I think Gingrich has it right.

[Guest]

"The most radical president in American history" who oversees a "secular, socialist machine."

"The most radical president in American history has now thrown down the gauntlet to the American people. I run a machine. I own Washington and there's nothing you can do about it."

[Guest]

"The most radical president in American history" who oversees a "secular, socialist machine."

"The most radical president in American history has now thrown down the gauntlet to the American people. I run a machine. I own Washington and there's nothing you can do about it."

Looks like the deconstruction of the USA has started.

[Guest]

iWatching Gingrich with Hannity reminded me of the old Beaves and Butthead shows.

[Guest]

Similar to our current congress and WH?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wLT0X5pT9E&feature=player_embedded#

[Guest]

The current government in DC can't hold Gingerich's duffel bag. Anyone with a brain that listens to Gingerich can see that he has the good of this country at heart unlike the power crazed loonies in power who give two hoots about our future. I'd love to see him in a debate with Obama. To call him half of the Beavis and Butthead duo is pretty childish. Hannity I won't speak for.

[Guest]

"The most radical president in American history" who oversees a "secular, socialist machine."

"The most radical president in American history has now thrown down the gauntlet to the American people. I run a machine. I own Washington and there's nothing you can do about it."

For a guy who has demonstrated more than his share of human failures, he does remember that if you use 'hot button' words and phrases you will be quoted by the media. (Yep guys, that's the same media whom you love to hate more than than almost any Democrat.)

This is what you think profound?!?
Boy, I'd think by now you would have been able to smell out out a pathetic, vacuous attempt to get attention.

[Guest]

For a guy who has demonstrated more than his share of human failures, he does remember that if you use 'hot button' words and phrases you will be quoted by the media. (Yep guys, that's the same media whom you love to hate more than than almost any Democrat.)

This is what you think profound?!?
Boy, I'd think by now you would have been able to smell out out a pathetic, vacuous attempt to get attention.

Oh, like Obama?

[Guest]

Like most politicians, they do like attention. Some get it speaking the truth, others like Obama get it speaking lies.

At least BO's wife tells the truth. She referred to Kenya as his home country.

[Guest]

Then explain to me how Gingrich is better (and I was a fan of his in the 1990s) after his exchange with Hannity regarding the 'new rules' of nuke usage that the administration announced last week. Gingrich said, and Hannity agreed, that the new policy ruled out usage of nukes in response to a biological attack when it was *in writing* that biological attacks WERE a reason for which nukes could be used.

Is it ignorance? Is it deliberate demagoguery? Was there a retraction that I missed? (Like when Glenn Beck apologized for the mixup of what videos were being shown for crowd scenes during demonstrations in D.C.)

[Guest]

...Is it ignorance? Is it deliberate demagoguery? Was there a retraction that I missed?...

All of the above. And we've seen altogether too much of it from both sides in recent years. It's about to ramp up again now that an election is only 4-5 months away.

[Guest]

On this I have to agree with Kahuna, vote the incumbent politicians out of office, that is the only way we have of controlling our fate and future. The power of the polls and don't ever forget it.

[Guest]

iWatching Gingrich with Hannity reminded me of the old Beaves and Butthead shows.

When you say this about two of the most intelligent people in America how do you think that makes you look.

[Guest]

If they're so smart, how come they deliberately mislead the public on the nuke policy change?

How come they out-and-out *lied* about whether or not biological attack was a reason for a nuclear response?

Did they mention that the "no nukes" policy doesn't apply to cnon-signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (like Iran & North Korea)?

I expect better from Gingrich, to be honest.

[Guest]

If they're so smart, how come they deliberately mislead the public on the nuke policy change?

How come they out-and-out *lied* about whether or not biological attack was a reason for a nuclear response?

Did they mention that the "no nukes" policy doesn't apply to cnon-signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (like Iran & North Korea)?

I expect better from Gingrich, to be honest.


