Brownback: "This is a pro-life country"
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback spent some time with reporters today before speaking to owners and operators of the Bott Radio Network, based here.
"I am pro-life," Brownback said, but added it would just be one part of a broader campaign for president. He said he was not involved in the dispute over Phill Kline's appointment in Johnson County.
Brownback said he supported much of the work of the Iraq Study Group, and said American troop posture in that country has to change by 2008. He supports talks with Iran and Syria, and doesn't think Iran must get rid of nuclear weapons as a precondition for those talks.
But he also said the ultimate solution in Iraq is a loose partion among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Three regions, "one country," he said.
Brownback says as his name recognition grows, so will fundraising for his campaign. December isn't a good month to raise money, he told reporters.
Posted by Dave Helling
So, Brownback has adopted one of the Democratic plans for Iraq. Joe Biden's to be precise. And he says the problem with Dems is they don't all have the same plan. What's wrong Sammy boy? Trying to sound rational? Us here in Kansas know you better than that!
Posted by: jack | December 15, 2006 at 02:22 PM
Copying from Joe Biden isn't it ironic?
Posted by: dog | December 15, 2006 at 02:28 PM
Pro-life?? Does that mean he is against the death penalty?
Posted by: | December 15, 2006 at 02:42 PM
For the record, Sam Brownback does NOT speak for me. As far as I'm concerned, he can take his backward agenda and go have his Winston-Salem Witch hunts somewhere else. Geezee, is Kansas that far gone that we elect someone like this?
This is the guy who takes the senate floor and spends taxpayer time showing off pictures of his family to prove that gay marriage is bad. Seriously.... do we not have anything better to do?
Never mind the debt (Every family owes $500,000.00 in federal debt and unfunded obligations). Never mind the fact that we're bogged down in a botched invasion of a soveign nation, never mind that we're illegally torturing people and holding them without charging them for YEARS, oh I could go on.... but WHY? We know the most important thing is that we don't allow those gays to get married. Oh, and we don't allow any scientific research with embryonic stem cells. We'll just let grown people die instead. Yep, that makes sense.
I'd better just stop now.
Posted by: jpbikerfreak | December 15, 2006 at 02:50 PM
I used to be pro life but I have changed my mind, I believe abortion prunes back liberals.
Posted by: james | December 15, 2006 at 03:18 PM
james, I bet you consider yourself a Christian, don't you?
Posted by: | December 15, 2006 at 03:20 PM
I'm pro life. I used to be pro death penalty, too, but that just seemed too light for me. Personally, I believe that we need a federal prison camp up in Northern Alaska. You see, I'm tired of hearing all these complaints about how lethal injection is "cruel and unusual". Really, if you want a humane death, put a bullet through a guy's temple. But then again, you want his mom to have a funeral.
Thus, the prison camp is the best option. Make it a facility focused on life. But make the inmates wish they were dead. They have really cold winters up there, put them in barracks with plywood walls.
Posted by: plattecohighschooler | December 15, 2006 at 03:32 PM
platte county,
I like you more every day.
Posted by: craig | December 15, 2006 at 03:51 PM
Jpbikerfreak,
It's important that we add to your list the fact that women do have the ability to make their own choices regarding their reproductive issues. We don't need the government making these decisions for them.
I swear, people that scream about cigarette bans being against their civil liberties, but turn around and say they are pro-life. I just don't understand their hypocracy. Jp, thanks for your comment...one of the few that made sense so far.
Posted by: political moderate | December 15, 2006 at 04:00 PM
"Pro-life."
It sounds much better than "pro-abortion", doesn't it?
But as long as the women of this nation have a bloodlust for scraping their 'bio-accidents' out of their wombs, nothing will change.
Nice try, Mr. Brownback. Thanks for playing.
Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 | December 15, 2006 at 04:06 PM
Christian? Since your asking, yes!
Posted by: james | December 15, 2006 at 04:09 PM
"It's important that we add to your list the fact that women do have the ability to make their own choices regarding their reproductive issues. We don't need the government making these decisions for them."
Okay, fine, but they need to make the choice IN THE BEDROOM. It's not fair to punish the unborn for the poor decisions their mothers make. There is something horribly wrong with a society when a woman feels the need to kill her own child. Imagine what those murdered unborn might have done for us. Found cures for diseases. Helped achieve peace between nations. Found a way to feed the thousands of hungry in the world. All for not now.
