Quayle on abortion
Alex S. Crain
I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
decsion that she made".
Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
--
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
Alex Crain
UMBC Academic Computing Services
Greg Halbrook
> I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
>and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
>wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
>decsion that she made".
> Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
>Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
What would you expect him to say? His supporting his daughter in any
decision she made in this scenario sounds like an anti-family-value to you?
Try, for just a moment, to pretend that you are totally against abortion.
Then pretend your daughter, whom you love very much decides to have one.
Are you going to disown her because she made a decision you disagreed with?
(I know that some people might)
I'm pro-choice myself, but I can see no hypocrisy in someone who is
pro-life standing by thier loved ones especially in a time of crisis, nor
do I see any lessening of family values in this.
--
Greg.
Thorongil
Of course Mrs. Quayle said her daughter would carry the baby to term...
___ ____
/__) / ^ __| ^ |\ /| ______________________________
/ . \_/ . / \(__|/ \| V | (__ pa...@erc.msstate.edu
_______________________________________)
Engineering Research Center For Computational Field Simulation
Pim van Meurs
> I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
>and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
>wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
>decsion that she made".
> Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
>Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
Not that I want to defend Quayle but his response to this question
is one that every parent in america should be able to relate to:
support of your children's decisions, whether you agree with them or
not. I consider myself pro-choice but feel that abortions should be
used as little as possible. Of course I am a male and it is not my
choice... If my daughter would come to me and asked me to support
her in her decision, I would talk things over with her and then
support her. I wonder though if such a decision should be considered
'pro-choice'. I would call it 'pro-family'. Maybe they are not the
family values which conservatives like so much but they are surely
my kind of family values.
Pim van Meurs
--
Pim van Meurs UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Mail Code A-030 UUCP : ...!ucsd!ssurf.ucsd.edu!VANMEURS
UCSD La Jolla CA 92093 ARPA : VANM...@ssurf.ucsd.edu
(619)-458 9729 Home Bitnet : VANMEURS%ssurf.ucsd.edu@sdsc
EMIL CHUCK
:al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
:> I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
:>and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
:>wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
:>decsion that she made".
:> Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
:>Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
He REALLY said that??? Well, he's off the ticket! He's a
liability to Bush's reelection! Get him outta there!!! :)
:What would you expect him to say? His supporting his daughter in any
:decision she made in this scenario sounds like an anti-family-value to you?
:Try, for just a moment, to pretend that you are totally against abortion.
:Then pretend your daughter, whom you love very much decides to have one.
:Are you going to disown her because she made a decision you disagreed with?
:(I know that some people might)
: I'm pro-choice myself, but I can see no hypocrisy in someone who is
:pro-life standing by thier loved ones especially in a time of crisis, nor
:do I see any lessening of family values in this.
This sounded a lot like Bernard Shaw's question to Gov. Dukakis
four years ago about if Kitty Dukakis (wife) were
raped/assaulted/killed if Dukakis would agree to the death penalty for
him. Of course, Dukakis was railed for having still opposed the death
penalty despite the crime to his wife. He was portrayed thereafter as
being heartless and not caring for his family. This is a small Catch-22
for Quayle: if he won't allow his daughter to have an abortion, then
he's seen as a callous, uncaring father; but if he did, he'd be branded
as a hypocrite.
I would've personally preferred that she had not engaged in
having sex in the first place (if she were raped, then she should have
the option to elect abortion). However, I think if such an event
happened, the last thing a parent should do is disown the daughter. She
needs support from her family most of all, and I agree that Dan's
reaching out to his daughter does not make him a hypocrite. It makes him
a good parent.
--
Emil Thomas Chuck DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993 1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
EMIL CHUCK
: This sounded a lot like Bernard Shaw's question to Gov. Dukakis
:four years ago about if Kitty Dukakis (wife) were
:raped/assaulted/killed if Dukakis would agree to the death penalty for
:him.
Susan E Schudt
In article <1992Jul23.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S.
For some reason, many parents have this thing called "unconditional love" for
their children. This is the ultimate in "family values." One may disagree
with his child, but that doesn't mean he stops loving her, or "disowns" her. I
can't believe how some people are reading into this...
--
Susan E. Schudt
Dept. of Chemical Engineering - Ohio State
"When you're Right, you're right!"
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate!"
Tim Buckley
>
>For some reason, many parents have this thing called "unconditional love" for
>their children. This is the ultimate in "family values." One may disagree
>with his child, but that doesn't mean he stops loving her, or "disowns" her. I
>can't believe how some people are reading into this...
>--
>Susan E. Schudt
>Dept. of Chemical Engineering - Ohio State
>"When you're Right, you're right!"
>"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate!"
You are right on target, Susan. But your comments apply not only to
children but friends as well. I have had several friends come and talk
to me about the possibility of having an abortion. Some had an abortion
some did not. I do not love them any less but I am sorry that they
killed their child (fetus if you insist). No matter what the outcome
was they were glad I was there. Does this make me pro-abortion? I
don't think so and neither do they. But they did trust me to be
unfailing in my love. I fail to see how this makes me a hypocrite. The
whole thing is about love. It is unfortunate that some have such an
immature understanding of the term.
Tim
John R. Moore
In article <1992Jul23.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
] I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
]and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
]wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
]decsion that she made".
]
] Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
]Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
I would answer the same as he did. It is pro-family values to support
your children once they have made a choice. He didn't say that he wouldn't
try to influence the choice - he said he would support her if she
made the choice.
Greg Halbrook
>In article <crb2.71...@Ra.MsState.Edu> cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
>>Well, that's buying off on the liberal media's slant..I saw the show and
>>never thought that he said anything that was pro-choice.
> Right. I forgot about the liberal media, which quoted the words
>verbatim. It looks like times roman to me, but I suppose it could be slanted
>slightly. He said:
> KING: What if your daughter grew up and had a problem, came to you
> and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
> it?
> QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
> do have to deal with it, but obviously ----
> KING: What would you do?
> QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on
> whatever decision she made?
> KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?
> QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
> decision.
>The New York Times, in a fit of liberalness, did not draw any conclusions
>from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal
>abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".
> My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.
I'm sorry, but I don't see it quite that way. If Quayles daughter did
decide to become a murderer (not via abortion, but say she shot and killed
someone (premeditated and all that)), again I say his standing by her and
giving her all the support he can is not hypocritical. Even if abortion
were illegal and she had one, it wouldn't be hypocritical for him to support
his daughter in her times of duress. It would be hypocritical if he tried
to exempt her from any punishment that her crime warranted.
***DISCLAIMER*** In no way do I contend or mean to imply that it is my opinion
that abortion is murder.
>--
>Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
> Alex Crain
> UMBC Academic Computing Services
( A side note to Alex: I often disagree with your posts, even to the point of
ire. But they do make me think. Once or twice you've even opened my eyes
to the errors in my own thinking. Thanks :)
--
Greg.
Chad R. Berthelson
>In article <1992Jul23.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>] I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
>]and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
>]wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
>]decsion that she made".
>]
>] Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
>]Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
Well, that's buying off on the liberal media's slant..I saw the show and
never thought that he said anything that was pro-choice. He was asked
if his daughter came to him with this 'problem' what he would do..his
answer was 'I would council her and I hope that she would make the right
decision' (that's my paraphrase..I don't have the transcript, but it's
real close). The next question was 'well, if after all that her
decision was abortion, what would you do?', he said that he would
support her no matter what she did...
In this VERY hypothetical instance, Quayle obviously doesn't want his
daughter to have an abortion (and I am sure would be heart-broken if she
did), but the fact is..the law (as it reads in most places), leaves
him (the parent) out of the legal question. If after all of his pleading
and 'counciling' she still had an abortion, he just said that he wouldn't
hound her forever or disown her, he would support her.
The pro-life stance is that if the law was different, Dan would never
be asked stupid hypotheticals and if it ever did happen as stated, then
he would have his 'counciling' and the law on his side.
Chad
--
Chad R. Berthelson Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
cr...@ra.msstate.edu Biological Engineering
cbe...@abe.msstate.edu Mississippi State University
Chip Switzer
>Of course Mrs. Quayle said her daughter would carry the baby to term...
The two were asked different questions. The vice president was asked
about an adult daughter, and Mrs. Quayle was asked about a 13 year old
daughter.
They both answered very consistently with their beliefs. It
is not up to 13 year old to decide on matters such as this (of course
Mrs. Clinton would argue the opposite side even if the child were 5...).
And as far as the vice president is concerned, instead of making this
into a referendum of abortion, why not substitute the following question
and see how *you* would answer it? "Would you support your daughter if
she make a terrible mistake and robbed a bank?"
This has nothing to do with whether or not he agreed with her decision--just
about strong family commitment and love.
Chip Switzer "A witty saying proves nothing."
jswi...@afit.af.mil -- Voltaire
Russ Anderson
In article <gsh.71...@hela.iti.org>, g...@iti.org (Greg Halbrook) writes:
> al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>
> > I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
> >and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
> >wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
> >decsion that she made".
>
> > Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
> >Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
>
> What would you expect him to say? His supporting his daughter in any
> decision she made in this scenario sounds like an anti-family-value to you?
Hmmm... If Dan Quayle's daughter decided to rob a bank, would Dan
support that decision too?
> Try, for just a moment, to pretend that you are totally against abortion.
> Then pretend your daughter, whom you love very much decides to have one.
> Are you going to disown her because she made a decision you disagreed with?
> (I know that some people might)
No, of course not. Now think that all women (and men too) are God's children
and you should love them as you love your own children. Are you going to
disown (or love less) other women because they made a decision you disagree
with?
> I'm pro-choice myself, but I can see no hypocrisy in someone who is
> pro-life standing by thier loved ones especially in a time of crisis, nor
> do I see any lessening of family values in this.
I don't criticise Dan for standing by his daughter. I do flame him for
trying to make criminals of other women that seek an abortion.
Dan should stand by *all* women, the same as he would stand by his daughter.
--
Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Russ Anderson
In article <1992Jul24.0...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, ssc...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
> In article <1992Jul23.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> > I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
> >and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
> >wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
> >decsion that she made".
> >
> > Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
> >Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
>
> their children. This is the ultimate in "family values." One may disagree
> with his child, but that doesn't mean he stops loving her, or "disowns" her. I
> can't believe how some people are reading into this...
I don't criticize Dan for his "unconditional love" for his daughter, but I
do flame him for not having the same unconditional love for *all* women
in similar circumstances as his daughter.
If he would not treat his daughter like a criminal, he should not support
legislation to make other women criminals.
Russ Anderson
I would answer as Dan did. The difference is that Dan supports legislation
to make women in similar situations a criminal, while I oppose such legislation.
Alex S. Crain
>Well, that's buying off on the liberal media's slant..I saw the show and
>never thought that he said anything that was pro-choice.
Right. I forgot about the liberal media, which quoted the words
verbatim. It looks like times roman to me, but I suppose it could be slanted
slightly. He said:
KING: What if your daughter grew up and had a problem, came to you
and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
it?
QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
do have to deal with it, but obviously ----
KING: What would you do?
QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on
whatever decision she made?
KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?
QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
decision.
The New York Times, in a fit of liberalness, did not draw any conclusions
from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal
abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".