If anyone did what you are accusing folks of then they are very very wrong, HOWEVER, you do know that this administration CHANGED the policy in the first few days and that in the beginning biological attacks were NOT considered a reason.

From Secy Gates, I think on April 6...

""If a non-nuclear weapons state is in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its obligations, the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it," Gates said. If, however, such a state were to use chemical or biological weapons against the U.S. or its allies, "it would face the prospect of a devastating conventional," or non-nuclear, military response"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_russia_nuclear

This from the NY TIMES on April 6..

"For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html

The administration then rushed out this weekend to announce a "change" in thier policy , so maybe...just maybe when the folks you accuse made statement the policy was such and maybe it was changed because of the outspoken folks.

I think it was mentioned by all about Iran and North Korea...actually had that not been in it you would have surely heard louder and louder voices

[Guest]

If they're so smart, how come they deliberately mislead the public on the nuke policy change?

How come they out-and-out *lied* about whether or not biological attack was a reason for a nuclear response?

Did they mention that the "no nukes" policy doesn't apply to cnon-signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (like Iran & North Korea)?

I expect better from Gingrich, to be honest.

Reading Liberal sources for your info will get you nothing but hate for any other viewpoint. This will make for biased opinions which are useless in any discussion. This approach also results in narrow minded, incorrect conclusions.

[Guest]

If they're so smart, how come they deliberately mislead the public on the nuke policy change?

How come they out-and-out *lied* about whether or not biological attack was a reason for a nuclear response?

Did they mention that the "no nukes" policy doesn't apply to cnon-signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (like Iran & North Korea)?

I expect better from Gingrich, to be honest.

Misleading the public? Do you really want to go down that path with this administration? Your continued defense of this administration might get you disqualified from the "independent crowd" you claim to represent.

[Guest]

Misleading the public? Do you really want to go down that path with this administration? Your continued defense of this administration might get you disqualified from the "independent crowd" you claim to represent.

I agree with you.

One suggestion tho: These claims by Democrats that they are part of the indepenedent crowd should be posted in "Just For Fun".

[Guest]

Reading Liberal sources for your info will get you nothing but hate for any other viewpoint. This will make for biased opinions which are useless in any discussion. This approach also results in narrow minded, incorrect conclusions.

This from a person that considers Gingrich and Hannity two of the "most intelligent people" in America???

Wow, have you really set the bar that low? :oops:

[Guest]

This from a person that considers Gingrich and Hannity two of the "most intelligent people" in America???

Wow, have you really set the bar that low? :oops:

I would like to compare Gingrich's college scores with Obama's. Oh, that's right. Obama's college records are "sealed." I wonder what they would reveal.

I'll give you this, Obama's has a smart teleprompter.:a20:

[Guest]

You know, it's incredible that I keep getting accused of being a liberal. Now, I'll grant you that I 'lean to the left' on social issues by the way the current definitions are. ...except that I'm *vehemently* against the idea of Political Correctness and the issue of "Hate Crimes" is a dangerous path to tread. (If someone kills me, does it suddenly become a 'worse crime' if the investigators find out that I'm Hispanic - which isn't obvious when you look at me and I only found out when I was almost 30) So why do I identify myself as 'leaning left' on those issues? Becuase I believe (among other things) that what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is their own business. There are a lot of other reasons but that'll give you an idea.

When it comes to fiscal issues, I'm more of a conservative. While I don't have a problem with government seeding things that might be too big or risky - eventually the private sector, in a majority of cases, proves to be more efficient. As long as the government plays referee, there shouldn't be a problem.

To me, the government is there to provide equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

So this "liberal" here voted for Reagan twice, Bush Sr. once, and isn't exactly proud to admit to voting Perot (more out of protest than anything else). Otherwise I've voted Libertarian until this past election when I voted for the 'lesser of two evils' - which is really saying something since I voted for McCain in the primary back in 2000 (living in NH we get a lot of attention here). McCain's transition to Bush-lite is what did it for me. The most shocking of which was his changing stance on torture. Yes, I voted in the "I can take some economic ruin in the hopes that I can help stop or slow down the transformation of the United States into a Police State".

