What does Pro-Life mean?
I will preface this by saying that I am staunchly pro-choice and this is not an unbiased opinion. But this is what I have gathered from years of paying attention to what the population of pro-lifers have been saying. (This is primarily based off the platform that what most Republican candidates run on).
What does pro life mean?
It doesn't mean caring about the elderly
Because they don't care about social security
But they do care about pro life
And they don't care about orphanages or a foster care system that does not work
Because we don't want to aid single mothers who are struggling for an income
But they do care about pro life
They don't care about beggars on the street who don't have enough food to eat
Because they constantly talk about cutting welfare
But they do care about pro life
So what does pro life mean?
Does it mean that we only care about unborn life?
Once you've popped out of the uterus we are not responsible for you because you have become an actual human that is just leeching off society. No more aid for you. No more social care systems. Who needs to be socially responsible? Clearly not us.
Maybe I'm just starting to understand, pro-life means not actually being responsible for anything except interfering in the decision as to whether a woman is able to provide for her child or not. But I thought those same pro-lifers hated big government, so why is it ok to let big brother in on this instance? It's nice to have these rules be completely situational, isn't it?
i love tina fey
so perhaps SNL is not the place to get your news but it sure is the place to make your news far more entertaining. like this "news" piece by tina fey that was basically a plug for hillary.
this primary season is enough to drive a person crazy. i will be truly disappointed if hillary does not get the nomination.
just for fun
so i've been a bit quiet about things lately because i'm frustrated with the way the democratic campaigns are going. but i have found some amusement to make the rest of this campaign season bearable: http://gawker.com/360888/barack-obollywood-and-other-amazing-internet-attack-ads
michelle obama, fit to be first lady? i think not
you know it's one thing to support your husband. that's great, i'm glad that we have a husband and wife team that work together but i have to say it is sorely disappointing to hear that she would have to "think about" voting for hillary should her husband not win the democratic nomination. i don't really think that's an appropriate answer for someone who would like to become our first lady. a first lady should know that it is quite important to actually vote in an election and if you are part of the democratic party one would hope that you would vote for the candidate that wins the nomination. i find it quite sad. this article goes more in depth on this. i have to say i have been a hillary supporter ever since kucinich dropped out but should i have ever questioned it, this would have definitely put me in the hillary camp for good.
why is it always a fight?
i feel like the democrats these days feel like they have to fight all the time. it's as if every campaign is a fight. but why? why can't we just run a good campaign that doesn't feel like we're fighting all the time. i recently got this email about how "we're going to fight mccain". well but what if i don't want to fight. what if i want to hear whoever the democratic candidate is and to hear mccain and make an educated decision based on the two. i don't think it necessarily has to be a "fight". it could just be a debate and a good campaign that wins. or well i'd like to think it could be. perhaps i'm still too idealistic about politics.
seriously?
ok so seriously do we have to be in a deadlock like all the time? i mean that's just not fair. also i'd like to mention that if you look at the places that obama is winning over hillary it's the more conservative part of the country like idaho, illinois, alabama, georgia. i know everyone was saying that oh those places are racist they'll never vote for a black man, but i'd like to point out that while they may be racist they're also sexist. and let me tell you they'll vote for a black man over a white woman or well any woman any day. see i'm not crazy, i'm not a conspiracy theorist i just happen to live in a man's world. i've always been a science geek and not just science but the boy kinda sciences like physics and comp sci, you learn a lot more about sexism playing with the boys than you do anywhere else. and it's not blatant sexism. i don't even think they mean it sometimes. it's just that if you asked them to choose who could do the job they wouldn't even consider any of the women in the dept because they wouldn't think of them. it's almost worse than discriminating because she's a woman it's not even acknowledging their presence. and it happens all the time. so yeah i'm rooting for hillary. obviously i could be wrong, i mean i don't know the demographics of who voted for whom just yet. and hopefully this crazy deadlock of super tuesday will wear off and we'll actually have a clear winner soon. at least i'd hope so.
