
April 24, 2007
11:54 AM
JW writes:
"My thought, however, is that the Dems allow the voters to lay down the punishment rather than possibly appear as if they were getting revenge for the Rub's endless Clinton witchhunts."
A legit point. However, only the most ignorant and stupid would compare the two. They went after Clinton over a blow job. They said it was perjury, out of complete ignorance.
Bush? Try funding terrorists by proxy (you could call that TREASON). Try illegal infringement on American Citizens right to privacy! These are NOT trivial issues.
And yea, let the electorate meet out punnishment. I like that.
One problem, how do they meet out punishment on Bush? Elect a Democrat? Shit, he just goes home to good ole Crawford and "who gives a shit" ensues.
IF the guy is guilty of illegal wiretapping, IF the guy is guilty of funding Radical Salafi Sunni Terrorists in Lebanon, he needs to go to a JAIL CELL, not Crawford.
That said, whatever the outcome of this, I don't expect him to get a jail term.
April 24, 2007
12:09 PM
Anti-Stupid writes:
JW "A legit point. However, only the most ignorant and stupid would compare the two. They went after Clinton over a blow job. They said it was perjury, out of complete ignorance."
Do you actually believe the crap that comes out of your piehole? Your ego must be unbelievable, maybe try therapy.
The only ignorant and stupid one here, is you. JaydoubleU.
April 24, 2007
12:21 PM
jay writes:
You just proved JW's point Stupid...thanks for the example.
JW,
I do believe that W should be held legally responsible for the messes his administration has created (and continue to create in an attempt to salvage any shred of a postiive legacy). However, I think this Administration, maybe more so than any other, is willing to stand before Congress and "not recall" every deceitful and/or unethical action over the last 6 years. With the 18 months the Dems have left to make their case for a return to executive power, I fear that chasing a legal conviction against Bush would allow Republican candidates to continue to distance themselves from any responsibility as enablers for one of the worst presidential stints in history and run on an "I'm Republican, but not like Bush was" ticket. I'm not sure we should leave the door open for them. I would rather see a well constructed case set before the American people clearly outlining the despicable actions of both the Republican Majority and Administration instead of chasing yet another Teflon Republican President. I would rather them make the case that the Republicans in Congress and the WH were partners in policy decisions that have come to epitomize US failures in the 21st century. If in the process we're able to legally punish some of those responsible, so be it. I am in no way saying that Bush/Cheny doesn't deserve to go to jail for treason or be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors...but I think the chances of success are pretty slim considering the type of testimony Republican officials have given thus far. Maybe I'm just a glass is half empty kind of guy on this issue, but I think both Dick and W are too well insulated to be realistic targets.
April 24, 2007
12:28 PM
Anonymous writes:
The lefty story line is that the Iraqis want us to leave. If only Americans go home, the war will end.
They said the same thing about Vietnam. We left. Thousands of people were slaughtered. A million took to the sea to escape and millions more were forced into re-education camps. Then came the killing fields of Cambodia, where Hanoi’s surrogates slaughtered 2 million more people.
That was the “peace” the American left brought to Southeast Asia. They cut off funding.
Arabs are not dummies. They know our history. They know the situation.
The numbing significance of the statement from Senate Plurality Leader Harry Reid that the “war is lost” was not lost on the head of the only relief agency in Iraq: In Washington for a series of advocacy meetings in Congress, Said Hakki, the president of the Iraqi Red Crescent, expressed concern that by setting a withdrawal timetable, the U.S. would abandon Iraq at the height of a humanitarian crisis.
It is important to remember that Reid voted for this war, when that was popular. Now that it is unpopular, he seeks to shrug it as if it were last year’s hot new dance craze.
Ah yes, the UN’s vaunted humanitarian effort. It made Kofi Annan’s son rich and kept Jacques Chirac’s pockets lined, but it starved thousands of Iraqi children.
Look, it is up to the United States to help Iraq. No one else will.
Too much of the political debate in America is focused on old issues — WMDs and whether Hussein was a major tyrant or a “third-rate” dictator. People truly concerned about peace — about the fate of the Iraqi people — would stop discussing the past and begin working on the future. I find it interesting that the left is so concerned about carbon footprints.
