SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (50957)9/30/2005 11:18:31 AM
From: Magnatizer  Respond to of 59480
 
"On his show Thursday, the anti-abortion Bennett said he was "pointing out that abortion should not be opposed for economic reasons any more than racism ... should be supported or opposed for economic reasons. Immoral policies are wrong because they are wrong, not because of an economic calculation.""

foxnews.com

I agree with Bennett. Abortion is our generations slavery. In 100 years people will look back and say "What could they have been thinking?"

ht
Mag



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (50957)9/30/2005 2:43:37 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 59480
 
BY JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:29 p.m. EDT

Glug, Glug, Glug . . .
Well, as usual, we guessed wrong. Two weeks ago we confidently predicted that Sen. Hillary Clinton would vote with the majority of the Democrats on the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts. As it turns out, the Dems split evenly, 22-22, with nominal independent Jim Jeffords of Vermont casting the tie-breaking vote. Click here for the tally. Oh yeah, there are 55 Republicans too, so the final vote was 78-22.

The red-blue divide was clear. Democrats from states where George W. Bush beat John Kerry* favored Roberts 13-3, while Kerry-carry-staters opposed him 19-10. There were a few surprise "yes" votes from very liberal blue-state Dems, such as Carl Levin of Michigan, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Patty Murray of Washington. The three red-state opponents, on the other hand, were Tom Harkin, a very liberal Democrat from an only slightly Republican state, and two senators who were playing to a national constituency and thus feel the need to genuflect to the most extreme elements of the Democratic Party: presidential wannabe Evan Bayh and Minority Leader Harry Reid.

As for Mrs. Clinton, her vote shows her to be an extremist, to the left even of the Democratic Party. As New York's other senator might say, she has drifted far outside the mainstream and is headed for an iceberg, and if she doesn't stop rearranging the deck chairs before she finds herself in the fishbowl of a presidential campaign, she will have to row and wade frantically just to avoid sinking into the quicksand of a watery grave.

* Sorry, we don't remember who he is either.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (50957)9/30/2005 2:44:48 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 59480
 
Love Is Blind
In a bizarre New York Times op-ed piece, writer Nora Ephron describes herself as having a schoolgirl crush on Bill Clinton. It seems to be some sort of subversive antifeminist effort to call into question whether women can be taken seriously as commentators on world affairs:

I broke up with Bill a long time ago. It's always hard to remember love--years pass and you say to yourself, was I really in love or was I just kidding myself? Was I really in love or was I just pretending he was the man of my dreams? Was I really in love or was I just desperate? But when it came to Bill, I'm pretty sure it was the real deal. I loved the guy.

The best passage, though, is this:

I'd been positive he'd never back down. How could he? But then he did, he backed down just like that. He turned out to be just like the others. So that was it. Goodbye, big guy. I'm out of here.

Of course, if she wants someone who won't back down, she might consider giving a chance to that nice boy George from Texas.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (50957)9/30/2005 2:46:11 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 59480
 
In an item yesterday, we noted a curious quote from Jerry Edwards, an Arkansas aborter who was offering to evacuate the wombs of women who evacuated New Orleans free of charge. "If we didn't provide it now," Edwards said, "they would get it later--a late-term abortion that would give greater risk to the mother's health."

Needless to say, we were flummoxed. "How would the timing of a woman's choice affect her mother's health?" we asked. But several readers have written with a theory that, if true, is shocking: that by "the mother," Edwards meant the woman who is exercising her constitutional right to choose.

The implications are chilling. Of course it's possible that some of these women are mothers, as a result of previous pregnancies during which, tragically, they were too poor or uneducated to make a choice. But Edwards is sweepingly characterizing all women exercising their constitutional rights as "mothers." And think about what that means: If a woman availing herself of her right to choose is a "mother," then the fetus is a "child" rather than what science has definitively proved it to be, which is just a clump of cells.

Now if people want to reject science and believe in superstitious nonsense like this, they are entitled to do so. After all, the same Constitution that guarantees the right to choose also provides for a limited "freedom of religion." But when even abortion clinics are being run by antichoice fanatics, American women, and even enlightened male-Americans, should be afraid--very afraid.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Dan O'Shea, Fred Worth, Dennis Ainger, Mark Taylor, Mark Van Der Molen, Paul Dyck, Brian Kalt, Tony Gill, Ron Ackert, Sharon Langworthy, Ethel Fenig, Monty Krieger, Chris Scibelli, John Hartness, John Williamson, Bob Batts, Andy Hefty, Bill Breuer, Jon Bateman, Mark Murray, Chuck Lipsig, George Mitchell, Ruth Papazian, Lyman Epp, John Dubas, Randall Smith, Jeffrey Techentin, Buck Gashler, William Still, Douglas Welsh, Gaylen Webb, Charles Kalina, Glen Caldwell, Jim Peterson, Tim Morgan, Bill Congdon, John Whetstone, Rob Saker, Mordecai Bobrowsky, David Blanchette, Michael Newton, Chris Morris, John Forsberg and Stephen Sayeedi. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)




To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (50957)10/1/2005 6:50:39 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 59480
 
Bennett's comment...

Bennett Fires Back Against Racism Charges
Saturday, October 01, 2005

"Anyone paying attention to this debate should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me, distorted my meaning, and taken out of context the dialogue I engaged in this week. Such distortions from 'leaders' of organizations and parties is a disgrace not only to the organizations and institutions they serve, but to the First Amendment," Bennett said.

"Let me reiterate what I had hoped my long career had already established: that I renounce all forms of bigotry — and that my record in trying to provide opportunities for, as well as save the lives of, minorities in this country stands up just fine," he added.

The conservative author, columnist and talk-radio host touched off a firestorm on Wednesday when a caller to his "Morning in America" show postulated that if abortion were illegal, Social Security would remain solvent.

Bennett raised questions about the caller's premise, saying that according to that logic, the argument in the book Freakonomics — that allowing abortion reduces crime — would be equally valid.

foxnews.com

GZ



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (50957)10/1/2005 9:42:51 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 59480
 
Message 21755797

TWO QUOTES:

1. "What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in
which those people who had cars and money got out . . . and those
people who were impoverished died." --
Ted Kennedy - on Hurricane Katrina

2. "Ditto" -- Mary Jo Kopechne