My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
at least that far for your own kids.
--
Greg Halbrook
>In article <gsh.71...@hela.iti.org>, g...@iti.org (Greg Halbrook) writes:
>> al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>>
>> > I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
>> >and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
>> >wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
>> >decsion that she made".
>>
>> > Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
>> >Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
>>
>> What would you expect him to say? His supporting his daughter in any
>> decision she made in this scenario sounds like an anti-family-value to you?
>Hmmm... If Dan Quayle's daughter decided to rob a bank, would Dan
>support that decision too?
I said he supported his daughter, not her decision. Why are you trying to
read things into something I didn't say? If she did decide to rob a bank,
I would hope he'd support her through out the trial and sentence.
>> Try, for just a moment, to pretend that you are totally against abortion.
>> Then pretend your daughter, whom you love very much decides to have one.
>> Are you going to disown her because she made a decision you disagreed with?
>> (I know that some people might)
>No, of course not. Now think that all women (and men too) are God's children
>and you should love them as you love your own children. Are you going to
>disown (or love less) other women because they made a decision you disagree
>with?
In some cases I would. It depends on the decision. There are some types of
people I would prefer to have nothing to do with. Are you saying that you
would welcome Adolph Hitler with open arms? After all, it was just a little
thing like his decision to exterminate an entire race that you disagreed
with.
>> I'm pro-choice myself, but I can see no hypocrisy in someone who is
>> pro-life standing by thier loved ones especially in a time of crisis, nor
>> do I see any lessening of family values in this.
>I don't criticise Dan for standing by his daughter. I do flame him for
>trying to make criminals of other women that seek an abortion.
>Dan should stand by *all* women, the same as he would stand by his daughter.
I find it hard to dispute your logic here :)
>--
>Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
>------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1992
>EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
--
Greg.
Debbie Fuhry
KING: What if your daughter grew up and had a problem, came to you
and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
it?
QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
do have to deal with it, but obviously ----
KING: What would you do?
QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on
whatever decision she made?
KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?
QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
decision.
[...]
> My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.
He *is* willing to go that far to prevent his own *adult* daughter from
having an abortion. However, since we're talking about an *adult*
daughter, that's all he can do. Once she's gotten the abortion, should he
disown her? I don't think he was saying he'd tell her "Oh, it's alright
honey, do whatever you think is best, and we're behind you all the way."
I'm sure it's something like "You know what we believe about this decision,
but you're still our daughter, and we won't stop loving you because of it."
I think there's a massive gulf between those two sentiments, Alex.
Thorongil
>
>>Well, that's buying off on the liberal media's slant..I saw the show and
>>never thought that he said anything that was pro-choice.
>
> Right. I forgot about the liberal media, which quoted the words
>verbatim. It looks like times roman to me, but I suppose it could be slanted
>slightly. He said:
>
> and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
> it?
>
> QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
> do have to deal with it, but obviously ----
>
> KING: What would you do?
>
> QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on
> whatever decision she made?
>
> KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?
>
> QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
> decision.
>
>from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal
>abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".
>
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.
>
No, he is not saying that if she chose to become a murderer that he'd
support her decision. Instead he is saying that if my daughter chose to have
an abortion ( become a muderer, thief, etc. - you substitute in what you
like ) that he'd support her when she faced the consequences. It is like
a mother supporting her son who killed someone and is in jail. There is
nothing wrong with that. He is not condoning that act ( of abortion, murder,
theft, ... ), but is condoning the support of the people after the act is
performed.
Jeffrey J Spencer
first for getting pregnant. Then I would force her to marry the father and live
a long and happy life."
He didn't say he woudn't care if she decided to have an abortion. He simply
meant that he loves his daughter and would support her even if she made a
decision he felt was bad. On tv this morning the bank robbery analogy was used
to illustrate how even if she robbed a bank, he would still be behind even
though she made a bad decision. It's not called being a hypocrite, just a good
parent.
William Kucharski
al...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) said the following:
> My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.
He is. The point is, if she were an adult and decided to have an abortion,
"traditional family values" dictate that you love and support your children,
regardless of whether you agree with what they have decided.
I'd like to see a similar interchange with Mr. Clinton, asking him what he
would do if his daughter grew up and joined Operation Rescue. If he said
that he hoped she wouldn't but would still love her if she did, does that
make him pro-life?
--
| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc. | Opinions expressed above
| Internet: kuch...@solbourne.com Ham: N0OKQ | are MINE alone, not those
| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO 80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club | "Dittos from Longmont, CO"
EMIL CHUCK
: and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
: it?
: QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
: do have to deal with it, but obviously ----
: KING: What would you do?
: QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on
: whatever decision she made?
: KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?
: QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
: decision.
:The New York Times, in a fit of liberalness, did not draw any conclusions
:from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal
:abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".
"While we welcome VP Quayle's newfound respect for his own daughter's
freedom to choose, we regret that he and President Bush want to take
that same freedom away from everyone else. It smacks of a double
standard for VP Quayle to support his daughter's decision when he's
worked so hard to allow the government to interfere in every other
woman's decision."
Kate Michelman, NARAL President (National Abortion Rights Action
League)
"There is a clear distinction between supporting your children's
decisions, right or wrong, and supporting a woman's right to choose. ...
If she's an adult, clearly, he's a loving father, he would support his
daughter even if she makes the wrong decision. ... He's not saying he
supports her right to choose. He supports his daughter because he loves
her."
Jeffrey Nesbit, spokesman for VP Quayle
"[Quayle's comments] are consistent with a pro-life position. We reject
the violent act of abortion. We do not reject the people involved. ... A
parent can still support the child without approving of the act that the
child has carried out."
Darla St. Martin, assoc. executive director, National
Right-to-Life Committee
"I don't think I should comment on Dan Quayle's relationship with his
daughter. He made a personal statement. ... I think it reinforces my
position that these matters should not be turned back into crimes.
<< Asked what he would do if his daughter Chelsea, now 12,
became pregnant, Clinton said: >> I wouldn't talk to the press about
it."
Gov. Bill Clinton, Democratic nominee for President.
Quotes taken from Washington Post 24 Jul 92, A16.
Now, my notes:
1) According to the context of this excerpt, Larry was prompting
Quayle on his support for his family and his daughter. Remember this was
a hypothetical problem "that all fathers fear." Note he said: "I would
support her" and "I'd support my daughter."
2) It seems interesting that Clinton said he wouldn't comment about
Quayle's statement. Watch and see if the rest of the party would be so
"gentlemanly."
3) Michelman's comment about Quayle's "newfound respect for his
daughter's freedom to choose." Again, if he spurned his daughter, then
she'd probably deride Quayle for being a cold-hearted Republican for
putting his ideology over his own flesh-and-blood. As I said once
before, it's a Catch-22 for Quayle. He can't please his opponents no
matter what. (That's what George Bush has learned in four years of
compromise with Congress.)
: My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
:is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
:murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
:one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
:anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
:stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
:at least that far for your own kids.
And what if Corinne Quayle chose to have the baby?
*Sigh.* I guess you approved of Gov. Dukakis saying he would
still disapprove of using the death penalty even against a criminal who
fictitiously murders his wife. How noble of him to be consistent on his
stand even when it affects him (hypothetically) personally. When someone
breaks into your house and holds you and your family at gunpoint, how
noble you are if you're for gun-control and refuse to use your gun in
self-defense and defense of your family.
Finally, would you support your son or
daughter marrying someone you didn't think would make a good spouse for
him/her, or would you disown your own child? Some parents despite their
apprehensions and opposition would still support their children in times
of need. This last point is an example of how parents support their
children even if they don't agree with the decision. Sorry if you don't
agree.
William Kucharski
r...@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) said the following:
>Hmmm... If Dan Quayle's daughter decided to rob a bank, would Dan
>support that decision too?
I'd expect him to be very disappointed in her, but not to love her any less.
>No, of course not. Now think that all women (and men too) are God's children
>and you should love them as you love your own children. Are you going to
>disown (or love less) other women because they made a decision you disagree
>with?
Well, setting aside for the moment that they're not your own children, I'd
say that it takes quite a bit of willpower to feel this way towards someone
other than your own child. Remember, Saddam Hussein is one of God's children
too, but I digress.
>I don't criticise Dan for standing by his daughter. I do flame him for
>trying to make criminals of other women that seek an abortion.
>Dan should stand by *all* women, the same as he would stand by his daughter.
Why should he? He has a viewpoint, that abortion is wrong and is perfectly
free to follow his feelings and try to put controls on or stop abortion
altogether. If you're female and have an illegal abortion, there's nothing
saying that Dan Quayle (or your parents) will love you any less for it.
Don Porter
>> Hmmm... If Dan Quayle's daughter decided to rob a bank, would Dan
>> support that decision too?
<Brwp1...@solbourne.com> (William Kucharski) writes:
> I'd expect him to be very disappointed in her, but not to love her any less.
I don't want to pick on Russ and William specifically here, but has
anyone given any thought to how Dan Quayle's daughter might feel
about being used in this way? This is getting about as bad as the
Dukakis debate question about someone attacking his wife. I'm sure the
Quayles have gotten used to being treated as symbols rather than people,
but that doesn't mean it's right to continue. Isn't there some
other way we can discuss the VP's comments?
>| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO 80501
Hey, Longmont! That's where my family lived from 1969-71. I built
many a fine snowman there.
| Don Porter | d...@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis |
| "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they |
| please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Alex S. Crain
>I'd like to see a similar interchange with Mr. Clinton, asking him what he
>would do if his daughter grew up and joined Operation Rescue. If he said
>that he hoped she wouldn't but would still love her if she did, does that
>make him pro-life?
Mr. Clinton is not trying to make joining operation rescue an illegal
act. A better example would be "How would X feel if their kid went off and
joined a jamacan drug Cartel".
The pro-family folks cheered when an 8 year old girl turned her drug
using parents into the police - Ronald Reagan congradulated the girl personally
as a good American citizen. I realize that Quayle and Reagan are not of the
same administration, but they seem to be preeching the same gospel, and that
being the case, I would expect Quayle to use whatever means necessary to
prevent what he claims is a hidious crime, from occuring. His support for
operation rescue suggests that he supports using force to prevent abortion
from happening, it wasn't clear that he would apply the same standard in his
daughters case.
Note that I don't object to his answer per-se, I would do the same
thing - but I don't equate abortion with murder, either.
Russ Anderson
In article <1992Jul24.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu>, al...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> In article <crb2.71...@Ra.MsState.Edu> cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
>
> >Well, that's buying off on the liberal media's slant..I saw the show and
> >never thought that he said anything that was pro-choice.
>
> Right. I forgot about the liberal media, which quoted the words
> verbatim. It looks like times roman to me, but I suppose it could be slanted
> slightly. He said:
>
> KING: What if your daughter grew up and had a problem, came to you
> and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
> it?
>
> QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
> do have to deal with it, but obviously ----
>
> KING: What would you do?
>
> QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on
> whatever decision she made?
>
> KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?
>
> decision.
Heck, why can't Dan be honest and say he'd force her to bear the child by
shutting down all legal abortion clinics.