Think about it this way: What if your mother wanted an abortion with you?
Posted by: plattecohighschooler | December 15, 2006 at 04:14 PM
And I imagine platte considers himself a Christian as well. Why do I have a hard time believing Jesus would advocate sending prisoners to Alaska as punishment.
Posted by: | December 15, 2006 at 04:15 PM
Hey, you people sit here and criticize people who are both pro life and pro death penalty. I'm pro life and against the death penalty. Take it or leave it.
Posted by: plattecohighschooler | December 15, 2006 at 04:17 PM
I agree with you PM...NICE post, jpbikerfreak. I couldn't agree more with your follow-up, PM. Yes...I can smoke where I want and when I want but YOU can only marry who I say you can marry and all women regardless of personal religious belief have to abide by my belief regarding the moment when life begins when it comes to reproductive health.
If men were the ones who got pregnant, abortion would be legal up to the very moment labor pains kicked in. Actually, if I think that through...if men were the ones who got pregnant, the human species would have died out eons ago.
Praise women...and let them marry each other if they want. Who can blame them?
Posted by: Protractor | December 15, 2006 at 04:18 PM
I am not a Christian. Indeed, my Christian friends definitely consider me very much a heathen. But if you ask me, sending people off to the coldest northernmost remote outreaches of our huge continent sounds a bit commie...more that a little "gulagish"
On the other hand...I can think of at least one Texan I wouldn't mind sending to an American Gulag. He could drill for oil there...hahahahahaha
Oh to have such power!!
Posted by: Protractor | December 15, 2006 at 04:25 PM
Since I was born pre-Roe v. Wade, if my Mom had wanted an abortion, she would have had to go to a back alley "doctor" and then she most likely would have died from a hemorrhage or an infection.
platteco, given current demographics and economics, an aborted fetus, if it was carried to term, would most likely suffer from hunger, disease and violence than find a cure for any of these problems.
Posted by: Proud Liberal | December 15, 2006 at 04:26 PM
"I'm pro life and against the death penalty."
That makes sense. It's the "i'm pro-life" and the pro death penalty crowd who are the hypocrites.
"What if your mother wanted an abortion with you?"
Totally bogus and baseless argument made by the "pro-life" crowd. Sort of along the lines of "why do you want America to lose the war on terror?" or "why do you hate America". You lose a lot of credibility in debates on subjects when you cross into that abyss.
Posted by: | December 15, 2006 at 04:29 PM
"I'm pro life and against the death penalty. Take it or leave it."
My sense of what Jesus would do require me to "leave it".
Posted by: political moderate | December 15, 2006 at 04:30 PM
"That makes sense. It's the "i'm pro-life" and the pro death penalty crowd who are the hypocrites. "
What about the pro-choice, anti-death penalty crowd, does that make them hypocrites too?
Just asking.
FYI, I am against abortion morally. But I am pretty sure that I am not so holier than thou that I should be allowed to legislate my morals. That is something that each individual needs to take up with their maker.
And PM, comparing smoking bans to the abortion issue is a little of stretch. You usually can make better comparisons than that.
Posted by: craig | December 15, 2006 at 04:37 PM
"platteco, given current demographics and economics, an aborted fetus, if it was carried to term, would most likely suffer from hunger, disease and violence than find a cure for any of these problems."
To make a statement like that is not just you failing to see the preciousness of human life, but the power of human potential. Just because a person is brought up into a bad situation doesn't mean they can't succeed.
But of course, you wouldn't realize this, because for the last 45 years the liberal/progressive movement in this country and the Democratic party have been filling the minds of the poor with the idea that they are too stupid and worthless to live without government support. In they eyes of these movements, these people are worth nothing until election time comes around, and all the sudden the left begins to humor the disadvantaged (particularly minorities) with false dreams of extensive income redistribution and sweeping social reforms.
You must remember it is the Republican Party that was for the end of slavery. Democrats were perfectly fine with the idea of blacks being inferior. In the 1860's, blacks were inslaved by the rich whites in the south. Now they are held captive on the plantation of the socialist welfare system.
Posted by: plattecohighschooler | December 15, 2006 at 04:45 PM
craig---Heck, you can't come up with a perfect analogy EVERY time. Geez, give me a little break.
I am also opposed to abortion. However, I recognize a few fundamentals. I believe God loves the unborn child and wants the best for it.