What about humanitarian footprints?
What sort of tree do you plant as penance for turning your back on 24 million people?
April 24, 2007
12:41 PM
JW writes:
12:28,
Valid points (accept for the Reid one. Who cares if he voted for it. Its a legit argument that he was mislead. Im not going to have that one again).
The one I would like to discuss is this:
"Too much of the political debate in America is focused on old issues — WMDs and whether Hussein was a major tyrant or a “third-rate” dictator. People truly concerned about peace — about the fate of the Iraqi people — would stop discussing the past and begin working on the future. I find it interesting that the left is so concerned about carbon footprints."
First off, lets ditch the "carbon footprints' thing. It has no place in this discussion. Additionally, its silly because for every "Hypocricy" you can name regarding Dems, I can name one regarding Repus. Its a zero sum game, and it is a TIRED discussion tactic.
Regarding the rest of that statement, totally relevant. The question, if we are going to look FORWARD rather than back, is this:
What can we accomplish in Iraq over the next 1 1/2 years? Because one thing is true, the American people are TIRED of this. I don't see them supporting the war any farther, and since Bush won't be able to keep us there after 08, we will probably be leaving.
If we cannot accomplish much over the next 1 1/2 years, and we will leave then, why should we remain? Im not sure of the answer here, but perhaps you have some reasons.
Jay,
Here is part of an op-ed piece by George McGovern.
"It is my firm belief that the Cheney-Bush team has committed offenses that are worse than those that drove Nixon, Vice President Spiro Agnew and Atty. Gen. John Mitchell from office after 1972. Indeed, as their repeated violations of the Constitution and federal statutes, as well as their repudiation of international law, come under increased consideration, I expect to see Cheney and Bush forced to resign their offices before 2008 is over. "
Im not sure if I agree or not, but its worth a read.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-mcgovern24apr24,0,4084076.story
April 24, 2007
12:42 PM
Anonymous writes:
12:28
What the hell does that have to do with abortion, other than putting yourself forward as a poster child for abortion?
April 24, 2007
12:57 PM
Kevin Jones writes:
"That same year, 27 women were admitted to the hospital because of botched abortion attempts, and 208 girls ages 12 to 19 gave birth there."
Of course, back then more minors were married at an early age. There should have been some distinction between legitimate and illegitimate births in that last statistic, which seems cooked.
Interesting how conscious the article is about Catholics and their opposition to abortion. Today, being Catholic in the state legislature is the most reliable predictor of one's support for abortion. Our Catholic Democrats, the beasts, are entirely in favor of this abomination.
As I heard it, the Catholic archbishop at the time was out of town somewhere trying to rationalize his and others' dissent on contraception.
The revolution has come, the unwanted child was first against the wall, and we call it liberalization.
Talk about giving liberalism a bad name!
April 24, 2007
1:04 PM
JW writes:
"What the hell does that have to do with abortion, other than putting yourself forward as a poster child for abortion?"
We hijacked this thread. Abortion has been done. Now we are talking about Impeachment....
April 24, 2007
1:38 PM
Gears writes:
If the Democrats really believed they could impeach GW they would do it. They don't though have the evidence to do it and they know it. They know if they start to dig they will find that they have the same amount of responsibility as does GW for the Iraq war. The only evidence out there is from all the conspiracy theorists. The same people believe that Aliens visited Roswell.
I dare the Democrats to try and impeach GW. They will lose, because it will be found that GW never mislead the American people and lied in a court of law.
President Clinton did not get impeached over a blow job. He got impeached for lying to federal prosecuters. He was on trial for sexually harrassing a woman. Knowing Clinton's history that he has cheated on his wife twice (what he actually has admitted) I have to believe he could sexually harass a woman. Libby recently was busted doing the same thing and now he is going to jail. Why didn't Clinton?
Has the Democrats found anything on Bush? No! So get over it.
You guys are filled with so much hate I really feel bad for you. How do you get by in life without kicking your dog when you get home every day.
Keep listening to McGovern. Like he is a respected balanced man.
April 24, 2007
1:54 PM
JW writes:
"If the Democrats really believed they could impeach GW they would do it. "
Im pretty sure that article said they are talking about impeaching Cheney, for now.