I defend Obama because I see the same kind of attacks that were used against Reagan back in 1981. People out there want MTV-generation-instant-gratification. A multi-trillion dollar economy just doesn't work that way. Reagan got his re-election campaigning on a platform of "it takes more than 4 years to undo the damage" - AND IT WORKED.

Believe it or not, the TARP funds are being repaid faster than expected. Bank bailouts are costing less than expected. The government is selling it's stakes in the businesses it took over - yet the administration still gets tarred with the "Marxist" paintbrush no matter what the evidence to the contrary shows.

[Guest]

You know, it's incredible that I keep getting accused of being a liberal. Now, I'll grant you that I 'lean to the left' on social issues by the way the current definitions are. ...except that I'm *vehemently* against the idea of Political Correctness and the issue of "Hate Crimes" is a dangerous path to tread. (If someone kills me, does it suddenly become a 'worse crime' if the investigators find out that I'm Hispanic - which isn't obvious when you look at me and I only found out when I was almost 30) So why do I identify myself as 'leaning left' on those issues? Becuase I believe (among other things) that what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is their own business. There are a lot of other reasons but that'll give you an idea.

When it comes to fiscal issues, I'm more of a conservative. While I don't have a problem with government seeding things that might be too big or risky - eventually the private sector, in a majority of cases, proves to be more efficient. As long as the government plays referee, there shouldn't be a problem.

To me, the government is there to provide equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

So this "liberal" here voted for Reagan twice, Bush Sr. once, and isn't exactly proud to admit to voting Perot (more out of protest than anything else). Otherwise I've voted Libertarian until this past election when I voted for the 'lesser of two evils' - which is really saying something since I voted for McCain in the primary back in 2000 (living in NH we get a lot of attention here). McCain's transition to Bush-lite is what did it for me. The most shocking of which was his changing stance on torture. Yes, I voted in the "I can take some economic ruin in the hopes that I can help stop or slow down the transformation of the United States into a Police State".

I defend Obama because I see the same kind of attacks that were used against Reagan back in 1981. People out there want MTV-generation-instant-gratification. A multi-trillion dollar economy just doesn't work that way. Reagan got his re-election campaigning on a platform of "it takes more than 4 years to undo the damage" - AND IT WORKED.

Believe it or not, the TARP funds are being repaid faster than expected. Bank bailouts are costing less than expected. The government is selling it's stakes in the businesses it took over - yet the administration still gets tarred with the "Marxist" paintbrush no matter what the evidence to the contrary shows.

Well, lets see...this entire thing began because you called two conservative talk show hosts LIARS relative to the administration policy on nuclear weapons when in fact there was NO lie.

Second I agree with you on TARP....I do think it helps...but talk about the great and wonderful "stiumulus" package that was passed..you know the one that was simply a cover for a bunch of social programs. THAT, the stimulus is what gets this administration criticism and the labels that you mention !

[Guest]

You know, it's incredible that I keep getting accused of being a liberal. .

I don't think it is incredible. I have read your posts.

[Guest]

So.. As a 'liberal', I would believe in:

- expanded welfare for the poor? Because I don't.

- reparations? because I don't.

- steeply progressive taxes? Because I don't.

- government as a first solution? Because I don't.

- unions in the modern era? Because I don't.

But I *have* noticed how much the word 'conservative' has changed since the days of Reagan.

Have I changed in the past 30 years (1980-2010)? Yeah, some. But not nearly as much as from 1975-1980 (born in 1962).

The one sentence made to me in 1980 that accelerated an attitude shift that I had (I was griping about problems with MA sending some back-due unemployment benefits I was supposed to be getting after I started a new job)

"What makes you think the government owes you a living?"

