I was okay with TB And G feeling that way, but you giving it a thumb's up that would indicate to me that you likewise are tired of the finger pointing and stereotyping, that's a hoot. :lol::lol::lol:

 

So what are you insinuating? I'd like you to explain that a little better.

Hence, the first two words of my post. Again, the thread concerns the media, which should be neutral. Unfortunately we've come to expect it from the two political sides. We shouldn't expect it from the media.

 

I know...sorry to imply that you didn't take his point seriously. :thumb:

I'll give it a try.

 

The liberals of this country cannot even to begin to understand how the people in the so-called "fly over" part of our country have the values that they have. They are so wrapped-up in their self absorbed thinking, that anyone whose beliefs are not the same as theirs is a backward, uneducated individual. When someone like Gov. Palin comes along they have to attack, smear and belittle her as to continue to feel superior in their elitist attitudes to uneducated, moralistic indiviluals in fly-over country.

 

Boy, howdy, Nick I couldn't've said it better myself.:banana:

I'll give it a try.

 

The liberals of this country cannot even to begin to understand how the people in the so-called "fly over" part of our country have the values that they have. They are so wrapped-up in their self absorbed thinking, that anyone whose beliefs are not the same as theirs is a backward, uneducated individual. When someone like Gov. Palin comes along they have to attack, smear and belittle her as to continue to feel superior in their elitist attitudes to uneducated, moralistic indiviluals in fly-over country.

 

The above does not address the central point of the imflammatory article posted by LBBC. The point of the article as I read it was that the "left" are mad because Sen. Palin did not abort her youngest child. How in the world can anyone make that jump? The "left" may disagree with her stance on abortion but to then say that the Gov. is being attacked because she didn't abort is trash journalism. Nothing to back it up. Made up/unsubstantiated statistics.

 

My original question dealt with using this piece of garbage article to somehow support your disdain for the pro-choice crowd. How can you use it to bash the left?

I do think he's an important part of the reaction the media has had to Palin, if only for the fact that he's brought abortion and it's consequences to an election where it doesn't seem to have had a large role to date.

 

I am firmly in the pro-life camp. I would assume if you are in the pro-choice camp that you wouldn't pick out only one child and "wish" that child had been aborted. Actually, I REFUSE to believe that that camp believes that children SHOULD be aborted. So, with that, how would one child over the others be the basis for this unsubstantiated claim?

The above does not address the central point of the imflammatory article posted by LBBC. The point of the article as I read it was that the "left" are mad because Sen. Palin did not abort her youngest child. How in the world can anyone make that jump? The "left" may disagree with her stance on abortion but to then say that the Gov. is being attacked because she didn't abort is trash journalism. Nothing to back it up. Made up/unsubstantiated statistics.

 

My original question dealt with using this piece of garbage article to somehow support your disdain for the pro-choice crowd. How can you use it to bash the left?

:thumb:

 

Probably my biggest problem with the conservative base is the out and out assumption that if some one is "liberal", or even "moderate", they would automatically choose the path of least resistance, or morality. It's absurd to assume that because Palin chose to have her child, that a liberal wouldn't do the same under the same circumstances.

 

As an accused liberal, I can tell you that I wouldn't have chosen to abort a child because it would be born with a disability of any sort. I don't know anyone who would. I know some pretty liberal people, and some people who are very pro-choice. I'm not talking fence sitters. I'm talking adamantly pro-choice.

I am firmly in the pro-life camp. I would assume if you are in the pro-choice camp that you wouldn't pick out only one child and "wish" that child had been aborted. Actually, I REFUSE to believe that that camp believes that children SHOULD be aborted. So, with that, how would one child over the others be the basis for this unsubstantiated claim?

 

I don't think they wish he had been aborted. I believe they are concerned that he will become the face of an anti abortion push.

I'll give it a try.

 

The liberals of this country cannot even to begin to understand how the people in the so-called "fly over" part of our country have the values that they have. They are so wrapped-up in their self absorbed thinking, that anyone whose beliefs are not the same as theirs is a backward, uneducated individual. When someone like Gov. Palin comes along they have to attack, smear and belittle her as to continue to feel superior in their elitist attitudes to uneducated, moralistic indiviluals in fly-over country.

 

Applause, Applause.

The above does not address the central point of the imflammatory article posted by LBBC. The point of the article as I read it was that the "left" are mad because Sen. Palin did not abort her youngest child. How in the world can anyone make that jump? The "left" may disagree with her stance on abortion but to then say that the Gov. is being attacked because she didn't abort is trash journalism. Nothing to back it up. Made up/unsubstantiated statistics.

 

My original question dealt with using this piece of garbage article to somehow support your disdain for the pro-choice crowd. How can you use it to bash the left?

 

Nope, not mad.

They just cannot understand it.

I have no disdain for the pro-choice crowd.

I have disdain for abortions.

Nope, not mad.

They just cannot understand it.

I have no disdain for the pro-choice crowd.

I have disdain for abortions.

 

 

What do you mean, "they just cannot understand it". That is a terrible, TERRIBLE generalization!

What do you mean, "they just cannot understand it". That is a terrible, TERRIBLE generalization!

 

I agree it is.

 

I should have stated what is probably the majority of those on that side cannot understand it.

I agree it is.

 

I should have stated what is probably the majority of those on that side cannot understand it.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't believe the majority cannot understand it. I don't believe anyone can't understand it. I also cannot believe you would apply such a sentiment to a collective group of people whom you cannot know hold the same beliefs of some

 

What possible support to you have for your generalization?

I'm sorry, but I don't believe the majority cannot understand it. I don't believe anyone can't understand it. I also cannot believe you would apply such a sentiment to a collective group of people whom you cannot know hold the same beliefs of some

 

What possible support to you have for your generalization?

 

There was a stat out there recently that 90% of abortion are for reasons other than rape or mother's safety.

 

Many, many of those are for convenience that they don't want their life to be interrupted and have to deal with raising a child.

 

When they chose to end the life of THEIR child so they don't have to raise it and interrupt their life for a child, HOW can they understand keeping a special needs child????

There was a stat out there recently that 90% of abortion are for reasons other than rape or mother's safety.

 

Many, many of those are for convenience that they don't want their life to be interrupted and have to deal with raising a child.

 

When they chose to end the life of THEIR child so they don't have to raise it and interrupt their life for a child, HOW can they understand keeping a special needs child????

 

 

Where in that statistic does it say that the choice was because they were faced with a dilemma such as Palin faced? I'd love to see the associated report with that statistic. Any chance you could dig up a link to the data and the report?

Never mind. The relevant statistic I was looking for is this:

 

possible fetal health problems

3

 

 

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

 

 

That's 3%