"I dare the Democrats to try and impeach GW. They will lose, because it will be found that GW never mislead the American people and lied in a court of law. "
I've said it before and Im sure you wingnuts will give me cause to say it again, Ignorance is an UGLY thing.
"President Clinton did not get impeached over a blow job. He got impeached for lying to federal prosecuters. He was on trial for sexually harrassing a woman. Knowing Clinton's history that he has cheated on his wife twice (what he actually has admitted) I have to believe he could sexually harass a woman. Libby recently was busted doing the same thing and now he is going to jail. Why didn't Clinton? "
Hey! I knew I would say it again...but so soon? Ignorance is an UGLY thing. Clinton didnt lie on the stand. He lied on tv...just like Reagan.
"Has the Democrats found anything on Bush? No! So get over it."
This is why they are talking about articles of Impeachment. They are going to look into illegal wiretaping and such. For now though, they are looking at Cheney, not GW.
"You guys are filled with so much hate I really feel bad for you. How do you get by in life without kicking your dog when you get home every day."
Easy, I like my dog.
"Keep listening to McGovern. Like he is a respected balanced man. "
Do you even know who he is?
April 24, 2007
2:06 PM
Gears writes:
JW,
You need to check your ignorance at the door too.
Clinton did not just lie on TV he also lied on a disposition he gave via a tape for the grand jury who was investigating the sexual harassment charges. He did lie to federal prosecuters. So get your facts straight.
McGovern is the loon Democratic Presidential candidate who ran against Nixon and lost. He was against the Vietnam War. Even though the Vietnam war was unpopular back in 72 he still lost because everyone knew he was a loon. Obviously if he was such a great man what has he done to improve the world since then? Do you really know who he is or are you just one of those lemmings?
By the way they won't have a chance to impeach Cheney as well. Not even the liberal media believe the Democrats think they can do it. So I guess the liberal media are ignorant as well?
You guys worry about someone listening to your conversations. When the Democrats are trying to limit freedom of speech and right to bear arms. You need to wake up and stop following your fellow lemmings.
April 24, 2007
2:23 PM
JW writes:
"Clinton did not just lie on TV he also lied on a disposition he gave via a tape for the grand jury who was investigating the sexual harassment charges. He did lie to federal prosecuters. So get your facts straight. "
Then why was he aquited of the perjury charges? I know the answer. You, obviously, do not.
"McGovern is the loon Democratic Presidential candidate who ran against Nixon and lost. He was against the Vietnam War. Even though the Vietnam war was unpopular back in 72 he still lost because everyone knew he was a loon. Obviously if he was such a great man what has he done to improve the world since then? Do you really know who he is or are you just one of those lemmings?"
Was he a loon? Hmm. I suppose the electorate could not have been the "Loons" because they elected Nixon just in time for him to get IMPEACHED FOR REAL, and resign in DISGRACE. It wouldnt be the first time an immoral POS beat a decent guy in a national election, and obviously, it wasnt the last.
"By the way they won't have a chance to impeach Cheney as well. Not even the liberal media believe the Democrats think they can do it. So I guess the liberal media are ignorant as well?"
We will see.
"You guys worry about someone listening to your conversations. When the Democrats are trying to limit freedom of speech and right to bear arms. You need to wake up and stop following your fellow lemmings. "
I have a problem with those things as well. Unlike you, Im not a partisan HACK. I dont like things about Republicans, I dont like things about Democrats, and I like things about both as well.
Run along footsoldier.
April 24, 2007
2:42 PM
Gears writes:
JW,
When have you been harsh on the Democrats? So far every time I see you post it slams Republicans. I don't get on here all the time but it sure seems to me you are a lemming. Just as you paint a broad paint brush to me I can do it to you as well. Give some examples, where you have slammed Democrats?
If McGovern was such a great guy then why did he not try to run again? Because he is a loon and even his advisers knew he was unelectable!
"Then why was he aquited of the perjury charges? I know the answer. You, obviously, do not."