> The New York Times, in a fit of liberalness, did not draw any conclusions
> from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal
> abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".
>
> My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
> is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
> murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
> one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
> anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
> stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
> at least that far for your own kids.
--
Russ Anderson
In article <1992Jul24.1...@wuecl.wustl.edu>, d...@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
> <1992Jul24.0...@hemlock.cray.com> (Russ Anderson) :
> >> Hmmm... If Dan Quayle's daughter decided to rob a bank, would Dan
> >> support that decision too?
>
> <Brwp1...@solbourne.com> (William Kucharski) writes:
> > I'd expect him to be very disappointed in her, but not to love her any less.
>
> I don't want to pick on Russ and William specifically here, but has
> anyone given any thought to how Dan Quayle's daughter might feel
> about being used in this way?
Has Dan Qualyle given any thought to how my wife (or future daughters)
might feel if forced to bear a child against her will? This difference
is that I'm not trying to force Dan's wife or daughter to do anything
they do not want to.
> This is getting about as bad as the
> Dukakis debate question about someone attacking his wife. I'm sure the
> Quayles have gotten used to being treated as symbols rather than people,
> but that doesn't mean it's right to continue. Isn't there some
> other way we can discuss the VP's comments?
Sure. Dan can keep the *HELL* out of my families decisions.
Tim Buckley
>In article <BrwoK...@solbourne.com> kuch...@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
>
>>I'd like to see a similar interchange with Mr. Clinton, asking him what he
>>would do if his daughter grew up and joined Operation Rescue. If he said
>>that he hoped she wouldn't but would still love her if she did, does that
>>make him pro-life?
>
> Mr. Clinton is not trying to make joining operation rescue an illegal
>act. A better example would be "How would X feel if their kid went off and
>joined a jamacan drug Cartel".
Are you sure that this is accurate, Mr. Crain? I'm not sure what his
views on this are but many of his supporters are working to see to it
that Operation Rescue is, in fact, restrained from continuing their
tactics. They have had mixed success but continue the battle. Perhaps
Governor Clinton does not support these efforts but I suspect that he does.
>
> The pro-family folks cheered when an 8 year old girl turned her drug
>using parents into the police - Ronald Reagan congradulated the girl
>personally
Some did but I'm sure others did not. I know this to be true. I
consider myself pro-family (I suspect many Clinton supporters are also)
and I was extremely upset. I certainly did NOT cheer.
>as a good American citizen. I realize that Quayle and Reagan are not of the
>same administration, but they seem to be preeching the same gospel, and that
>being the case, I would expect Quayle to use whatever means necessary to
>prevent what he claims is a hidious crime, from occuring. His support for
>operation rescue suggests that he supports using force to prevent abortion
>from happening, it wasn't clear that he would apply the same standard in his
>daughters case.
Even Operation Rescue (with whom I personally have many disagreements
over tactics) does NOT use "whatever means necessary" to prevent the
hideous crime. Extreme as they sometimes are it is not hard to think of
many other things that they could do that are even more extreme.
Tim
Mike Schwartz
> I don't criticize Dan for his "unconditional love" for his daughter, but I
> do flame him for not having the same unconditional love for *all* women
> in similar circumstances as his daughter.
>
Who says that Quayle doesn't have love for all women? You've got a LOT
to prove here, buddy.
> If he would not treat his daughter like a criminal, he should not support
> legislation to make other women criminals.
>
Women were never ever made criminals. Doctors were held responsible.
This is before Roe, since there has been ZERO legislation against
abortion in the 20 years since.
> --
> Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
> ------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1992
> EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or my...@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024
Susan Garvin
In article <mykes...@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> my...@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
[text deleted]
#Women were never ever made criminals. Doctors were held responsible.
#This is before Roe, since there has been ZERO legislation against
#abortion in the 20 years since.
You really should try listening or reading some news now and again.
(Unless, of course, you enjoy your current state of ignorance.)
There's been plenty of legislation against abortion in the nineteen
years since Roe. At least one piece (the Utah law) initially
made the woman eligible for the death penalty.
Susan
Mark Gansle
> KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?
>
> QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
> decision.
> My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.
Really, Alex, you don't have to resort to intellectual dishonesty. In the
interview, the inflection was clear: Quayle emphasized the phrase "my daughter."
So what did he mean? He meant that he would try to dissuade his daughter, but
as it is legal under _Roe_ for her to get an abortion and he has no legal right
to stop her, he would have to deal with the reality of the situation. He would
hate her decision and lover his daughter as person none the less.
I mean, really! Plenty of liberals have posted to the board already, demon-
strating that *they* are intelligent enough to understand the distinction
between supporting a person and supporting his/her actions. Why can't *you*
grasp this distinction? Surely you're not stupid? My guess is you just
can't let any chance go to bash Quayle (or any Republican, for that matter),
even if you have to lie to do it.
My mother smokes; I hate the fact that she does so and wish she would stop,
but that does not diminish my love for her. Maybe you have an analogous
dilemma in your life?
+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|Cloud-gathering Zeus |Think globally. |
| |Act locally. |
|ze...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |Eat my shorts totally. |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+
Mike Schwartz
>
> I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
> and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
> wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
> decsion that she made".
>
> Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
> Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
Comment: She would choose to not have an abortion. Supporting that
decision is easy. This is the quote from Marylin Quayle after the
show (it also is getting press - "supposedly" the Quayles disagree
with eachother).
Comment: Legalized abortion is the law. If you respect the law, you
must respect those who obey the law. That's reality.
> --
> Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
>
> Alex Crain
> UMBC Academic Computing Services
--
Mike Schwartz
> from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal
> abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".
>
There are many many conservative editorial staffs on newspapers. It is
TV media that has the stronger influence and (almost) absolute bias.
> My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
> is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
> murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
> one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
> anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
> stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
> at least that far for your own kids.
>
You yourself quoted where Quayle said this is a hypothetical situation.
Hypothetical implies that it may or may not happen - I would cross those
types of bridges when they came...
Wanting Roe overturned and wanting Abortion illegal are two separate
issues. Abortion was LEGAL before Roe (just not in every woman's
back yard).
Any acts that Quayle has taken to overturn Roe would apply equally
to his daughter. You have ZERO credability :)
> --
> Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
>
> Alex Crain
> UMBC Academic Computing Services
--
Alex S. Crain
>Any acts that Quayle has taken to overturn Roe would apply equally
>to his daughter. You have ZERO credability :)
Quayle has been quite clear that abortion == murder. If my son
comes to me and explains that he inteneds to murder someone, I think that
I may consider doing more then "support him in whatever decision he makes".
Dan Quayles position strikes me as being inconsistant, Maryln
Quayles dow not. I would at least expect Dan to go after the doctor that
performed the operation, in his mind the doctor has performed a crime
against god, and while there is no legal recourse, there are certainly other
forms of retribution, like giving the doctors name to Terry Randal.
Abortion is either murder, or it isn't, and murder is still a
moral infraction, even if the murderer is a family member. I don't fault
Quayles response, I just find it inconsistant with his stated public policy.
Debbie Fuhry
> Quayle has been quite clear that abortion == murder. If my son
>comes to me and explains that he inteneds to murder someone, I think that
>I may consider doing more then "support him in whatever decision he
makes".
For this to be an appropriate analogy, the murder you're referring to above
would have to be completely legal in this country, and your son would have
to be an adult. Now that we're dealing with an analogous situation, just
exactly what "more than support him in whatever decision he makes" are you
planning to do? Will you take your adult son and lock him up so he can't
commit this perfectly legal action? Will you take him to the police and
say, "Excuse me officer, my son here is on his way to commit murder." and
the officer will explain to you that there's not law against it so there's
nothing more you *can* do.
So, your son goes out and commits a legal act of murder (If you need an
example to be able to conceptualize this, go back in your mind to places
and times where duels were accepted practice.) Now what are you going to
do? He's not in any trouble with the law... Are you going to disown your
son? Tell him that since he committed that murder, you never want to see
his face again?
> Dan Quayles position strikes me as being inconsistant, Maryln
>Quayles dow not. I would at least expect Dan to go after the doctor that
>performed the operation, in his mind the doctor has performed a crime
>against god, and while there is no legal recourse, there are certainly other
>forms of retribution, like giving the doctors name to Terry Randal.
Marilyn Quayle and Dan Quayle were not talking about the same situation,
sir. The Vice President was referring to an *adult* daughter, Mrs. Quayle
was referring to the girl at her current age of 13.
I don't see where you have a leg to stand on, Mr. Crain. This is clearly a
non-issue.
Debbie Fuhry
Mike Schwartz
> In article <mykes...@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> my...@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>
> >Any acts that Quayle has taken to overturn Roe would apply equally
> >to his daughter. You have ZERO credability :)
>
> Quayle has been quite clear that abortion == murder. If my son
> comes to me and explains that he inteneds to murder someone, I think that
> I may consider doing more then "support him in whatever decision he makes".
>
And Quayle might do more than stick his head in the sand while his daughter
commits "murder", too.
> Dan Quayles position strikes me as being inconsistant, Maryln
> Quayles dow not. I would at least expect Dan to go after the doctor that
> performed the operation, in his mind the doctor has performed a crime
> against god, and while there is no legal recourse, there are certainly other
> forms of retribution, like giving the doctors name to Terry Randal.
>
Dan Quayle refused to answer the question Larry King asked. Period.
King asked "Would you support your daughter's decision?"
Quayle answered "I would support my daughter."
Many other people, even several well knwon Liberals in this group, have
pointed out how silly it is to question Quayle's love for his daughter
and family.
And Quayle took an Oath to uphold, protect, and defend the constitution
of the United States - even those parts he disagrees with. You are making
accusations that Quayle gives the names of doctors to extremists. Care
to back that up?
FWIW - I do not question very many peoples' patriotism, not Carter,
not Teddy, not at all. I do question their policies. I do not question
Quayle's patriotism, either, nor his devotion to God or his family...
> Abortion is either murder, or it isn't, and murder is still a
> moral infraction, even if the murderer is a family member. I don't fault
> Quayles response, I just find it inconsistant with his stated public policy.
>
>
Clearly YOU don't believe it is murder and I do, but there is NOTHING you
could ever say to change my mind and vice-versa. This is clear of the
entire population who have positions on abortion. I won't try to dissuade
you of YOUR opinion, but I will continue to point out that the Supreme Court
has no justification in deciding what life is or isn't.
As it stands now, it is only Quayle's OPINION that abortion is murder. The
law of the land, as determined by the activist Supreme Court of the early
'70s, is something that Quayle would change given his way. Not given his
way, he has 2 options in this hypothetical case. He can disown his daughter
or he can give her the support that is totally consistent with his stated
public policy WRT family values.
>
>
> --
> Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
>
> Alex Crain
> UMBC Academic Computing Services
--
Mitch Sako
> KING: What if your daughter grew up and had a problem, came to you
> and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
> it?
> QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
> do have to deal with it, but obviously ----
> KING: What would you do?
> QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on
> whatever decision she made?
> KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?
> QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
> decision.
>The New York Times, in a fit of liberalness, did not draw any conclusions
>from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal
>abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".
> My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.
Ever heard of the saying, "Do as I say, not as I do?"