So you think that 'liberal' includes:

- a belief in the Constitution regarding warrants for searches.

- staunch supporter of the 2nd Ammendment (among others)

- adamantly against the Kelo decision

- supporting a Flat Tax with reduced exemptions.

- in favor of the Line-Item Veto

- supporting Free Speech, even when it's unpopular.

- vehemently against Political Correctness

- supporting school vouchers and busting the teacher unions.

- expanding energy exploration.

- streamlining the process for new nuke plants and bringing Yucca Flats online.

Yeah. Real liberal.

[Guest]

So.. As a 'liberal', I would believe in:

- expanded welfare for the poor? Because I don't.

- reparations? because I don't.

- steeply progressive taxes? Because I don't.

- government as a first solution? Because I don't.

- unions in the modern era? Because I don't.

But I *have* noticed how much the word 'conservative' has changed since the days of Reagan.



Have I changed in the past 30 years (1980-2010)? Yeah, some. But not nearly as much as from 1975-1980 (born in 1962).

The one sentence made to me in 1980 that accelerated an attitude shift that I had (I was griping about problems with MA sending some back-due unemployment benefits I was supposed to be getting after I started a new job)

"What makes you think the government owes you a living?"

So you think that 'liberal' includes:

- a belief in the Constitution regarding warrants for searches.

- staunch supporter of the 2nd Ammendment (among others)

- adamantly against the Kelo decision

- supporting a Flat Tax with reduced exemptions.

- in favor of the Line-Item Veto

- supporting Free Speech, even when it's unpopular.

- vehemently against Political Correctness

- supporting school vouchers and busting the teacher unions.

- expanding energy exploration.

- streamlining the process for new nuke plants and bringing Yucca Flats online.

Yeah. Real liberal.

Now we are getting somewhere, but why are you not conservative if you believe all these conservative ideals?

I think I have the answer: you said you lean to the left "oh wait" you said all these consevative beliefs also.

You confuse us so much I for one have no idea what you really bleive in.

[Guest]

Cashman: *Thank you* for the honest reply.

You say you have no idea what I believe in. I suggest it's because I do NOT believe there is any SINGLE organization under who's banner one can find all the answers.

We used to turn to religion for that and look where it got us. I was raised Catholic. Even though I haven't been Catholic since the early 1980s, the revulsion and insult I feel at what's been coming out of the Vatican for over 10 years is at a level that words cannot describe.

In my career, I believe in the right tool for the right job. As I'm in software, I don't act like a zealot for any one particular flavor-of-the-month. You won't see me getting involved in Mac vs. PC vs. Linux debates, as an example (to me, each have their place).

I look at each issue on it's merits and flaws and make my decision based on the infromation I gather from all three sides (proponents, opponents, neutral) or more if there happen to be more (i.e. "I'm for it so long as...")

There was an show on ABC a long time ago, put out by Jim Henson's Creature Shop called "Dinosaurs" and the lead character was asked what he thought of a particular issue. His reply? "I don't know what I think until TV tells me what to think" Sadly, I think a lot of people are being influenced by sound-bite demagogues. The so-called news agencies aren't exactly taking the high road here, either.

A big story this morning was yesterday's Tea Party stop in Boston (I'm currently sitting about 10 miles from the city limits). It was talking about the anger and resentment that fueled the Tea Partiers (and let me make a side note that, just because I don't believe in everything the Tea Partiers stand for, it doesn't mean I will descend to the insult of calling them "Tea *******" - that's classless and does nobody any favors).

One woman in particular was saying "we're taxed too much and spend too much". But I wonder, and I don't mean this as an insult, if she honestly knows what she's talking about. Does she know how much revenue the country brings in? What ideas does she have to make things better? Where would she wield the budget cutting knife? How would she cut the programs that are uncuttable (that make up the majority of the budget)?

The 'grass roots' genesis of the Tea Party is it's greatest strength (honest belief and enthusiasm) and it's greatest weakness (so far a lack of direction or proposals).