Obviously you do not know how the impeachment process actually works. The house voted him to be impeached. Clinton was impeached. Then it went to the Senate and they decide if he can be convicted. Of course they are political hacks who have to worry about politics. That is why Supreme Court judges have life time appointments so they can sometimes avoid politics for the most part. So the Senate voted not to convict becaue of politics. If you put Clinton in front of a jury he would have been convicted. You know it and I know it. But being a party hack like yourself I bet you will still defend Clinton.
By the way I did not support the impeachment of Clinton. I think it was a waste of time and money. Plus, I am a firm believer that when answering questions about what you were doing years ago you will tend to make mistakes. Plus, I don't blame him for lying about cheating on his wife. If I was a cheater I would lie as well to protect my own butt. How do you think they busted Martha Stewart and Libby. They never could bust them for the original charges but they busted them for lying.
April 24, 2007
2:48 PM
Gears writes:
JW,
I can tell you are a smart guy but sometimes you let your passion cloud your reasonable judgement.
How do you and others deal with all this hate you have built up? Do you drink, smoke, kick the dog, road rage? Today's left reminds me of the right when Clinton was running things. I told them the same thing even though I think many of the Bush haters out there are much worse than what Clinton ever faced.
For your health and sanity you need to relax a little.
April 24, 2007
2:59 PM
JW writes:
"When have you been harsh on the Democrats? So far every time I see you post it slams Republicans."
I slam Bush ALOT. Mostly, because hes a moron. I slam Repubs when they push their faith based bs in the area of social policy. I slam Repubs when they dont adhere to fiscal conservatism.
That said, Im a fiscal conservative, so the Republican talking points are in line with my beliefs there, unfortunaltey the last 6 years have been anything BUT.
Ive slammed Dems several times, especially regarding their protectionist fiscal policies. I HATE their bs gun control crap. That said, socially I am liberal as all hell. If you arent hurting anyone else, DO IT. Even if I dont like what you are doing! Thats called freedom!
"If McGovern was such a great guy then why did he not try to run again? Because he is a loon and even his advisers knew he was unelectable!"
Possible. Ill admit ignorance about this guy. However, your asertion that he wasnt elected because hes a loon doesnt fly. The guy that was elected was a Criminal! And the op-ed piece he wrote that I posted certainly doesnt back up your labeling him a loon either. And neither does the fact that he didnt run again. Youd have to show specific policies of his that are loony.
Regarding your Clinton bashing, I understand the impeachment process, thanks. He was impeached, which means he was charged. The Senate aquitted him on both counts. The Senate at the time was made up of 55 Republicans, and 45 Dems. The purjury charge vote was 55 against, and 45 for. So, deal with it. You can call it politics all you want.
What it came down to regarding the purjury charge was a COURT DEFINED definition of 'sexual relations'. The court definition did NOT contain oral sex. So, he said he didint have sexual relations. He didnt lie.
"But being a party hack like yourself I bet you will still defend Clinton."
My defense of Clinton results from two things, and NEITHER ONE is because hes a Democrat. If you are going to use the phrase "partisan hack" use it correctly.
1) Wingnuts still push the perjury crap, even after he was aquited.
2) He was a centrist, and as such, was damn close to what I wanted in a policy maker. Was he perfect? Hell NO! There were several things he did that pissed me off, including (but not limited to) his attempts at increasing survalance powers post Oklahoma (notice a patern? I dislike Bush for the same), and the assault weapons ban he signed.
However, when you align those things against his free trade policies, and his fiscal conservative policies, I thought he was one of our better presidents. I also think that about Reagan, despite not agreeing with the way he dealt with Aids, Iran, South America....
"I can tell you are a smart guy but sometimes you let your passion cloud your reasonable judgement."
Dont we all. Just shut up about Clinton, get over it, or figure out the truth about what happened, I really don't care. Im sick and tired of hearing (usually from Hogar) BBBBBBUt Clinton! Over all the guy was a good president who did some stupid shit. He was still FAR better than the idiot we have in the oval office right now.