---
Mitch Sako LSI Logic Corp. Phone 408-433-4187
internet: ms...@lsil.com FAX 408-433-8796
uucp: lsil!msako
RIME: ->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone
Mitch Sako
>While reading article <1992Jul24.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu>, I noticed that
>would do if his daughter grew up and joined Operation Rescue. If he said
>that he hoped she wouldn't but would still love her if she did, does that
>make him pro-life?
You are missing the point. Of course Clinton would support his daughter because
Clinton is pro-choice. Quayl claims not to be but he actually is pro-choice.
That's where the lies come in.
Mitch Sako
>He *is* willing to go that far to prevent his own *adult* daughter from
>having an abortion. However, since we're talking about an *adult*
>daughter, that's all he can do. Once she's gotten the abortion, should he
>disown her? I don't think he was saying he'd tell her "Oh, it's alright
>honey, do whatever you think is best, and we're behind you all the way."
>I'm sure it's something like "You know what we believe about this decision,
>but you're still our daughter, and we won't stop loving you because of it."
If he were true to his word (abortion is murder, etc.) then he would condemn
and disown his daughter. Since he is not and doesn't believe in the anti-
choice point of view he is only showing his true colors. He should show the
same condemnation for his daughter having an abortion as he would if his
daughter were to throw his grandchild into a vat of hot oil. This is what
is so duplicitous and disingenuous on his part.
Mitch Sako
>In this VERY hypothetical instance, Quayle obviously doesn't want his
>daughter to have an abortion (and I am sure would be heart-broken if she
>did), but the fact is..the law (as it reads in most places), leaves
>him (the parent) out of the legal question. If after all of his pleading
>and 'counciling' she still had an abortion, he just said that he wouldn't
>hound her forever or disown her, he would support her.
Again, this just proves that pro-choice comes before anything else and
that the anti-choice movement is just a bunch of BS.
Mitch Sako
As long as he's going to be going along with all those people who scream
their gibberish about ABORTION IS MURDER and all that other crap I think
he is being a bit disingenuous in his stands on choice. If his daughter
were to kill his grandchild in cold blood I think there would be a rift
there and it might even strain their relationship.
Mitch Sako
>And as far as the vice president is concerned, instead of making this
>into a referendum of abortion, why not substitute the following question
>and see how *you* would answer it? "Would you support your daughter if
>she make a terrible mistake and robbed a bank?"
>This has nothing to do with whether or not he agreed with her decision--just
>about strong family commitment and love.
I am pro-choice and I would support any of my hypothetical kids whatever
they did. I am not faced with this quandry because pro-choice views are
consistent. Anti-choice viewpoints are duplicitous and deceitful.
Mitch Sako
>I don't criticize Dan for his "unconditional love" for his daughter, but I
>do flame him for not having the same unconditional love for *all* women
>in similar circumstances as his daughter.
>legislation to make other women criminals.
It fits the conservative dogma to act this way. Selfishness, every man for
himself, get yours now, etc. It fits with his Chicken-Hawk stands and is
very consistent. He would send our kids to war but he would never go.
Mitch Sako
>Keywords:
>] I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
>]wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
>]decsion that she made".
>] Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
>]Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
>your children once they have made a choice. He didn't say that he wouldn't
>try to influence the choice - he said he would support her if she
>made the choice.
I think this proves what the pro-choice people (the majority of
Americans) have been saying since the beginning. When push comes
to shove, virtually ALL Americans are pro-choice. I don't see why
they hide behind this pandering, limp excuse for a weak attempt at
silly symbolism regarding their stand on being anti-choice.
Jim Huggins (8-8305)
> My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.
But that's not what he was trying to say. I happened to catch that
part of King's show while channel-flipping. His answer to King's
question ("If she chose to have an abortion, would you support that
decision?") was "I would support *her*" (emphasis Quayle's, not mine).
That is -- "I would continue to love and care for my daughter, although
I would disagree with her actions."
What would you rather Quayle say to be consistent? "Dad, I just had
an abortion." "Get out of my house now, you murderer." That's silly.
Frankly, that's about the only answer Quayle could give. As the law
stands, if Quayle's daughter wanted to get an abortion, there's not
a thing he could do about it (though he could prohibit her from
going on a field trip or getting her ears pierced).
A man speaks about how he would love his daughter even when she does
something with which he strongly disagrees and liberals jump down
his throat. Sigh.
--------------------
William Kucharski
mi...@lsil.com said the following:
>In article C...@solbourne.com, kuch...@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
>>While reading article <1992Jul24.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu>, I noticed that
>>I'd like to see a similar interchange with Mr. Clinton, asking him what he
>>would do if his daughter grew up and joined Operation Rescue. If he said
>>that he hoped she wouldn't but would still love her if she did, does that
>>make him pro-life?
>
>You are missing the point. Of course Clinton would support his daughter because
>Clinton is pro-choice. Quayl claims not to be but he actually is pro-choice.
>That's where the lies come in.
The whole point of Operation Rescue is to endeavor to make abortion illegal.
If his daughter decided to fight to have abortion made illegal and Clinton
said he'd support her, I guess that (at least from the press' point of view)
makes him pro-life.
By the way, I would think that even if Quayle's daughter went out and blew
away a bunch of people on the street he would still love her as his daughter.
Peter Alan Dutton
After reading yet another Mitch Sako post:
Ever hear of "hate the sin but love the sinner"? Have you ever noticed
that many parents of actual convicted murderers do not disown their
children but grieve over them AND STILL LOVE THEM? Are you saying that
only conservative Republicans have the NERVE to stand by their family,
right or wrong? Do you have any sort of clue whatsoever?
Peter
Tom Perigrin
>
>>> comments about Quayle's support of his daughter having an abortion deleted
>
>For some reason, many parents have this thing called "unconditional love" for
>their children. This is the ultimate in "family values." One may disagree
>with his child, but that doesn't mean he stops loving her, or "disowns" her. I
>can't believe how some people are reading into this...
So are you saying the fetus isn't a part of the family yet? Or that a
parent should only care for their children, but not for their pre-born
grandchildren?
If abortion is murder, then isn't murdering one's own family the most heinous
crime of all? And Quayle would support her, even if she chose to commit
the heinous crime of family murder?
>Susan E. Schudt
Tom
William Kucharski
t...@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) said the following:
>If abortion is murder, then isn't murdering one's own family the most heinous
>crime of all? And Quayle would support her, even if she chose to commit
>the heinous crime of family murder?
That silly family values stuff again.
Would I expect him to be very, very upset with her and just generally feel
disgust towards her? Yes.
Would I expect him to still love her and pray for her and for her salvation?
Yes.
Zack C. Sessions
|You are right on target, Susan. But your comments apply not only to
|children but friends as well. I have had several friends come and talk
|to me about the possibility of having an abortion. Some had an abortion
|some did not. I do not love them any less but I am sorry that they
|killed their child (fetus if you insist). No matter what the outcome
|was they were glad I was there. Does this make me pro-abortion? I
|don't think so and neither do they. But they did trust me to be
|unfailing in my love. I fail to see how this makes me a hypocrite. The
|whole thing is about love. It is unfortunate that some have such an
|immature understanding of the term.
No, your action did not make you pro-abortion, but it does sure sound like
you are pro-choice. You apparently felt that your friends were entitled to
whatever choice they came to, regardless of whether you agreed with their
choice or not. This is the basic thought of most all members of the pro-choice
movement. It also appears to be the basic thought of Gov. Bill Clinton, who
said exactly that during his acceptance speech.
It doesn't make you a hypocrite, and as far as how they feel about the
espousal of family values, it doesn't make the Bush Administration (and
Dan Quayle) hypocrites. But, Bush and Quayle are adamantly anti-abortion
which DOES make Quayle a hypocrite for saying what he did. And he DID say
it, I watched the entire interview live. (And before you all go and say,
"But the pro-life movement is not anti-abortion, they are pro-life, Bush
and Quayle have repeatedly said that they OPPOSE abortion, which makes THEM
anti-abortion.)
--
Zack Sessions
sess...@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Elizabeth Bartley
>Dan should stand by *all* women, the same as he would stand by his daughter.
Should? Maybe.... But I think it's an unrealistically high standard.
If a relative of mine got raped and later killed the bastard, I'd
support them (not as in I'd help them do it, but I'd give them
emotional support afterwards - hell, maybe even an alibi if I thought
the cops would believe it - and I sure wouldn't turn her in). This
doesn't mean that I want to legalize rape victims killing rapists
after the crime.
If a relative of mine needed my kidney to get off dialysis, I'd
probably give it to them. I doubt I'd do the same for a stranger.
One takes care of one's own more than one takes care of strangers;
that's a simple fact. Expecting otherwise is either saying you don't
have to care about your relatives or demanding sainthood.
--
Pro-Choice Anti-Roe - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Elizabeth Bartley
In article <1992Jul31.2...@panix.com>
ee...@panix.com (Elizabeth Bartley) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.0...@hemlock.cray.com>
>r...@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>Dan should stand by *all* women, the same as he would stand by his daughter.
>Should? Maybe.... But I think it's an unrealistically high standard.
If by "the same as" you mean "as much as", this stands. If you mean
something along the lines of "in the same fashion" without indication
of the degree, I withdraw it.
rd...@cstp.umkc.edu
> they did. I am not faced with this quandry because pro-choice views are
> consistent. Anti-choice viewpoints are duplicitous and deceitful.
Are you opposed to doctor's counseling, a 24-hour period
"cooling-off period", etc.? These will give the woman more time to consider
her choices, and isn't that what "pro-choice" is all about -- having an
informed choice? Or are you one of those who don't really want a choice
other than abortion?
rd...@cstp.umkc.edu
> Clinton is pro-choice. Quayl claims not to be but he actually is pro-choice.
> That's where the lies come in.
Sounds like gobbledy-gook and lies. Quayle said he would support
his *daughter* in her decision. Most people still love and support their
family members no matter what decisions they make.
Watch the news and see the women crying because their sons have
robbed a store and killed 7 people inside. They still love and support
their sons, and they're not pro-robbery or pro-crime. They will still
support their sons, even though the sons made the decision to rob and kill.
THAT is where the lies come in -- saying that someone believes
something when you know it's not true.
Tim Buckley
This is really one of the key points. Why would anyone oppose
information and a short time to reflect when such a serious decision is
at stake? To what purpose? I find it strange that so many of those
who were against this law are also in favor of a THREE day cooling off
period for gun purchases. If you look at the NRA and NARAL and NOW, their
approaches to legislation are remarkably similar (which is why I'm
remarking on them :)). In both cases we have extreme positions taken
that do not reflect what most citizens want. These positions are
extremely difficult to hold in informed debate because each assumes that
any legislative controls will eventually result in complete loss of
these priveleges and there is simply no evidence to support the
contentions. In both cases the paranoia appears to be unfounded.
Tim
Mark Gansle
>So are you saying the fetus isn't a part of the family yet? Or that a
>parent should only care for their children, but not for their pre-born
>grandchildren?
>
>If abortion is murder, then isn't murdering one's own family the most heinous
>crime of all? And Quayle would support her, even if she chose to commit
>the heinous crime of family murder?