There are places the government belongs. This is clear. There are many more places where the government should just be a referee.

You don't know where I stand on any give topic? Ask me. I'll tell you. And what's more, I'll tell you why. If you think I'm wrong - don't just say "You're wrong" but tell me why you think I'm wrong. If you think I'm missing something important - educate me. I'm not so proud that I can't change my mind.

I'm not a priest. I don't stubbornly stick to dogma when evidence mounts to the contrary. I'm more the scientist who changes his conclusions when contrary facts come into play - though it might take a while :)

One other thing. I don't believe in black-and-white (most of the time). There's gray in most cases. Exceptions to virtually every rule. Take abortion - just to use an inflammatory example. Someone will call me a liberal because I don't believe in an all-out ban on abortions. Another will call me a conservative becuase I don't believe in late-term abortion on-demand. Gray areas. Situational ethics. Sound bites just don't work anymore.

[Guest]

Cashman: *Thank you* for the honest reply.

You say you have no idea what I believe in. I suggest it's because I do NOT believe there is any SINGLE organization under who's banner one can find all the answers.

We used to turn to religion for that and look where it got us. I was raised Catholic. Even though I haven't been Catholic since the early 1980s, the revulsion and insult I feel at what's been coming out of the Vatican for over 10 years is at a level that words cannot describe.

In my career, I believe in the right tool for the right job. As I'm in software, I don't act like a zealot for any one particular flavor-of-the-month. You won't see me getting involved in Mac vs. PC vs. Linux debates, as an example (to me, each have their place).

I look at each issue on it's merits and flaws and make my decision based on the infromation I gather from all three sides (proponents, opponents, neutral) or more if there happen to be more (i.e. "I'm for it so long as...")

There was an show on ABC a long time ago, put out by Jim Henson's Creature Shop called "Dinosaurs" and the lead character was asked what he thought of a particular issue. His reply? "I don't know what I think until TV tells me what to think" Sadly, I think a lot of people are being influenced by sound-bite demagogues. The so-called news agencies aren't exactly taking the high road here, either.

A big story this morning was yesterday's Tea Party stop in Boston (I'm currently sitting about 10 miles from the city limits). It was talking about the anger and resentment that fueled the Tea Partiers (and let me make a side note that, just because I don't believe in everything the Tea Partiers stand for, it doesn't mean I will descend to the insult of calling them "Tea *******" - that's classless and does nobody any favors).

One woman in particular was saying "we're taxed too much and spend too much". But I wonder, and I don't mean this as an insult, if she honestly knows what she's talking about. Does she know how much revenue the country brings in? What ideas does she have to make things better? Where would she wield the budget cutting knife? How would she cut the programs that are uncuttable (that make up the majority of the budget)?

The 'grass roots' genesis of the Tea Party is it's greatest strength (honest belief and enthusiasm) and it's greatest weakness (so far a lack of direction or proposals).

There are places the government belongs. This is clear. There are many more places where the government should just be a referee.

You don't know where I stand on any give topic? Ask me. I'll tell you. And what's more, I'll tell you why. If you think I'm wrong - don't just say "You're wrong" but tell me why you think I'm wrong. If you think I'm missing something important - educate me. I'm not so proud that I can't change my mind.

I'm not a priest. I don't stubbornly stick to dogma when evidence mounts to the contrary. I'm more the scientist who changes his conclusions when contrary facts come into play - though it might take a while :)

One other thing. I don't believe in black-and-white (most of the time). There's gray in most cases. Exceptions to virtually every rule. Take abortion - just to use an inflammatory example. Someone will call me a liberal because I don't believe in an all-out ban on abortions. Another will call me a conservative becuase I don't believe in late-term abortion on-demand. Gray areas. Situational ethics. Sound bites just don't work anymore.

Thank you for the in depth response. I left the Catholic church for the same reasons. However I still believe in a supreme power.