April 24, 2007
3:02 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
The only thing that will prevent the left from impeaching Bush, is the same thing that prevented the Republicans from impeaching Clinton. The VP is even more unacceptable to them. Kucinich seems to be one of the few on the extreme left that understands that. He wants to impeach Cheney. If they are successful (no chance) at that, then they would immediately move to impeach Bush to make way for Pelosi. Even Hillary can be counted on to make sure that doesn't happen.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/04/articles_of_impeachment_to_be.html
April 24, 2007
3:14 PM
Daisy writes:
Hogar I don't follow your logic in that statement. I think Bush is largely considered to be a puppet and Cheney is the Puppet/master. I don't think anyone saw Gore in that role before. Clinton did not get Impeached simply because lying about a blow job did not qualify as High Crimes. Where have you been regarding the abortion subject? I thought that was your baby? (pun intended) Don't tell me that when confronted with logic and common sense you don't have a response?
April 24, 2007
3:18 PM
JW writes:
"The only thing that will prevent the left from impeaching Bush, is the same thing that prevented the Republicans from impeaching Clinton."
Sooooo....Nothing? They did infact impeach Clinton. And you know and love this.
April 24, 2007
3:26 PM
Gears writes:
JW,
I have to disagree with you about Clinton. Back in 92 I voted for him. It was the first time I could vote in a Presidential election. I also remember he hardly met any of his promises he made. That alone made me switch party membership.
I remember from 1992 to 1997 the economy was okay not as great as many Clinton supporters would like you to believe. The US looked weak to the rest of the world, because we did not stand up for the innocents in Bosnia (unitil that war was pretty much over), Rawanda, Liberia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc) From 1998 to 2000 the economy was awesome. The reason for this is that the Republicans controlled the congress and the Democrats controlled the white house. Thus creating a stalemate or what I call checks and balances. That is why I am happy today the Democrats are in control of the congress and the Republicans are in control of the White house. Stalemate. Good!
April 24, 2007
3:42 PM
JW writes:
"I also remember he hardly met any of his promises he made. "
Such as...
And have you switched back now that GW has failed at most of his?
"I remember from 1992 to 1997 the economy was okay not as great as many Clinton supporters would like you to believe. "
Um, ok? I seem to recal it was pretty damn good, and I would point out that very little credit can go to Clinton for the first few years of his presidency, so that has nothing to do with my support of Clinton.
"The US looked weak to the rest of the world, because we did not stand up for the innocents in Bosnia (unitil that war was pretty much over), Rawanda, Liberia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc) "
Well, I have to disagree that we looked "Weak". We did push the UN into finally doing something in Bosnia. And I would have to ask, if for the sake of argument I say we did look weak, do we look better now? We kind of look weak in Iraq. Iran seems to think we are stretched beyond capacity. The rest of the world thinks we are Assholes. Better?
"From 1998 to 2000 the economy was awesome. The reason for this is that the Republicans controlled the congress and the Democrats controlled the white house."
Thats an AWFULLY simplistic take on things. You sure it has nothing to do with the internet? You sure it has nothing to do with Clinton's trade policies regarding China for instance? What about Clinton cutting Capital Gains taxes? Did that help the economy? How about balancing the budget? What did that do in terms of investment?
"Thus creating a stalemate or what I call checks and balances. That is why I am happy today the Democrats are in control of the congress and the Republicans are in control of the White house. Stalemate. Good!"
I am fully in support of stalemates. The last 6 years of rubberstamping all things "Republican" have SUCKED. Im still not very happy with the particular "Republican" we have in the WH.
April 24, 2007
3:49 PM
Gears writes:
Jay,
First, remember I still think the impeachment of Clinton was a bad idea. Let's look at this logically though. If your significant other told you they did not have sexual relations with that person but then admitted later they gave oral sex woudn't you think they lied to you? I guess I would. So to me he lied but to the courts he did not. That is why he got off. In front of a jury of peers most people I would think would agree with me and say he lied. Oh well. I am glad he did not get booted out. I think it would have given a black eye to the presidency and then that checks and balances would have been weakened.
Also, do you think society should put limits on people's behavior? If you were a manager at a fortune 500 company that was selling multi-million dollar equipment would you hire someone who was brillant but had 30 piercings on their face? Do you agree with what Sharpton and Jackson are doing? Do you have kids? Do you let them be who they are or do you try to give them guidance or maybe set ground rules? Would you be okay if a loved one (parent or child) came to you and said they loved Bush and was joining a Branch Davidian like cult. Would you be okay with this and try to stop them from doing this?