Ok, one last time for people like Tom who are either blithering idiots or are
purposefully misunderstanding the point. Unconditional means without
conditions; the love does not change from one situation to the next. This is
the type of love that almost all pro-life people have for their family, as
do most conservatives (note the large overlap in the two groups).
So to ask "And Quayle would support her, even if she chose to commit the heinous
crime of family murder?" is to ask "And Quayle would support her, even if she
forgot to take out the garbage?" Quayle would love his daughter, period.
Got it? Or should I use smaller words?
Mark Gansle
>If he were true to his word (abortion is murder, etc.) then he would condemn
>and disown his daughter. Since he is not and doesn't believe in the anti-
>choice point of view he is only showing his true colors. He should show the
>same condemnation for his daughter having an abortion as he would if his
>daughter were to throw his grandchild into a vat of hot oil. This is what
>is so duplicitous and disingenuous on his part.
Mitch, in the interest of keeping an open mind, I'm going to assume that you
are not hopelessly, irretrievably stupid; instead, I'll make the assumption
that you yourself are being disingenuous.
The point you are missing is that Quayle loves his daughter. Even if she
does murder her fetus (or anyone, for that matter), he will always love his
daughter. He would never disown her, as you would have him do. You see, it
is that sort of love for our children which leads us to be pro-life.
Speaking of which, the term is pro-life, not anti-choice. Come on, say it
with me, I know it's a big word. Just as the pro-choice side takes their
appellation to mean "proponents of choice", we take ours to mean "proponents
of life". If we were really anti-choice, we would want only one brand of
soft drink on the market so that there is no choice. Ok, bad joke. But
the point remains, pro-life supporters subscribe to the belief that since the
unborn child is alive, there is no "choice" on whether to have an abortion, just
as there is no "choice" to murder your aunt or neighbor.
+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|Loud-thundering Zeus |Think globally. |
Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way
I consider myself pro-choice and I think it is fine for a woman to have
access to all the data available, including pictures of fetuses and graphic
details of the operation. She ought to know what exactly what she is getting
into. Then after she makes her *choice*, it ought to be respected.
L.
"Yeh, Buddy.. | la...@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)| _~~_
I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory | (O)(-)
Right HERE!!" | New Mexico State University | /..\
(computer THIS!) | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003 | <>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Revered, now I live on. O did I do no evil, I wonder ever.
Tom Perigrin
They say things like "the families of murderers continue to support and
love the child, even though they hate the deed". I can understand that.
Its too bad for the Quaylites that this _isn't_ what Quayle said.
> QUAYLE: I would counsel her and talk to her and support her on
> whatever decision she made.
Websters : Counsel - 1a : advice b: plan of action
Advice - recommendation regarding a course of conduct
You don't counsel someone on the decision after the fact. You do that
when you can affect the decision. This is a pre-action decision, and he said
that he would support her before the act. Thus, he would support
her decision to have an abortion, as well as support and love her after
the act.
Sure, you can try to twist this around and claim that he meant "counsel
after the decision". But it starts to sound suspiciously like Humpty Dumpty
then; "Words mean what I want them to mean".
Quayle said that he would support her decision BEFORE the abortion.
He did not say he would help her pick up the pieces afterwards.
Tom Perigrin
disagrees "stupid", "blithering idiots", etc.. This is a classical
method; attack the opponent. This is one of Rush's favorite techniques,
and zeus seems to have picked right up on it.
Kelley Miller
In a previous article, ze...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) says:
>Speaking of which, the term is pro-life, not anti-choice. Come on, say it
>with me, I know it's a big word. Just as the pro-choice side takes their
>appellation to mean "proponents of choice", we take ours to mean "proponents
>of life". If we were really anti-choice, we would want only one brand of
>soft drink on the market so that there is no choice. Ok, bad joke. But
>the point remains, pro-life supporters subscribe to the belief that since the
>unborn child is alive, there is no "choice" on whether to have an abortion, just
>as there is no "choice" to murder your aunt or neighbor.
>
While I might agree that "anti choice" is inaccurate, I've always felt that
"pro-life" was not right, either. Since many of the leaders of the "Pro life"
movement, including the heads of Operation Rescue are in favor of the death
penality for murderers (those having and performing abortions included), then
they are not truly "Pro-life".
Let's stop using prettifying euphimisms like "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life" and
address them for what they are: Pro and Anti abortion.
--
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!! I can see *
* the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!" *
* ae...@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross *
****************Know God...No peace. No God...Know peace.****************
Debbie Fuhry
>A lot of people are trying to perform spin control on Quayles statement.
>They say things like "the families of murderers continue to support and
>love the child, even though they hate the deed". I can understand that.
>Its too bad for the Quaylites that this _isn't_ what Quayle said.
>> QUAYLE: I would counsel her and talk to her and support her on
>> whatever decision she made.
>Websters : Counsel - 1a : advice b: plan of action
> Advice - recommendation regarding a course of conduct
>You don't counsel someone on the decision after the fact. You do that
>when you can affect the decision. This is a pre-action decision, and he said
>that he would support her before the act. Thus, he would support
>her decision to have an abortion, as well as support and love her after
>the act.
Do you forget that the question was dealing with his daughter as an adult,
not as a 13 year old?
Seeing as we're talking about an ADULT daughter here, what else can
he do? Would you suggest he tie her up or lock her in a room somewhere
until she gives birth? In this situation, he can plead, beg, cry, but if
she decides to kill her child, then what can he do?
Given this situation: Quayle has exactly 3 alternative courses of action:
1: He can forcibly restrain his daughter, preventing her from getting the
abortion until she gives birth
2: He can disown her, kick her out of his house/life, say he never wants to
see her again, etc.
3. He can support her, even though she's making a decision which is
anathema to him.
Hmmm... tough choice, huh?
Mitch Sako
>In article <1992Jul31....@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> t...@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>So are you saying the fetus isn't a part of the family yet? Or that a
>>parent should only care for their children, but not for their pre-born
>>grandchildren?
>>If abortion is murder, then isn't murdering one's own family the most heinous
>>crime of all? And Quayle would support her, even if she chose to commit
>>the heinous crime of family murder?
>Ok, one last time for people like Tom who are either blithering idiots or are
>purposefully misunderstanding the point. Unconditional means without
>conditions; the love does not change from one situation to the next. This is
>the type of love that almost all pro-life people have for their family, as
>do most conservatives (note the large overlap in the two groups).
>So to ask "And Quayle would support her, even if she chose to commit the heinous
>crime of family murder?" is to ask "And Quayle would support her, even if she
>forgot to take out the garbage?" Quayle would love his daughter, period.
>Got it? Or should I use smaller words?
Many a child has been disowned by families that practice "family values"
for crimes such as murder. Making the assumption that Quayl publicly
equates abortion to murder then I would again stress that this represents
either a very poor amount of judgement or a lack of foresight. Murdering
another member of the family is certainly a qualifying circumstance that
even the most devoted father might choose to disown an offspring and I find
the fantasy about abortion being murder far more ludicrous as to arguments
that Danno is just being a father.
---
Mitch Sako LSI Logic Corp. Phone 408-433-4187
internet: ms...@lsil.com FAX 408-433-8796
uucp: lsil!msako
RIME: ->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine and only mine
Mitch Sako
>>If he were true to his word (abortion is murder, etc.) then he would condemn
>>and disown his daughter. Since he is not and doesn't believe in the anti-
>>choice point of view he is only showing his true colors. He should show the
>>same condemnation for his daughter having an abortion as he would if his
>>daughter were to throw his grandchild into a vat of hot oil. This is what
>>is so duplicitous and disingenuous on his part.
>Mitch, in the interest of keeping an open mind, I'm going to assume that you
>are not hopelessly, irretrievably stupid; instead, I'll make the assumption
>that you yourself are being disingenuous.
The only ones being disingenuous here are Quayl and his apologists.
>
>The point you are missing is that Quayle loves his daughter. Even if she
>does murder her fetus (or anyone, for that matter), he will always love his
>daughter. He would never disown her, as you would have him do. You see, it
>is that sort of love for our children which leads us to be pro-life.
I know of families that practice far stricter "family values" than any
republican would ever dream of that have disowned children for marrying
outside of their culture or ethnicity. These people practice a level of
family values that transcends anything that Quayl could ever dream of.
For you to be so self-righteous about family values (whatever those are)
reeks of stupidity. As for you to assume that he would never disown his
daughter, I would prefer if you let the man speak for himself, although he
has not demonstrated any propensity to do it in the past, give him the
benefit of the doubt.
I would tend to believe that Quayl might just disown his daughter if she
married a dope smoking black skinned rastafarian. I can't be sure but I
do know that Marilyn would probably have more problems with this than Danno.
Mitch Sako
>A lot of people are trying to perform spin control on Quayles statement.
>They say things like "the families of murderers continue to support and
>love the child, even though they hate the deed". I can understand that.
>Its too bad for the Quaylites that this _isn't_ what Quayle said.
>> QUAYLE: I would counsel her and talk to her and support her on
>> whatever decision she made.
>Websters : Counsel - 1a : advice b: plan of action
> Advice - recommendation regarding a course of conduct
>You don't counsel someone on the decision after the fact. You do that
>when you can affect the decision. This is a pre-action decision, and he said
>that he would support her before the act. Thus, he would support
>her decision to have an abortion, as well as support and love her after
>the act.
That's just part of being a father....and being PRO-CHOICE!
>Sure, you can try to twist this around and claim that he meant "counsel
>after the decision". But it starts to sound suspiciously like Humpty Dumpty
>then; "Words mean what I want them to mean".
The spin control artists are having a great time trying to weasel their way
out of this one I think.
>Quayle said that he would support her decision BEFORE the abortion.
>He did not say he would help her pick up the pieces afterwards.
Quayl is PRO-CHOICE and if you accept that FACT, there is no spin control,
explanations, excuses, or apologies needed, period.
Mitch Sako
You mean like this:
In article 77...@ut-emx.uucp, ze...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:
>Mitch, in the interest of keeping an open mind, I'm going to assume that you
>are not hopelessly, irretrievably stupid; instead, I'll make the assumption
>that you yourself are being disingenuous.
Well, yes, I have to agree with you, however what I object to more is Mark's
assumption that he is even capable of having an "open mind." This type of
self-righteousness is enough to stink up my workstation.
Mitch Sako
>Seeing as we're talking about an ADULT daughter here, what else can
>he do? Would you suggest he tie her up or lock her in a room somewhere
>until she gives birth? In this situation, he can plead, beg, cry, but if
>she decides to kill her child, then what can he do?
>Given this situation: Quayle has exactly 3 alternative courses of action:
>1: He can forcibly restrain his daughter, preventing her from getting the
>abortion until she gives birth
>2: He can disown her, kick her out of his house/life, say he never wants to
>see her again, etc.
>3. He can support her, even though she's making a decision which is
>anathema to him.
>Hmmm... tough choice, huh?
Sure is. Depends on how strong your values really are. Considering the
fact that he probably has none it's not a tough decision for him. If he
truly believed in what he preached, number 2 is the only choice. But he
is far too spineless to ever do that. He knows it's all an act, all a
facade, all a phoney-baloney attempt to passify the right-wing.