As importantly, (this is where I seperate from my pro-life brethren) I believe God equally loves the Mother and wants what is best for her.
I do not believe that God places either the Mother or the Child over the other (again a point of difference with the pro-life people).
There are times and situations when the Mother must decide what is best. God allows that free will decision to made by us because He/She loves us and trusts us.
Sometimes we fail. Christ came to save us from those sins. If we believe in the Christ event, we place our faith with God and not men to make the decisions and deal with the consequences.
Sorry for the Sunday School lesson. But the topic mandates a bit of theology.
Posted by: political moderate | December 15, 2006 at 04:50 PM
Apparently platte high schools teach an extremely selective version of history. Where were the Republicans in the 1950s and 1960s? Seems to me they were preaching "States Rights" and "Law And Order" as codes for keeping the southern blacks in their place. We even had one Republican get elected twice using his "southern strategy".
Which party is it that bought campaign adds with the white woman making goo goo eyes at the black candidate and saying "Call me"? Which party was the guy who calls people "macaca" and tries to distance himself from his jewish mother for political purposes?
Now, tell me. Which party was it whose leadership chose to risk the party itself falling apart by demanding an end to segregation and Jim Crow?
You'd think a "high school student" would know a little history.
Posted by: jack | December 15, 2006 at 04:56 PM
A little history for jack
It was the southern Dems who were for states rights. Robert "sheets" Byrd was a Dem, so was Strom Thurmond
Al Gores dad voted against the civil rights bill, George Wallace was a Dem also.
Posted by: james | December 15, 2006 at 05:05 PM
Every time someone posts on here, it's like they dig themselves deeper.
You say that God gives us free will to do what we want because HE loves us and HE trusts us. Hmmm. Trusts us. He TRUSTS us to make a decision that is in line with HIS teachings. Sure, HE wants the best for us... but the best for us is available through faith in HIM and HIS teachings only. A woman going and having an abortion is never the "best" for her. And since you're not a kindergardener, I don't think I'll have to tell you that it's not the "best" for the baby.
And one last thing... I have noticed a poster on here saying that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be legal up until birth pains. I'm a male. I wouldn't be for abortion even IF men could get pregnant.
Posted by: plattecohighschooler | December 15, 2006 at 05:07 PM
How can anyone claim to be pro-life and yet support the carnage we have inflicted and the innocent lives we have taken in Iraq?
Do we only save Chinese babies, Sam?
Posted by: Proud Dem | December 15, 2006 at 05:07 PM
platte---
I sincerely respect your attempt to tackle this issue from a theological perspective. It's a lot easier to argue it from the laws of man.
You state:
He TRUSTS us to make a decision that is in line with HIS teachings
If that were true, it would not be real Free Will. God doesn't have to put a corral around anything.
Through Jesus, all that we mess up can be fixed (if required).
Posted by: political moderate | December 15, 2006 at 05:14 PM
I don't support the decision to go into Iraq, but we're there. Dems that want to pull out now are doing the exact same thing that Bush did: they are failing to see the strategic consequences of what they are about to do.
Posted by: plattecohighschooler | December 15, 2006 at 05:15 PM
Of course it's free will, man. You must remember that we are talking about how to attain what God wants for us, not salvation. With salvation, the game is different. God would much prefer that we have faith in Him, but faith in God will not make a whole lot of difference in what happens to us in life when those events are a result of our actions. Salvation is a truth. A correct concept. However, it is not a set of rules. When you are seeking what God wants for you, you must conform to his teachings. It's no accident that following things like the Ten Commandments and Jesus' teachings will bring you success.
Let's look here... Do Not Commit Adultery. Wow. Do not cheat on your partner. Cheating on your spouse can bring divorce and that can break up a family, causing sadness and pain. Not to mention that child support, alimony and spousal support can take a good chunk out of your monthly budget.
Do Not Murder... another good one. Let's see. This is pretty basic. Don't take another human life. Not just because it is morally wrong, but because of the suffering it creates for the victim's family. Also, with today's law enforcement, it's pretty hard to get away with murder. Prison is painful consequence of murder.
I don't think I need to explain this to you any further.
Posted by: plattecohighschooler | December 15, 2006 at 05:29 PM
I appreciate your perspective. You make some excellent points.
We diverge in our confidence that God has written the Summary Script for Life.