I would like to ask in what situations other than to save the life of the mother do you approve of aborting a baby.

[Guest]

Thank you for the in depth response. I left the Catholic church for the same reasons. However I still believe in a supreme power.

I would like to ask in what situations other than to save the life of the mother do you approve of aborting a baby.

Well, first, I also believe that there's something "out there" beyond our mortal lives. I say that because I've seen a glimpse of it when I had a near death experience in 1978 (drowning in a river).

Now to the second part. I'm going to go out on a limb and explain exactly how I feel and make a few admissions.

Admission #1 - though many of you know I have two children (daughters, 17 & 22 years of age), you may not know that those weren't all the pregnancies I was responsible for. There have been one, possibly up to three, miscarriages that I was involved with (either a wife or girlfriend).

Admission #2 = In addition, there was one abortion. It was at about 4-5 weeks. My wife was on birth control which failed (it happens). The worst part, and this had a major influence on our decision (yes, we both made it) was the fact that we had just had full torso and pelvic x-rays (without knowng she was just a few days pregnant). We discovered that she was now at a HUGE risk for a wide cornucopia of complications, birth defects and other assorted 'goodies'.

Skip this paragraph if you don't like text that's a bit graphic. I've had to clean up the floor after a miscarriage at something under 4 months. This was unpleasant. My (now ex) wife 'caught' what was never going to be born and it didn't exactly resemble all those 'miracle' pictures that are blown up to 100x normal size by people pushing an agenda.

Having said that, the idea of being able to walk into a clinic when you're 8 1/2 months pregnant and getting an abortion is abhorrent to me. Fortunately, despite what some people say, the Roe decision does NOT make that the law of the land. States are quite free to implement final trimester restrictions.

There are a number of horrible diseases and defects that point out some hypocrisies in our society. We'll shoot a dog or a horse or euthanize a cat to end it's suffering - but we'll comdemn a person to a 'life sentence'. Tay-Sachs, microencaphaly and a lot of other polysyllabic syndromes make this a grey area. Some people will tell you that they don't mind caring for those severly disabled. But we never really know if that's the story they tell themselves until they believe it, or if it's genuine. (Like how I convinced myself that I was happy in the last few years of my marriage but didn't know the different until after my ex left some 3 1/2 years ago).

There are many arguments which fail the logic test when stressed to the limits. And that's why it's a gray area. I'll give you an example.

Some people say that "life begins at conception". They may also say "no abortions except in the case of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger". These two 'clauses' become at odds with each other. Here's how:

Say you have a 5-year-old kid. Everything's fine. However, 'the secret' comes out that the kid is a product of incest. If "life begins at conception", but it's ok to abort due to incest, then it (unfortunately) logically follows that the 5-year-old doesn't have the same rights, if a product of incest, as any other kid.

That's an example of why simple, blanket statements don't work. There are always exceptions to every rule - especially here.

I don't like abortion. Never did. I used to be labelled a 'pro lifer' until I heard many people's real-life experiences - like how a civil servant said to a young pregnant woman who was going through the adoption process: "Oh, look, another girl who can't stand the idea of a baby interfering with her fun." (The woman said there are probably still scorch marks on the ceiling of the office where that happened - she kept the child and everything eventually worked out). So once I started moderating my stance, I'd get comments form others that I was a "pro-death windbag".

This issue touches a primal nerve in humans. We're coded in our DNA to propagate the species - to pass on our genes. For some, this issue affects us in a way that defies logic because it's so deep down inside us, woven into the very fabric that makes us.

It's hard to say, on one hand, that abortion should be outlawed when, the last time I checked (admittedly several years ago) there were over 5,000 kids in the Greater Boston area waiting for adoption (mostly minorities). Over 35,000 in the New York City area. Oh, sure, the waiting list is years long for "perfect little white babies" (as some old friends of mine found out when the wife had difficulty conceiving). But this just demonstrates more of the emotional agitation when it comes to talking about this subject.