It's a crock and virtually everyone knows it.
Debbie Fuhry
>In article 15lvfv...@early-bird.think.com, fu...@think.com (Debbie Fuhry) writes:
>>Given this situation: Quayle has exactly 3 alternative courses of action:
>>1: He can forcibly restrain his daughter, preventing her from getting the
>>abortion until she gives birth
>>2: He can disown her, kick her out of his house/life, say he never wants to
>>see her again, etc.
>>3. He can support her, even though she's making a decision which is
>>anathema to him.
>>Hmmm... tough choice, huh?
>Sure is. Depends on how strong your values really are. Considering the
>fact that he probably has none it's not a tough decision for him. If he
>truly believed in what he preached, number 2 is the only choice. But he
>is far too spineless to ever do that. He knows it's all an act, all a
>facade, all a phoney-baloney attempt to passify the right-wing.
Your unsubstantiated proposition then, is that a good parent will disown
his child for murdering a family member. Would you care to substantiate
this proposition?
While I would be devastated if my son or daughter did this, I wouldn't
disown them, and I wouldn't stop loving them. Nor should I. In fact, that
is generally the coward's way out--avoiding the pain of dealing with what
your child has done and its consequences by kicking them out of your life.
>It's a crock and virtually everyone knows it.
Actually, you're on very thin ground unless you can substantiate your claim
that a good parent would disown their child for committing murder--and even
then you're on thin ground because all you've proven is that Dan Quayle
(notice the 'e' on the end of his name!) is not a good parent, not that
he's 'pro-choice'.
Debbie Fuhry
Alex S. Crain
>I would tend to believe that Quayl might just disown his daughter if she
>married a dope smoking black skinned rastafarian. I can't be sure but I
>do know that Marilyn would probably have more problems with this than Danno.
I don't know about this: Quayle was an active supporter of marijuana
legalization when he was a senator, and it's been suggested by people who
knew him that he was a regular user of marijuana in college. Judging from
his wedding pictures I would geuss that he was leaning more towards the
Doobies rather then Bob Marley, though.
--
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
Alex Crain
UMBC Academic Computing Services
Mitch Sako
>In article <1992Aug4.2...@lsil.com> mi...@lsil.com writes:
>>In article 15lvfv...@early-bird.think.com, fu...@think.com (Debbie Fuhry) writes:
>
>>>Given this situation: Quayle has exactly 3 alternative courses of action:
>>>1: He can forcibly restrain his daughter, preventing her from getting the
>>>abortion until she gives birth
>>>2: He can disown her, kick her out of his house/life, say he never wants to
>>>see her again, etc.
>>>3. He can support her, even though she's making a decision which is
>>>anathema to him.
>>>Hmmm... tough choice, huh?
>>Sure is. Depends on how strong your values really are. Considering the
>>fact that he probably has none it's not a tough decision for him. If he
>>truly believed in what he preached, number 2 is the only choice. But he
>>is far too spineless to ever do that. He knows it's all an act, all a
>>facade, all a phoney-baloney attempt to passify the right-wing.
>Your unsubstantiated proposition then, is that a good parent will disown
>his child for murdering a family member. Would you care to substantiate
>this proposition?
Who's saying that he's a good parent in the first place? That's a rather
generous assumption. Just because he says it doesn't make it true. But
that's a whole different issue. The matter here has to do with his SUPPORT
of his daughter in her decision. If she decided to murder her brother do
you think he would SUPPORT that? I doubt it, although I wouldn't be surprised
if he did.
>
>While I would be devastated if my son or daughter did this, I wouldn't
>disown them, and I wouldn't stop loving them. Nor should I. In fact, that
>is generally the coward's way out--avoiding the pain of dealing with what
>your child has done and its consequences by kicking them out of your life.
I doubt you would SUPPORT them in any decision they chose to make. My other
point was that many children have been disowned by parents with much higher
family values for doing things much less severe than something as trivial as
choosing to have an abortion. Marriage outside of a culture, religion, or
ethnicity for example.
>
>>It's a crock and virtually everyone knows it.
>Actually, you're on very thin ground unless you can substantiate your claim
>that a good parent would disown their child for committing murder--and even
>then you're on thin ground because all you've proven is that Dan Quayle
>(notice the 'e' on the end of his name!) is not a good parent, not that
>he's 'pro-choice'
I don't know whether or not he's a good parent. Nobody knows that, not even
you, so I'd give up trying to prove that right now. Many good parents have
disowned children for far less, including the above mentioned items, and more
likely over wealth and money. Other good parents have disowned kids for drug
use, homosexuality, and religion. If you are making a judgement that a good
parent is only a good parent if he or she is loyal to a fault to their kids
then I suspect you are being extremely narrow-minded in your views here.
Family Values is a crock of fecal excrement. It doesn't mean anything. Today,
limbaugh tried to explain what it meant to him, and he proclaimed himself the
best example of someone who practices family values. I guess being twice
divorced says alot for that.
Mitch Sako
>In article <1992Aug4.2...@lsil.com> mi...@lsil.com writes:
>>I would tend to believe that Quayl might just disown his daughter if she
>>married a dope smoking black skinned rastafarian. I can't be sure but I
>>do know that Marilyn would probably have more problems with this than Danno.
> I don't know about this: Quayle was an active supporter of marijuana
>legalization when he was a senator, and it's been suggested by people who
>knew him that he was a regular user of marijuana in college. Judging from
>his wedding pictures I would geuss that he was leaning more towards the
>Doobies rather then Bob Marley, though.
You saw that picture in Spy Magazine also? Kind of blows my theory that
Marilyn was at one time not so ugly as now. I don't know what he sees in
her. Man, she's scary.
Actually, the Doobies downfall was Tom Johnston's drug use. The point here
was that I doubt that they would be tolerant of their daughter marrying
someone like Bob Marley.
Mike Schwartz
> In article <1992Aug1...@cstp.umkc.edu> rd...@cstp.umkc.edu writes:
>
> > I am pro-choice and I would support any of my hypothetical kids whatever
> > they did. I am not faced with this quandry because pro-choice views are
> > consistent. Anti-choice viewpoints are duplicitous and deceitful.
>
> Are you opposed to doctor's counseling, a 24-hour period
> "cooling-off period", etc.? These will give the woman more time to consider
> her choices, and isn't that what "pro-choice" is all about -- having an
> informed choice? Or are you one of those who don't really want a choice
> other than abortion?
>
> I consider myself pro-choice and I think it is fine for a woman to have
> access to all the data available, including pictures of fetuses and graphic
> details of the operation. She ought to know what exactly what she is getting
> into. Then after she makes her *choice*, it ought to be respected.
>
We actually agree on something? :)
> L.
> "Yeh, Buddy.. | la...@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)| _~~_
> I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory | (O)(-)
> Right HERE!!" | New Mexico State University | /..\
> (computer THIS!) | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003 | <>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
> Revered, now I live on. O did I do no evil, I wonder ever.
>
>
>
--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or my...@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024
Dale Cook
point, because Quayle is a blithering idiot and knows not of what he
speaks. A few _actual_ quotes from the man:
"The best thing about rainforests is they never suffer from drought."
"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities
in our air and water that's doing it."
"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between mother and child."
"Our party has been accused of fooling the public by calling tax increases
'revenue enhancement'. Not so. No one was fooled."
"The global importance of the Middle East is that it keeps the Near East
and the Far East from encroaching on each other."
And my personal favorite:
"Bank failures are caused by depositors who don't deposit enough money
to cover losses due to mismanagement."
The really scary thing is that he's a mere heartbeat away from the
presidency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook "There is no animal so spooky as the True Believer."
---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Cook
I find this sentiment remarkably condescending and intrusive. Do you
really think that people who go in for abortions haven't given the matter
serious thought already? This typifies the hypocrisy of the current
administration. "Less government" they cry. Then they cram this crap
down people's throats. It is nothing but a mere sham to further their
own agenda. Either make abortion illegal, or legal. None of this other
garbage is necessary.
Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way
We actually agree on something? :)
So it would seem. Amazing, huh?
(..)
~~
L.
"Yeh, Buddy.. | la...@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)| _~~_
I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory | (O)(-)
Right HERE!!" | New Mexico State University | /..\
(computer THIS!) | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003 | <>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Freedom, freedom, take the wall away! Freedom, freedom, we will not obey!
William Kucharski
c...@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) said the following:
>Give it up, Mitch. "Quayle says this. Quayle says that." It's a moot
>point, because Quayle is a blithering idiot and knows not of what he
>speaks. A few _actual_ quotes from the man:
[ List Deleted ]
In the interest of equal time:
"Western civilization is addictive and dysfunctional"
-- Albert Gore
--
| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc. | Opinions expressed above
| Internet: kuch...@solbourne.com Ham: N0OKQ | are MINE alone, not those
| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO 80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club | "Dittos from Longmont, CO"
Mark Gansle
Of course this is nonsense. I do not *always*, as you assert, call people with
whom I disagree stupid. I do tend to use phrases like that alot, but that is
only because the post with which I am disagreeing often displays a distinct
tendency to idiocy. But I attack the post for its inaccuracy, pointing out
errors in reasoning. The most recent example was Mitch's incessant posting
vis a vis Quayle on abortion (note the subject line). And the only reason I
used a phrase like "blithering idiot" was to say that either Mitch was one, or
he was purposefully being disingenuous about Quayle. Is it that hard, really,
to understand what Quayle meant? No, of course it isn't. Now, *Mitch* might
have taken what Quayle said in a different way (interpreted it to correspond
to his own ideology) but that does not change what *Quayle* meant. So yes I
used a derogatory phrase, but the implicit assumption was that Mitch is *not*
an idiot (ie he was being disingenuous).
As an aside, I do not believe most liberals are stupid. I instead believe that
they are divorced from reality, wanting to look at the world in a certain way
without regard to fact. This explains some liberals' fascination with
communism. Proven empirically not to work, and indeed to be one of the most
destructive, inefficient, tyrannical regimes ever invented, some people still
believe that the government can solve all of our problems.
+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|Cloud-gathering Zeus |Think globally. |
Mark Gansle
>They say things like "the families of murderers continue to support and
>love the child, even though they hate the deed". I can understand that.
>Its too bad for the Quaylites that this _isn't_ what Quayle said.
>
>> QUAYLE: I would counsel her and talk to her and support her on
>> whatever decision she made.
>
Indeed, this is exactly what he said. Note that he said "support her on
whatever decision she made." If he had been pro-choice, he would have instead
said "support whatever decision she made." You also left out another
important quote which qualifies his statement and clarifies the meaning.
The qutoe was something to the effect of "Yes, I would support my daughter,"
and it made perfectly clear that he was referring to his love for his
daughter and not an acceptance of abortion.
+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|Loud-thundering Zeus |Think globally. |
Ted Kalivoda
>they are divorced from reality, wanting to look at the world in a certain way
>without regard to fact. This explains some liberals' fascination with
>communism. Proven empirically not to work, and indeed to be one of the most
>destructive, inefficient, tyrannical regimes ever invented, some people still
>believe that the government can solve all of our problems.