I don't think so...
You disagree...
Statistically, I betcha I find out first! :-)
Posted by: political moderate | December 15, 2006 at 05:39 PM
I do gotta say this has been a fairly civil thread for such a hot button issue.
Another thing, I am in favor of the death penalty, but if we could get platte county's idea pushed through I would be willing to change my mind.
Posted by: craig | December 15, 2006 at 06:38 PM
I expected more "heat" as well. I thought Platte did a fine job articulating his point of view.
Where are the "crazies" tonight?
Posted by: political moderate | December 15, 2006 at 08:40 PM
They're all in Alaska
Posted by: Protractor | December 15, 2006 at 09:22 PM
how many have died in the name of religion???
Posted by: somewhere in the middle | December 15, 2006 at 10:14 PM
Yeah plattecohighschooler that's what we need... more white trash offspring who could have "changed the world." I hope Brownback the golden boy for all you anti-choice self-righteous preacher types runs for President. Then you'll see how much on the fringe you are. I'm sure you were all partying when you hillbilly backwoods districts of MO were winning the No on 2 vote. But then what happened? Oh yeah the educated city folks votes started getting counted. Please leave your fundamental religious views out of politics and our lives and please learn to think in other ways besides absolutes!
Posted by: | December 15, 2006 at 10:20 PM
I too am pro life and the latest disaster in Florida with lethal injection just supports anti death penalty. My issue on the death penalty is also the chance that an innocent man or woman could be put to death and you can't take that move back. Not mine to a judge, a higher power will some day, in my beliefs.
Also, and this may shock my fellow republicans, but I am just not sure I like this Brownback guy. My sentiments could change given the right opponent I guess, but I have yet to become comfortable with him as a candidate. I can't really articulate my reasons yet, but the jury is still way out for me....something just seems a little fake..I like some of his views, but I guess I just don't have a good handle on who he really is...time will tell I guess
Posted by: southerngirl | December 15, 2006 at 10:25 PM
Why do you equate a medical procedure that resembles a byopsy to something that happens when people stab, strangle and shoot each other? Because Murder sounds so much worse than the truth? The truth is abortion is not a crime like murder so abortion does not equate to murder. When we're long gone and this country's population hits 2 billion do you really think this culture is going to value a pre-fetal life any more than it is today? Get over yourselves please. Save a sentient being like a homeless person or adopt an orphan from Africa if you are so Pro-life.
Posted by: murder? | December 15, 2006 at 10:27 PM
"Yeah plattecohighschooler that's what we need... more white trash offspring who could have "changed the world." I hope Brownback the golden boy for all you anti-choice self-righteous preacher types runs for President. Then you'll see how much on the fringe you are. I'm sure you were all partying when you hillbilly backwoods districts of MO were winning the No on 2 vote. But then what happened? Oh yeah the educated city folks votes started getting counted. Please leave your fundamental religious views out of politics and our lives and please learn to think in other ways besides absolutes!"
You know, there's a way to debate and a way to go off at the mouth. Before you stereotype Platte County, I invite you to see, oh, I don't know, the airport, Barry Road and Zona Rosa, Parkville (where I live) and the National golf clubs. Wow, that sounds just like the "hillbilly backwoods districts of MO."
Second of all, I don't support Brownback. Did I ever say I did? I won't even be able to vote in the next election. I was born in 1991, not 90. Even if I could, I wouldn't be voting for Brownback because 1.He most likely won't be on the Republican White House ticket 2.I don't agree with his ideas for Iraq.
We were having a nice discussion on here for once, if you want to argue, go troll with Friedemann, not us.
Posted by: plattecohighschooler | December 15, 2006 at 10:46 PM
PRO LIFE? HOW MANY CHILDREN HAVE YOU ADOPTED...
IF YOU TALK THE TALK...WALK THE WALK..
AND ADOPT THE KIDS WHO NEED FAMILIES...
PRO LIFE? HOW ABOUT PRO LIES?
Posted by: billybob | December 16, 2006 at 08:00 AM
Inmates slated for execution should be forced into the psychological rebirthing process then aborted a 1/4 of the way through.
Posted by: yo mama | December 16, 2006 at 08:00 AM
I would never deny anyone the right to be African, homeless, deathrow inmate, aborted fetus, or even right wing , long live the people!!