Crack babies, foreign adoptions, welfare moms, public burdens, waiting lists - and none of that goes to discuss the subject costs.

Some activists talk about the 'huge profits in the abortion industry' and scream about Planned Parenthood. It doesn't matter to them that PP only got some 16% (admittedly my nubers are old but U.S. abortion rates have been on the decline the past few years) from abortion services and performs FAR more services for pre and post-natal care, primarily or people who have no other way of affording it. They scream about money, ignoring reality. My personal examples:

Back in 1990, an abortion in NH cost about $265. In 1987, the bill for our daughter with no complications was over $5000 (insurance paid) for a few office visits and one night in the hospital. Of course this doesn't include follow-up visits, vaccinations, etc. In 1992, our 2nd daughter DID have complications and the bills that I saw were WELL over 6 figures and I didn't see them all (turns out all the stuff was for precautionary measures - everything turned out fine).

Yeah, follow the money. The 'huge profits' are in the birth industry. I saw this first-hand working for Boston's Beth Israel Hospital where competition for new mothers was *fierce*. This was, to the hospital, "easy money". Everyone knew there jobs. There were rarely complications and the insurance companies paid off *fast*.

So that's where I stand. There's a gray area. The longer you get into a pregnancy, the fewer options (I believe) one should have. Can I draw a line? No. But I know every rule has it's exceptions.

[Guest]

So.. As a 'liberal', I would believe in:

- expanded welfare for the poor? Because I don't.

- reparations? because I don't.

- steeply progressive taxes? Because I don't.

- government as a first solution? Because I don't.

- unions in the modern era? Because I don't.

But I *have* noticed how much the word 'conservative' has changed since the days of Reagan.

Have I changed in the past 30 years (1980-2010)? Yeah, some. But not nearly as much as from 1975-1980 (born in 1962).

The one sentence made to me in 1980 that accelerated an attitude shift that I had (I was griping about problems with MA sending some back-due unemployment benefits I was supposed to be getting after I started a new job)

"What makes you think the government owes you a living?"

So you think that 'liberal' includes:

- a belief in the Constitution regarding warrants for searches.

- staunch supporter of the 2nd Ammendment (among others)

- adamantly against the Kelo decision

- supporting a Flat Tax with reduced exemptions.

- in favor of the Line-Item Veto

- supporting Free Speech, even when it's unpopular.

- vehemently against Political Correctness

- supporting school vouchers and busting the teacher unions.

- expanding energy exploration.

- streamlining the process for new nuke plants and bringing Yucca Flats online.

Yeah. Real liberal.

I don't normally agree with your posts. After reading this one I see that we actually have much in common. I however do not consider myself leaning to the left. GOOD POST

[Guest]

Well, first, I also believe that there's something "out there" beyond our mortal lives. I say that because I've seen a glimpse of it when I had a near death experience in 1978 (drowning in a river).

Now to the second part. I'm going to go out on a limb and explain exactly how I feel and make a few admissions.

Admission #1 - though many of you know I have two children (daughters, 17 & 22 years of age), you may not know that those weren't all the pregnancies I was responsible for. There have been one, possibly up to three, miscarriages that I was involved with (either a wife or girlfriend).

Admission #2 = In addition, there was one abortion. It was at about 4-5 weeks. My wife was on birth control which failed (it happens). The worst part, and this had a major influence on our decision (yes, we both made it) was the fact that we had just had full torso and pelvic x-rays (without knowng she was just a few days pregnant). We discovered that she was now at a HUGE risk for a wide cornucopia of complications, birth defects and other assorted 'goodies'.

Skip this paragraph if you don't like text that's a bit graphic. I've had to clean up the floor after a miscarriage at something under 4 months. This was unpleasant. My (now ex) wife 'caught' what was never going to be born and it didn't exactly resemble all those 'miracle' pictures that are blown up to 100x normal size by people pushing an agenda.