Interesting to note that most of the poeple in America who support communist
theory and ideals are the intellectuals in the universities. You would
think that being intellectual might help one to see the pathetic nature of
communism. But then again, many intellectuals in the universities are
divorced from reality.
I wonder, why do people think that government can solve so many problems?
The Feds I mean. Why don't we start a movement calling for State government
to solve many of our problems. At least our state representatives and
governor would feel the heat more than those boys do in Washington. Yeh,
that would be a good idea.
T. Kalivoda
Mark Gansle
>Well, yes, I have to agree with you, however what I object to more is Mark's
>assumption that he is even capable of having an "open mind." This type of
>self-righteousness is enough to stink up my workstation.
I guess the lesson we learn from this post is that when a conservative has an
opinion, (s)he is some reactionary Neanderthal, whereas all liberals are open-
minded and although they express opinions, they are never ideological in
nature.
While I realize that the weapon of choice on Internet is the ad hominem attack,
the character assassination, I would ask Mitch:
1) What the hell do you know about me? Except for a few political posts, you
have zero basis for making a moral judgment about me. Of course I assume that
I am "even capable of having an 'open mind.'" Normally I would demand an
apology for such an attack, but I realize that would offend Internet rules of
etiquette.
2) How is the presumption that one is open-minded an example of self-righteous-
ness? I have never claimed to have the moral high ground, nor have I ever
considered myself above criticism. I would hope that many here could back
me up when I say I have never exhibited any sense of sel-righteousness.
3) Are character attacks the only weapon in your arsenal? If not, please start
using the others.
Cordially,
Mark Gansle
Tim Buckley
>>
>> Are you opposed to doctor's counseling, a 24-hour period
>>"cooling-off period", etc.? These will give the woman more time to consider
>>her choices, and isn't that what "pro-choice" is all about -- having an
>>informed choice? Or are you one of those who don't really want a choice
>>other than abortion?
>
>I find this sentiment remarkably condescending and intrusive. Do you
>really think that people who go in for abortions haven't given the matter
>serious thought already?
Well I can't speak for the original poster but yes I am convinced that
at least some people have abortions without thinking through the
potential consequences. Many especially have no idea of the level of
fetal development (you might note that many people want us to spend more
money on prenatal care and an important part of this is education about
fetal development. Why spend the money if we all know this already?).
You know little of the psychology of decision making if you do not think
that we often make decisions based on the opinions of others. They are
particularly influential in crisis situations. All the Pennsylvania law
is designed to do is make sure that each prospective abortion client
gets balanced information which scientists (and lay people) know leads
to better decisions. Information and a short time to consider it seems
quite reasonable given the enormity of the decision. Clinton has just
said that we must find a way to reduce abortions. This seems like a
reasonably nonintrusive way to begin that process.
Tim
Mitch Sako
>Give it up, Mitch. "Quayle says this. Quayle says that." It's a moot
>point, because Quayle is a blithering idiot and knows not of what he
>speaks. A few _actual_ quotes from the man:
> "The best thing about rainforests is they never suffer from drought."
> "Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."
> "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities
> in our air and water that's doing it."
> "A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."
> "Republicans understand the importance of bondage between mother and child."
> "Our party has been accused of fooling the public by calling tax increases
> 'revenue enhancement'. Not so. No one was fooled."
> "The global importance of the Middle East is that it keeps the Near East
> and the Far East from encroaching on each other."
>And my personal favorite:
> "Bank failures are caused by depositors who don't deposit enough money
> to cover losses due to mismanagement."
>The really scary thing is that he's a mere heartbeat away from the
>presidency.
There is still an adequate amount of Quayl-apologists out there who need
to be informed. Getting stuff like this into their thick skulls is a
formidable task and I think none of us should give up.
It is very interesting that Limbaugh is EXTREMELY uncomfortable whenever
the subject of Danno comes up.
Mitch Sako
>>I "like" how zeus always begins his messages by calling those with whom he
>>disagrees "stupid", "blithering idiots", etc.. This is a classical
>>method; attack the opponent. This is one of Rush's favorite techniques,
>>and zeus seems to have picked right up on it.
>Of course this is nonsense. I do not *always*, as you assert, call people with
>whom I disagree stupid. I do tend to use phrases like that alot, but that is
>only because the post with which I am disagreeing often displays a distinct
>tendency to idiocy. But I attack the post for its inaccuracy, pointing out
>errors in reasoning. The most recent example was Mitch's incessant posting
>vis a vis Quayle on abortion (note the subject line). And the only reason I
>used a phrase like "blithering idiot" was to say that either Mitch was one, or
>he was purposefully being disingenuous about Quayle. Is it that hard, really,
>to understand what Quayle meant? No, of course it isn't. Now, *Mitch* might
>have taken what Quayle said in a different way (interpreted it to correspond
>to his own ideology) but that does not change what *Quayle* meant. So yes I
>used a derogatory phrase, but the implicit assumption was that Mitch is *not*
>an idiot (ie he was being disingenuous)
I did not take your calling me an idiot (I was not being disingenuous) as an
insult or an attack. I simply considered the source. There is nothing
inconsistent about any of my postings regarding Quayl. Quayl is the one
who was in full force (including his handlers, spokespeople, and even Marilyn)
the next day trying to implement damage control. If there was nothing wrong
with what he said then there would be no reason for the commotion.
I stand by my original post. QUAYL IS PRO-CHOICE!
This may only pertain to his own family and friends and not to you or I but
he is pro-choice.
Mitch Sako
>[Re: my posts]
>>Well, yes, I have to agree with you, however what I object to more is Mark's
>>assumption that he is even capable of having an "open mind." This type of
>>self-righteousness is enough to stink up my workstation.
>I guess the lesson we learn from this post is that when a conservative has an
>opinion, (s)he is some reactionary Neanderthal, whereas all liberals are open-
>minded and although they express opinions, they are never ideological in
>nature.
>While I realize that the weapon of choice on Internet is the ad hominem attack,
>the character assassination, I would ask Mitch:
>1) What the hell do you know about me? Except for a few political posts, you
>have zero basis for making a moral judgment about me. Of course I assume that
>I am "even capable of having an 'open mind.'" Normally I would demand an
>apology for such an attack, but I realize that would offend Internet rules of
>etiquette.
I apologize for any statement that I made may have been construed by you
as an attack. I have made no moral judgements here. I was only pointing
out that it seems ridiculous for you to consider yourself as having an
open mind. Calling yourself openminded is what I object to. Conservatism
by nature is neanderthal and close-minded, just look up the definition in the
dictionary.
>
>2) How is the presumption that one is open-minded an example of self-righteous-
>ness? I have never claimed to have the moral high ground, nor have I ever
>considered myself above criticism. I would hope that many here could back
>me up when I say I have never exhibited any sense of sel-righteousness.
>3) Are character attacks the only weapon in your arsenal? If not, please start
>using the others.
Why don't we call the kettle black here? You were the one who precipitated
an attack on me. Although I am man enough to welcome any and all comments,
flames, attacks, etc. I find it a bit ironic that it is you who seems upset
by all this.
Again, my humble apologies if I upset you.
Ted Kalivoda
Well said Tim. Opposing a waiting period does prevent people from
reconsidering their abortion decision. Now, what we need in all states is a
waiting period and information about everything, and that means safety level
of abortion (which is pretty safe), fetal development (including scientific
pictures), and other relevant info. Women need all information in order to
excersize their choice according to the facts.
T. Kalivoda
Arthur C. Adams
appearing on August 11 in the Washington Post, page A17, and presumably
in the New Republic sometime soon.
Rush Limbaugh and other Republican loudmouths have been talking for several
weeks about Bill Clinton's "128 Tax Increases" as Governor of Arkansas.
Curiously, the full list is never given. Looking at the actual list the Bush
campaing produced, here are a few of the tax increases.
Just a few of examples:
a $1 per conviction increase in court costs imposed on criminals
A general increase in the liquour tax is counted five times, once for each
type of booze (i.e. wine, beer, hard liquor...)
A fuel tax counts twice, once for regular, once for diesel.
A law lengthening the dog racing season (presumably a tax increase because
the state's revenues from dog racing increased)
Three of the 128 are continuations of increases too long to fit on one line.
One item is a virtual verbatim repeat of an earlier one.
The Republican list also conveniently leaves out 48 tax decreases:
A general income tax reduction last year, that reduced or eliminated taxes
for 374,00 low - income Arkansans (sp?)
Enterprise Zone tax breaks
Capital Gains tax cuts
(Those last two should sound familiar)
The repeal or lapse of seven of tax increases.
An Arkansas law professor, who, I admit, works for the Clinton campaign,
argues that, if realistically counted, Clinton has only raised taxes
55 or 59 times, including ten the Republicans left out.
George Bush's 1990 tax increase had 73 separate tax increases.
Using Bush's accounting methods, he has raised taxes 133 times in 4 years,
as compared to Clinton's 128 times in twelve years. This leaves out
increases in fees for governemnt services like National Parks, nor does
it include criminal fines, both of which the Bush list counts as tax
increases.
While I'm not trying to say that Bill Clinton has _never_ raised taxes
in Arkansas, the 128 tax increases figure is _rubbish_.
--
The world is not analog. The world is digital,
with an incredible number of bits.
Arthur C. Adams (not the comic-book artist) <fnord>
E-Mail aca...@afterlife.ncsc.mil
Warren Lavallee
>Give it up, Mitch. "Quayle says this. Quayle says that." It's a moot
>point, because Quayle is a blithering idiot and knows not of what he
>speaks. A few _actual_ quotes from the man:
This is an article I just posted to ne.politics this morning. It applies
to the above...
[...]
Dan Quayle is the most mis-understood person. It's all because of the
media. Dan Quayle is a very godly man. The media, and the general
public don't like him, and do their best to make him look like a fool.
People don't like godly men, they have morals and standards. People
like him are around to tell you when you are wrong. The bible goes
right against society. It offends people. People who stand up for
the truth are not popular people.
If you want the whole truth, you should get a hold of the WHOLE speeches
that Dan Quayle makes. The media tries to pick out pieces and make him
sound like a fool, but when you read the whole thing, you can see he knows
what he is talking about. It makes sense. And when he is wrong, he
admits it, he doesn't lie like most politicians...
It's like this whole abortion issue. Did you ever notice that the media
always call pro-lifer's anti-abortionist? Did you ever go to one of
those demonstrations? The media says a few hundred marched in this
anti-abortion demonstration when it was actually 20,000. But when there
is a pro-death (thats abortion, the choice they talk about is death)
march, the few thousand turns into hundreds of thousands according to
the media.
The media does what is "politically correct." Christians can be stomped
on and usually don't cause a fuss, but you step on the pro-deather's, they'd
be picketing their studios.
If you want to turn this country around, vote Dan Quayle as president.
God (through him) can turn this country around...
As for Clinton, we already have a New Covenant that is much better than
anything you can offer us, His name is Jesus Christ. Thanks anyway...
Warren
--
Warren Lavallee MA30/806A Work: war...@pws.bull.com Be | true
Bull Information Systems --+--
300 Concord Rd. | Unbeliever
Billerica, MA. 01821 answer | the call.
William Kucharski
aca...@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) said the following:
>George Bush's 1990 tax increase had 73 separate tax increases.