Posted by: | December 16, 2006 at 08:13 AM
southerngirl said:
"I am just not sure I like this Brownback guy."
The Republican menu is definitely well-rounded this year. Someone or something for almost everybody.
Rudy G is pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-gun...he's so oriented to the middle that even a moderate like me wonders what his core values are.
Brownback is opportunistically trying to capture the religous right: pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay. He's a midstream Methodist one day and Opus Dei the next.
southerngirl, you have lots of time to make a decision in this field of wannabes.
Posted by: political moderate | December 16, 2006 at 08:15 AM
Interesting how an article on Sam Brownback goes totally to the abortion issue and then religion with comments from both sides from people who will never listen to the other. Just what our contry needs, leaders who inspire us to brawl in the streets. I prefer to look elsewhere.
Posted by: w-six | December 16, 2006 at 08:23 AM
I am pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Although I don't think I would have ever considered having an abortion if I were in that situation I know a few women who have had one. I do believe in my right to choose--if you personally are against it for any reason whatsoever, that is your right. I don't agree with the argument "what if your mother had an abortion"? Fail to see how that is part of the debate.
I'm sure to some I am on that bus to hell, but I would say I don't view it as murder. Again that is your right to say it is.
The death penalty. Is it justice to take another's life? Does it deter others from committing crimes against others? Does someone who commits the same crime I do also get the death penalty. Not always. I think it is a just punishment for the most heinous crimes, but not handed out equally. If even one person is put to death who is innocent than that is one too many.
As for Brownback, I respect his convictions. Don't agree with any of them, though. That Rolling Stone interview posted here awhile back was interesting. Like all politicians he showed his willingness to alter his positions when it would help him. That is just the way it is these days.
Posted by: jenniferm | December 16, 2006 at 08:30 AM
I have to admit that I am ambivalent regarding the death penalty.
On one hand, I am very empathetic with the victims of capital crimes. I think I'd want the death penalty if a member of my family was murdered.
But...
Is this justice or revenge?
Penal experts, criminologists, and many psychologists argue that the death penalty does NOT deter serious crimes.
So, how then does society benefit from the death penalty?
I think the evidence points to a collective cathartic release of anger. In a word, revenge.
Is that a valid reason to take a life?
Posted by: political moderate | December 16, 2006 at 08:59 AM
You pro-choice, anti-death penalty people can't possibly be taken seriously.
Seriously think about these two things:
A.) You would give an unborn child the death penalty, someone who has not harmed a soul in any way.
B.) In the same breath you will spare the life of someone who has knowingly snuffed out the life of another person.
How frigging more warped can you be. Your logic is an insanity that defied anything ever productively taught on this planet.
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 16, 2006 at 02:31 PM
What ever happened to Pro-Freedom? This is one of the Republicans that shoved through several constitution destroying Bills. Patriot Act.1&2. The new Detainee Bill that abolished habeas corpus and gives the president the power to declare who is a enemy combatant. Once declared there is no judge or trial due. We need to stop the destruction of our bill of rights.
Posted by: John Evans | December 16, 2006 at 04:38 PM
I have no doubt whatsoever that there are scumbags in this world who deserve to be taken out into the street and shot like the mad dogs they are. Charlie Manson, Ted Bundy, the guy who dreamed up “Cop Rock”… Those people should be held responsible!
But I have deep and sincere doubts about the judicial system's way of meting out criminal penalties. The same kinds of people who, for example, returned the multi-million dollar hot coffee verdict against McDonald's (justified, in my opinion, once you know the facts of the case) were on the juries a few years back in Illinois who condemned the 8 men who were later proven by DNA evidence to be innocent of the crimes that put them on Death Row. The judicial system is inherently flawed because it depends on inherently-flawed human beings. And there's no way to rectify an unjust execution. That's the rub.
Whether an unjust conviction is due to bad lawyers, bad juries, bad evidence, over-zealous prosecutors, incompetent judges, bad luck... it seems to me that a system that aspires to justice should have in its intrinsic structure the capability to right wrongs. And there's no way to un-do an execution.
And it's altogether too easy to put people on death row and kill them.
If there is to be a death penalty -- and I see no constitutional provision in the United States to prevent it -- I think the death warrant should be signed by the governor (or President) in the presence of the condemned, and only after a face-to-face meeting. I think, instead of simply signing a piece of paper, the Chief Executive of the state or nation should be required to pull the switch him/herself. And if -- as it could very
well have happened in Illinois where fully half the prisoners on Death Row were conclusively proven innocent -- a person is put to death unjustly, the governor and the trial judge and the jury members responsible should be summarily executed for murder.