April 24, 2007
3:57 PM
jay writes:
Gears I think that was meant for JW, not me...but I will say this.
I don't look to my politicians, athletes or actors for a moral compass bearing.
If given the choice between infidelity and incompetence....which would you choose?
April 24, 2007
4:01 PM
JW writes:
"First, remember I still think the impeachment of Clinton was a bad idea. Let's look at this logically though. If your significant other told you they did not have sexual relations with that person but then admitted later they gave oral sex woudn't you think they lied to you? I guess I would. So to me he lied but to the courts he did not. That is why he got off. In front of a jury of peers most people I would think would agree with me and say he lied. Oh well. I am glad he did not get booted out. I think it would have given a black eye to the presidency and then that checks and balances would have been weakened."
I agree with this BUT...
If you put him in front of a jury, and told the jury that the courts definition of "Sexual Relations" did NOT include BJ's, then that jury wouldnt convict him either.
Again, the guy lied, no doubt. But with the definition the court gave him, he didnt lie on the stand.
He did lie straight up to the American Public on TV. Wingnuts vilify him all the time. Is bullshit. Reagan did the EXACT SAME THING, only he lied about selling arms to Iran.
As for the rest,
Yea, limits, blah blah blah. Look, we have a constitution. You can put limits on whatever you want, so long as the constitution says so.
In regards to behaviour, again, I believe people can do whatever they want, provided what they do does not infringe on the rights of others, even if I dont personally like what they are doing.
Freedom. Look it up. After you check the definition, realize that if you get freedom, it means others get it to. It also means that they are going to do things you dont particulairly like with their freedom. After you get mad about that, realize YOU are doing things with your freedom other people dont like...and then deal with it.
And Im JW. Jay hasnt been commenting since this morning.
Until now. Hehe. He knows my answer...Infidelity every time. Has nothing to do with how you run the country, and what policies you set. Incompetence, well, thats trouble in a leader.
April 24, 2007
4:02 PM
jay writes:
By the way...why do the wingers always run home to momma and evoke Clinton when they're backed into a corner about Bush's horrible track record? At what point do Republican mistakes have nothing to do with Billy?
April 24, 2007
4:10 PM
Gears writes:
JW,
So who do you like as a Presidential candidate? You say that you are a fiscal conservative but a liberal when it comes to social policies. Guliani? That is the only candidate that I find would fit that description.
For the sake of not writing a book you have to simplify. My point was that Clinton helped the economy by getting out of the way.
Did you ever check the unemployement numbers from 1992 to 1997? Especially compared to today? They were worse back then. According to Democrats the economy is in shambles today. So if we go by what they are saying today then I would think we could agree that the economy was okay in 92 to 97?
When you say that Clinton cut captial gains taxes and balanced the budget. Wasn't the Republicans in control of the Congress? Aren't they the ones who actually create bills cutting captial gains taxes and then create a budget and then pass along to the President. At that point in time the President can veto it or pass it along. Like I said before Clinton just got out of the way and did nothing to stop those bills. Good for him and thus good for us.
Clinton never got the UN involved in Bosnia. In fact he never even brought a resolution to the UN to approve the attack on Serbia, because he knew Russia and China would oppose it. Instead he used NATO and got them to support it. Good for him. Too bad he did not do it earlier and save thousands of lives. Sometimes you got to do the right thing even though it is not popular.
April 24, 2007
4:21 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Daisy,
The point was not that Gore and Cheney are unacceptable for the same reason, it is that they are more unacceptable to the opposition than either Clinton or Bush.
I often wonder what would have happened to Nixon if Agnew had still been in place.
On abortion, I am becoming more and more conflicted. I feel I have an obligation to the babies, but the thought of just letting those who want to remove their genes from the pool do so is very tempting. Granted it would be better if they did not get pregnant in the first place, which is why I do support the use birth control, but only by liberals. ;-)
April 24, 2007
4:25 PM
Gears writes:
JW,
I don't get mad what other people do and how they live their lives. That is why I love America. I find it strange that liberals spout how they are all about freedom but then they talk about political correctness and telling people they can not join religious groups that discuss political views. Isn't that restricting people what they can do?