As Rush would say, please remember that "George Bush's" 1990 tax increase was
written, sponsored, and passed by your friends and mine, the Democrats in
Congress. Bush didn't say "let's raise taxes," he said "Fine, I'll go along
with the Democrats to try to appease them."
Kelley Miller
In a previous article, kuch...@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) says:
>While reading article <1992Aug11.1...@afterlife.ncsc.mil>, I noticed that
>aca...@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) said the following:
> >George Bush's 1990 tax increase had 73 separate tax increases.
>
>As Rush would say, please remember that "George Bush's" 1990 tax increase was
>written, sponsored, and passed by your friends and mine, the Democrats in
>Congress. Bush didn't say "let's raise taxes," he said "Fine, I'll go along
>with the Democrats to try to appease them."
Hmmmm....I remember Bush saying "Read my lips:no new taxes", not "Read my
lips:no new taxes (unless I have to appease the congress).
Bush was a fool for ever making such a statement. At least Clinton is
acknoledging the fact that he will attempt to raise taxes.
--
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!! I can see *
* the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!" *
* ae...@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross *
****************Know God...No peace. No God...Know peace.****************
Mark Gansle
>open mind. Calling yourself openminded is what I object to. Conservatism
>by nature is neanderthal and close-minded, just look up the definition in the
>dictionary.
I'd sure love to see the dictionary with that definition. Traditionally,
"conservative" had some connection with its root, "conserve". Conservatives
wanted to conserve the old ways. Of course, today the term means, in the
US political arena, one who distrusts government. I fail to see the connection
to a branch of the human family tree which died out long ago.
+--------------------------------+-------------------------+
|Zeus, who delights in lightning |Think globally. |
| |Act locally. |
|ze...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |Eat my shorts totally. |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------+
Mitch Sako
>In a previous article, kuch...@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) says:
>>While reading article <1992Aug11.1...@afterlife.ncsc.mil>, I noticed that
>>aca...@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) said the following:
>> >George Bush's 1990 tax increase had 73 separate tax increases.
>>As Rush would say, please remember that "George Bush's" 1990 tax increase was
>>written, sponsored, and passed by your friends and mine, the Democrats in
>>Congress. Bush didn't say "let's raise taxes," he said "Fine, I'll go along
>>with the Democrats to try to appease them."
>Hmmmm....I remember Bush saying "Read my lips:no new taxes", not "Read my
>lips:no new taxes (unless I have to appease the congress).
>Bush was a fool for ever making such a statement. At least Clinton is
>acknoledging the fact that he will attempt to raise taxes.
How much of a fool could he be? It worked, didn't it?
---
====================================================================
Mitch Sako LSI Logic Corp. Phone 408-433-4187
internet: ms...@lsil.com FAX 408-433-8796
uucp: lsil!msako
RIME: ->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
management, or my mother
Mitch Sako
>While reading article <1992Aug11.1...@afterlife.ncsc.mil>, I noticed that
>aca...@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) said the following:
> >George Bush's 1990 tax increase had 73 separate tax increases.
>As Rush would say, please remember that "George Bush's" 1990 tax increase was
>written, sponsored, and passed by your friends and mine, the Democrats in
>Congress. Bush didn't say "let's raise taxes," he said "Fine, I'll go along
>with the Democrats to try to appease them."
Let me try some basic logic here. If the Congress is responsible for all the
tax increases and Bush is powerless to do anything about it then what difference
does it make who is president? Obviously, the president has no power in this
matter of taxation. Why all the fuss over Clinton's tax promises and whatnot?
Bush is not the agent of change as he claims. He will be a lame duck who
what makes anyone think things would be different under Clinton?
JHAR...@cmsa.gmr.com
aca...@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) writes:
>While I'm not trying to say that Bill Clinton has _never_ raised taxes
>in Arkansas, the 128 tax increases figure is _rubbish_.
According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, a taxpayers' advocacy group,
(how the hell do we join?), the Republicans did indeed reach their total
by double counting some taxes and including some trivial tax increases,
such as hunting license fees.
However, they also noted that Clinton himself pushed for and got several
sales tax increases. Furthermore, Arkansas' tax system is regressive in
their terms and that the heaviest burden is carried by middle and low
income families.
It is bad enough to have a spineless Bush in there barely able to battle
the spend-crazed Democratic congress. Having a president who also wants
to raise taxes at the drop of a hat is not an improvement.
Arthur C. Adams
>
>However, they also noted that Clinton himself pushed for and got several
>sales tax increases. Furthermore, Arkansas' tax system is regressive in
>their terms and that the heaviest burden is carried by middle and low
>income families.
>
The reason that Clinton had to go for sales taxes is that, under the Arkansas
Constitution, taxes can only be raised by a 3/4 vote in a referendum. The sales
however, is an exception. I'm not going to argue that the sales tax
isn't a horribly unfair tax, but, when your looking at
a) a Constitutionally required balanced budget
and
b) the effective impossibility of raising other taxes
I can't blame Clinton for going the sales tax route.
And, one thing I'm sure Rush Limbaugh will never point
out - Arkansas ranks as one of the lowest tax states,
even after twelve years under Clinton.
William Kucharski
mi...@lsil.com said the following:
>Let me try some basic logic here. If the Congress is responsible for all the
>tax increases and Bush is powerless to do anything about it then what difference
>does it make who is president? Obviously, the president has no power in this
>matter of taxation. Why all the fuss over Clinton's tax promises and whatnot?
The basic power the President has is the power of veto. While things like the
1990 Tax Bill are passed by Congress quite routinely, they usually are not
passed with the majority necessary to override a Presidential veto.
JHAR...@cmsa.gmr.com
>isn't a horribly unfair tax, but, when your looking at
>a) a Constitutionally required balanced budget and
>b) the effective impossibility of raising other taxes
>I can't blame Clinton for going the sales tax route.
Why can't you blame him? You blame Bush for raising taxes. The problem with
what I might call the typical Democratic solution is that it always looks
for more money rather than less spending. By Clinton's own figure, his
proposals will add over $220 billion in additional spending. How about
LESS SPENDING? If a small fairly backward state (sorry razorbacks) cannot
get its spending under current budegtary limits under Clinton, how in the
hell is Taxbill Clinton going to control the US budget with a strong
democratically controlled legislature?
Mitch Sako
>>open mind. Calling yourself openminded is what I object to. Conservatism
>>by nature is neanderthal and close-minded, just look up the definition in the
>>dictionary.
>I'd sure love to see the dictionary with that definition. Traditionally,
>"conservative" had some connection with its root, "conserve". Conservatives
>wanted to conserve the old ways. Of course, today the term means, in the
>US political arena, one who distrusts government. I fail to see the connection
>to a branch of the human family tree which died out long ago.
I agree about the neanderthal part but I disagree with you about the distrust
in government. Conservatives have always looked towards the government for
a more and bigger presence when it comes to religious issues, public funding
of parochial schools (i.e. government vouchers, school choice, etc.), and
restricting the private medical decisions of women. Conservatives have always
strived to create as big a defense industry as possible, all funded by taxing
its citizens. Conservatives have always been for having more police power
administrated by the government.
Dale Cook
You make my point. Read what you posted - it roughly translates to:
"We know what's best for you. You can't be trusted to make an informed
decision yourself. Therefore, by LAW, you must jump through these n
hoops before your decision is deemed acceptable to us." Isn't this
the precise thing that Rush Limbaugh harps upon the democrats for?
This sort of thing does not promote people thinking for themselves and
taking responsibility for their actions. It is social engineering, pure
and simple, a thinly disguised attempt by the anti-choice faction to
encroach on people's personal decisions. And it stinks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook "Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."
---J. Danforth Quayle
"Western Civilization is addictive and dysfunctional."
--- Albert Gore
Tim Buckley
I think that you have a rather warped sense of social engineering, Dale.
The people of Pennsylvania are not claiming to know what is best for
anyone. They simply want to make sure that you are given the best
possible chance to find out what is best for you. Let me give you a
different example that may help to clarify the point. In most states
there is a three day cooling off period whenever someone comes to your
house to sell you something. Anything contract you sign or anything you
buy can be anulled (and in fact is not inacted no matter how sure you
are) or returned no question asked if done within three days. In the
states I am familiar with these rights cannot be waived regardless of
your level of certainty. Is this because the government thinks you are
stupid? Do you want to see this law overturned? I doubt it. Under
pressure people make poor decisions especially when all the facts
presented are one-sided. Is this social engineering? I think not. The
abortion issue is similar, however, due the irreversibility of the
decision the cooling off period must come before the "sale" (it is a
sale of services). No one is kept from having what they want in either
case. But because of the pain caused by poor decisions the state makes
it possible for you to reverse your initial impulse.
Tim
Mike Schwartz
> In article 9...@solbourne.com, kuch...@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
> >While reading article <1992Aug11.1...@afterlife.ncsc.mil>, I noticed that
> >aca...@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) said the following:
> > >George Bush's 1990 tax increase had 73 separate tax increases.
> >As Rush would say, please remember that "George Bush's" 1990 tax increase was
> >written, sponsored, and passed by your friends and mine, the Democrats in
> >Congress. Bush didn't say "let's raise taxes," he said "Fine, I'll go along
> >with the Democrats to try to appease them."
>
This last sentence above is totally correct. Given that without a budget,
congress was just extending the Graham-Rudman cutoff dates out into the
future (3 times they did this), Bush didn't have much of a choice but to
work out some sort of comprimise. In exchange for the tax hike, Bush got
serious spending limitation concessions. However, there were two provisions
in the agreement that would allow the spending limits to be broken: War (as
in the Gulf War which happened almost 2 years later), and Recession.
> Let me try some basic logic here. If the Congress is responsible for all the
> tax increases and Bush is powerless to do anything about it then what difference
> does it make who is president? Obviously, the president has no power in this
> matter of taxation. Why all the fuss over Clinton's tax promises and whatnot?
>
Congress IS responsibile for the tax increases - according to the constitution.
Us conservatives WON'T ignore the constitution or try to alter it :) Bush is
NOT powerless to do anything about it - he has the veto. Bush used the veto
over 30 times, including vetoes of tax hike bills.
Expect any vetoes from Clinton? Sheesh, I hate to imagine how much worse
the economy and recession would be/have been without those vetoes.
> Bush is not the agent of change as he claims. He will be a lame duck who
> what makes anyone think things would be different under Clinton?
>
Bush is a fine agent of change. His proposals for education reform, welfare
reform, and economic growth were simply not passed by congress. Most didn't
even get out of Democratic loaded committees to get voted on by the whole
congress. What makes Bush a good agent of change is the fact that we are
likely to see 150-200 NEW congressmen this election. This is a mandate of
the people to get people in there that will not gridlock the govt. I would
much rather have had the gridlock, though, than to have had more tax hikes
and anti-growth programs that the democrats passed (simple majority needed)
and Bush vetoed.
> ---
>
> ====================================================================
> Mitch Sako LSI Logic Corp. Phone 408-433-4187
> internet: ms...@lsil.com FAX 408-433-8796
> uucp: lsil!msako
> RIME: ->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
> not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
> management, or my mother
--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or my...@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024