Having said that, the idea of being able to walk into a clinic when you're 8 1/2 months pregnant and getting an abortion is abhorrent to me. Fortunately, despite what some people say, the Roe decision does NOT make that the law of the land. States are quite free to implement final trimester restrictions.

There are a number of horrible diseases and defects that point out some hypocrisies in our society. We'll shoot a dog or a horse or euthanize a cat to end it's suffering - but we'll comdemn a person to a 'life sentence'. Tay-Sachs, microencaphaly and a lot of other polysyllabic syndromes make this a grey area. Some people will tell you that they don't mind caring for those severly disabled. But we never really know if that's the story they tell themselves until they believe it, or if it's genuine. (Like how I convinced myself that I was happy in the last few years of my marriage but didn't know the different until after my ex left some 3 1/2 years ago).

There are many arguments which fail the logic test when stressed to the limits. And that's why it's a gray area. I'll give you an example.

Some people say that "life begins at conception". They may also say "no abortions except in the case of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger". These two 'clauses' become at odds with each other. Here's how:

Say you have a 5-year-old kid. Everything's fine. However, 'the secret' comes out that the kid is a product of incest. If "life begins at conception", but it's ok to abort due to incest, then it (unfortunately) logically follows that the 5-year-old doesn't have the same rights, if a product of incest, as any other kid.

That's an example of why simple, blanket statements don't work. There are always exceptions to every rule - especially here.

I don't like abortion. Never did. I used to be labelled a 'pro lifer' until I heard many people's real-life experiences - like how a civil servant said to a young pregnant woman who was going through the adoption process: "Oh, look, another girl who can't stand the idea of a baby interfering with her fun." (The woman said there are probably still scorch marks on the ceiling of the office where that happened - she kept the child and everything eventually worked out). So once I started moderating my stance, I'd get comments form others that I was a "pro-death windbag".

This issue touches a primal nerve in humans. We're coded in our DNA to propagate the species - to pass on our genes. For some, this issue affects us in a way that defies logic because it's so deep down inside us, woven into the very fabric that makes us.

It's hard to say, on one hand, that abortion should be outlawed when, the last time I checked (admittedly several years ago) there were over 5,000 kids in the Greater Boston area waiting for adoption (mostly minorities). Over 35,000 in the New York City area. Oh, sure, the waiting list is years long for "perfect little white babies" (as some old friends of mine found out when the wife had difficulty conceiving). But this just demonstrates more of the emotional agitation when it comes to talking about this subject.

Crack babies, foreign adoptions, welfare moms, public burdens, waiting lists - and none of that goes to discuss the subject costs.

Some activists talk about the 'huge profits in the abortion industry' and scream about Planned Parenthood. It doesn't matter to them that PP only got some 16% (admittedly my nubers are old but U.S. abortion rates have been on the decline the past few years) from abortion services and performs FAR more services for pre and post-natal care, primarily or people who have no other way of affording it. They scream about money, ignoring reality. My personal examples:

Back in 1990, an abortion in NH cost about $265. In 1987, the bill for our daughter with no complications was over $5000 (insurance paid) for a few office visits and one night in the hospital. Of course this doesn't include follow-up visits, vaccinations, etc. In 1992, our 2nd daughter DID have complications and the bills that I saw were WELL over 6 figures and I didn't see them all (turns out all the stuff was for precautionary measures - everything turned out fine).

Yeah, follow the money. The 'huge profits' are in the birth industry. I saw this first-hand working for Boston's Beth Israel Hospital where competition for new mothers was *fierce*. This was, to the hospital, "easy money". Everyone knew there jobs. There were rarely complications and the insurance companies paid off *fast*.

So that's where I stand. There's a gray area. The longer you get into a pregnancy, the fewer options (I believe) one should have. Can I draw a line? No. But I know every rule has it's exceptions.

Thank you for the response. Good luck.