If you are a dude that wants to look like a porcupine then go for it, but I also think I should not have to hire you. I should be able to hire who I want who I believe will make me money. That is why I asked that question to you but you decided to avoid it. In fact you avoided a lot of my questions. Please answer so I know if you are truly for freedom or you are just like a typical liberal who are all for freedom just as long as it agrees with your ideology.
April 24, 2007
4:34 PM
Gears writes:
Hogar,
That is a good one and I agree.
With the morning after pill and birth control readily available I just don't find the reason why we even have abortion today. If a women does not want to be pregnant all they need to do is take precations like birth control or the morning after pill. Watching on film how an abortion takes place is very difficult to watch. Watching the fetus trying to get away from certain death and then getting sucked up is disturbing. I would be okay with all women having paid birth control pills or morning after pills if it came to eliminating abortions.
April 24, 2007
5:19 PM
Tbone writes:
Gears-
I'll tell ya why. My good buddy and his wife just had an abortion last thursday. The doctors could not hear a heartbeat - so there was no choice.
THAT is why abortion is needed. My buddy's wife is pretty tore up at the moment, but it is what had to be done.
April 24, 2007
5:22 PM
JW writes:
"So who do you like as a Presidential candidate? You say that you are a fiscal conservative but a liberal when it comes to social policies. Guliani? That is the only candidate that I find would fit that description."
Romney may as well. As someone who liked Clinton's centrist position, obviously I like Hillary. Keep in mind here, I dont give a crap about her "bitchyness" or the character flaws people always bash her with. I don't even care if she ends up promoting a position because its politically viable. They ALL do that. With Hillary, you know what you will get, and its more Bill, whatever anyone might say.
That said, I have by no means made my decision. I need to do research about Rudy's tenure as New York mayor. That should tell me about his politics far more than any debate or campaign will. Same with Romney and his Governorship. Im a registered Republican, so I will have to decide which of them to support in the primary, at least.
"My point was that Clinton helped the economy by getting out of the way."
Which is the best thing ANY President can do. Clinton went farther though, by removing trade barriers as well.
"Did you ever check the unemployement numbers from 1992 to 1997? Especially compared to today? They were worse back then. According to Democrats the economy is in shambles today. So if we go by what they are saying today then I would think we could agree that the economy was okay in 92 to 97?"
That is only one indicator. From 92-94, you can lay that squarely at Bush 1's feet. I will do some research to see what they were, but to my knowledge they weren't 10% by any means. If they were between 4-6%, Im gona say they were fine, as economists tend to call 5% optimal.
"When you say that Clinton cut captial gains taxes and balanced the budget. Wasn't the Republicans in control of the Congress? Aren't they the ones who actually create bills cutting captial gains taxes and then create a budget and then pass along to the President. At that point in time the President can veto it or pass it along. Like I said before Clinton just got out of the way and did nothing to stop those bills. Good for him and thus good for us."
Is there a point here? We are talking about Clinton. No matter whether he drafted the bill, or just signed it, it was his policy to cut those taxes. A quick search was not definitive as to whether it was Clinton's tax-cut package that was eventually made law, or the congressional one. Either way, again, and to his credit, Clinton signed it.
"Clinton never got the UN involved in Bosnia. In fact he never even brought a resolution to the UN to approve the attack on Serbia, because he knew Russia and China would oppose it. Instead he used NATO and got them to support it. Good for him. Too bad he did not do it earlier and save thousands of lives. Sometimes you got to do the right thing even though it is not popular."
My mistake. Either way, he did something, and he took heat for it.
I fail to see your points here though. Regarding the tax cuts and Bosnia, it seems Clinton's actions were good. It seems you agree. Yet it also seems you wish to belittle his role in these things, not using any criteria that mean anything, but simply because you dislike the man.
I would like to see you argue that Bush has been better for this country than Clinton. I will even throw you a bone in this regard, in that you can just leave Iraq out of that argument. Tell me how Bush's foreign policy (minus Iraq), domestic policy, economic policy, etc are better than Clinton's were.
April 24, 2007
5:30 PM
JW writes:
"I don't get mad what other people do and how they live their lives. That is why I love America."
Good deal.