obama vs. clinton
so i'm not too thrilled with the candidates so far but if it has to be obama vs hillary then i have to say i am more of a supporter for hillary. i think she has the experience and the smarts to handle our lovely little recession that dubya will leave as his legacy. i mean let's face it there aren't many presidents that have done what bill did for us and therefore i have hope that she will be smart enough to use some of the resources she has through him to turn this economy around. i mean i know that it wasn't just him that part of it was the internet boom but he was also smart about how he managed the money that the internet boom brought with it. i mean there are judicious ways to spend money and stupid ways to spend money and i have faith in the clintons. and yes i do realize that if hillary gets elected that our country will have had either a bush or a clinton in office for 28 years but that doesn't bother me so much. i'd rather have someone that i think is competent regardless of whether this reminds us of fake democracies than allow another cowboy in office. because let's face it, all that talk about change, isn't that just what dubya did to get him in office. that our country needed a change. granted back then it was a change to be more conservative but still how is that any different from what obama is spewing. it's just jargon. and it's jargon i don't believe. and if caroline kennedy wants to support him as the new jfk well go right ahead but in my opinion jfk was one of the lousiest presidents in the history of the united states. the best part of his presidency was when johnson took over. now lbj that was a president. that was a man who did something. and unfortunately the history books have largely ignored him. but he was an incredible president. he did so much for education. he's a man that speaks to my heart. and not just him but if only the country were ready for a female president lady bird would have been awesome. *sigh* the elections these days just make me sad.
also, while i'm not ecstatic about either obama or clinton and apparently so are quite a few more leftist democrats i don't understand why so many dems are looking at the republican candidates as viable alternatives. i mean come on guys, just because our candidates aren't perfect doesn't mean that we should be bailing camp already. what is this? haven't we learned yet what happens when so many dems decide to vote based on "how they feel" and the republicans just vote party line. hello that's obviously how we got dubya in the first place guys. please tell me we've learned something. and yes i know i was at one point one of those voters. i mean when it was dubya vs. mccain and then all the loser dems, i was definitely considering mccain. but that's not true anymore. we don't have loser candidates. no candidate will be perfect. (well except kucinich but he's out already and obviously unelectable). when we've actually got a decent chance i think we should stop looking at the republicans as viable alternatives but rather look at them the way we should which is the opposition. know thine enemy but don't jump ship and join them!
it also makes me sad that no electable candidate will take up gay rights. why is it that al gore is the only person that questions how homosexual marriage threatens heterosexual marriage. i mean honestly why does it threaten heterosexual marriage? does it take away from the vows you made to your partner? does it change how you feel about your partner? cause if it does you may need to reevaluate your marriage and not the topic of why gays should be allowed to marry or not.
why can presidential candidates flat out lie and get away with it?
how is it that we, the american people, are ok with our candidates lying to us. and ok, maybe i'll give us a little more credit and just assume that many of us are ignorant of certain facts. but rudy giuliani has been quoting around some utterly false numbers about the survival rates of men with prostate cancer in america vs. britain. so he's been saying that survival rates in america are ~82% (which is accurate according to medical journals) and that survival rates in britain are ~44% (this is completely untrue, but based on some conservative publication that he was reading). the actual survival rate in britain for men with prostate cancer is about 74.4%. so why aren't we actually hearing about that? also, mr. giuliani and his team have been enlightened that his figures are completely incorrect, yet his staff has said that they will continue to use the incorrect figures in his future speeches. how does this man resemble anything remotely similar to someone that our country would like to lead us? a man that will lie to us and not even admit his own mistakes. not to mention foreign policy, i mean it is actually quite offensive to britain to be misleading the public about their healthcare system. it would be one thing to be using accurate figures that may embarrass them but to use figures that are completely inaccurate is another thing. in fact i believe that it could be called slander. but hey, that's just me.