" I find it strange that liberals spout how they are all about freedom but then they talk about political correctness and telling people they can not join religious groups that discuss political views. Isn't that restricting people what they can do?"
No one said you can't join religious groups that discuss political views. Who the hell told you that? Religious groups who wish to remain tax exempt cannot actively promote political agendas. This doesn't limit freedoms. It just means that if you want to get political, you have to pay taxes like anyone else.
And, what about "conservatives"? Youre pissed at liberals for what you see as them making you be politically correct. Why no anger at "conservatives" for making you behave morally correct? Because you agree with the moral restrictions they are pushing, but not with being nice to black people?
"f you are a dude that wants to look like a porcupine then go for it, but I also think I should not have to hire you. I should be able to hire who I want who I believe will make me money."
And you can. You can litterally tell "Porcupine" guy he can't have a job because of his appearance. What you can't do is tell a black guy that despite the fact that he is the most qualified for the job, you aren't going to hire him because hes black. This isn't a liberal thing, btw. This is employment law meant to enforce your constitutional rights in the workplace.
"That is why I asked that question to you but you decided to avoid it. In fact you avoided a lot of my questions. Please answer so I know if you are truly for freedom or you are just like a typical liberal who are all for freedom just as long as it agrees with your ideology."
I said straight out, as long as you aren't infringing on anyone else's rights, do what you want.
April 24, 2007
5:39 PM
JW writes:
Gears,
Here is unemployment data from 1990-99. As you can see, it gets worse during the final years of Bush 1. Its at its worst in 92-93, and it improves all the way though Clinton's presidency. Again, it looks like Bush 1's policies took some time for Bill to correct.
April 24, 2007
5:43 PM
JW writes:
"I would be okay with all women having paid birth control pills or morning after pills if it came to eliminating abortions."
Which would do a hell of a lot more for the "Pro-Life" agenda than that stupid abortion ban they are always screaming about.
April 24, 2007
6:33 PM
shaggy writes:
JW 05:39 PM,
I`m staying out of your discussion
but I don`t see your data.
Just curious.
Post it for me for my info.
TY.
April 24, 2007
8:17 PM
Love & Darkness & My Sidearm writes:
Adult women should not have a choice, they should do whatever the government tells them to do. Because the Government makes better decisions than an individual does.
April 25, 2007
8:31 AM
JW writes:
"JW 05:39 PM,
I`m staying out of your discussion
but I don`t see your data.
Just curious.
Post it for me for my info.
TY."
DOH! No link in that post. Sorry.
http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mapbook/pdf/section1.pdf
April 25, 2007
10:35 AM
Pro-regressive writes:
Cracks me up hearing those who spit on the Vietnam Vets as they returned and called them baby-killers advocate for the murder of babies.
April 25, 2007
12:39 PM
Libby McPinko for President writes:
"Pro-Regressive"
Definition: Strongly supports a backwards outlook on life.
BTW, you notice that the person who was the chief Senate sponsor of the bill that liberalized Colo's abortion laws was a REPUBLICAN???
In your tiny mind, anyone supporting a left (or less-right) viewpoint is equivalent to a "hippie", is that it? Along that road of logic, let's discuss some of history's most infamous right-wingers...the German Nazi Party.
We got hippies, you got Nazis. I guess that means you win...your side has the most severe extreme.
April 25, 2007
1:24 PM
Daisy writes:
Now you guys are getting it. (Hogar and Gears) The way to deal with unwanted pregnancies is before they happen. Now if you can just explain this to some of the nutjobs in the Pro-Life movement.
April 28, 2007
5:31 PM
Pro-Regressive writes:
Sorry Libby but I couldn't care less about whether that person was a Rep or Dem... I just wanted to remind those hippies that their current kill-at-will attitude is in direct conflict of what being a hippie was. You know... peace, love, save the whales.
You see I don't advocate for the taking of any life from the mighty elephant to the diminutive ant unless it is for food.
Since you bring it up, in general I am sick of you non-indigenous people acting like there are only two types of people. Most of the people who have come to this continent in the last 300 years are decidedly murderous. Rep or Dem doesn't matter when you call for the murder of others especially the innocent.
You have hippies AND you have Nazi's so why don't you just go back across the sea and take your hatred and murder with you?