As a practical matter, though, I suspect most Death Penalty politicians lack the cajones to sign a death warrant if their own lives were on the line.
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | December 16, 2006 at 06:12 PM
One day this week a death row execution got media coverage for a "botched" execution. There will be inquiries. California and Florida have already suspended all pending executions.
If an abortion occurred that same day, I wonder if that unborn child was considered as newsworthy. Probably not.
It is not considered a "botched" execution. No, we call that pro-choice.
We scream like all heck, and the earth stops moving for the former. Where with the latter, it's "just another day at the office."
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 17, 2006 at 08:58 AM
Is a fried egg the same thing as fried chicken?
If you think so, forgive me if I ask someone else to cook my breakfast or cater my picnic.
Is a caterpillar the same thing as a butterfly?
The DNA's the same, I'll grant you, but there's a difference, isn't there?
Say we don't take advantage of God's gift of scientific exploration and use some of those 400,000 spare `frozen embryos to find a cure for Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's, paralysis, and diabetes. If they stay frozen for 18 years, should we give them the right to vote?
Part of being a grown-up is accepting that, yes, there are some arbitrary decisions in life. You're eligible for a driver's license 16 years after your birth, not 16 years after conception. A 15-year-old boy can have consensual sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old girl and she can be charged with rape. I was born at 6:30 in the morning on January 1st. My Dad missed out on a whole year's tax deferment on me simply because I put Mom though eight hours of labor. Arbitrary? You betcha. But sometimes the rules just are.
If you sincerely believe that every sperm is sacred, fine. Believe it. Live your life that way and don't choose in vitro fertilization. Volunteer (if you're so equipped) to have one of those 400,000 frozen embryos implanted in your uterus. Tell your friends what you've come to believe from your chosen religion. Recruit other wombs and try to convince the rest of us we're wrong to see a very real opportunity for preventing mass suffering and the conquering of disease and horrendous afflictions.
Try to convince me that quadriplegia and dementia and multiple amputations and blindness are somehow more "moral" than using those 400,000 frozen embryos for research, progress, and cures.
'Til you can do that, I'll cook my own breakfast.
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | December 17, 2006 at 10:19 AM
Hmmm, someone doesn't like me freely expressing myself.
Seems like Pro-choice people get freedom of expression. And, of course the news media "has your back" so-to-speak. But yet you scream bloody murder (kind of an irony) if Pro-lifers seek to freely express themselves, too.
Enjoy your eggs, apparently you like them scrambled.
Posted by: Jeetzwillagers | December 17, 2006 at 11:01 AM
Jee---I don't think the Monk denied your right to your opinions as you portray in your post.
All that was said is, you're position is flawed. Your logic is morphed. Your hypothosis is distorted.
But, you can live in fantasy land if that is your choice.
Posted by: political moderate | December 17, 2006 at 11:27 AM
Poly Mod guy:
First of all, you should probably read my posts before you call me flawed. But interesting that you have said that. It's all an opinion and fair game.
And fantasy? Why, because I don't jump on the pro-choice/anti-death penalty bandwagon, i.e., put my finger to sky and see which way the "wind" is blowing.
Apparently caring about unborn children and supporting the death penalty is flawed. Again interesting.
I said nothing about embryonic stemcell research, that was Monkeyhawk traveling that path. Apparently he thought my posts were about that.
My posts had to do with the people who are pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Please explain how you can kill an innocent person and save a guilty one. Enlighten me.
And I'm flawed?????????
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 17, 2006 at 01:14 PM
And I'm flawed?????????
YUP!!!
You offer nothing to support your opinion except name-calling. I'd say that is pretty flawed.
Why do you think you have the right to dictate how a woman handles her reproductive health choices?
Why do you think you can guarantee that a person convicted of a capital crime is really guilty?
Cut the name-calling and use your brain to support your position. Maybe you have a valid point.
So far, you haven't presented one.
Posted by: political moderate | December 17, 2006 at 01:23 PM
Addendum;
My view is Pro-life and Pro-death penalty.
I believe in saving the innocent, not saving the guilty.
That use to be called "common sense." Now it's called fantasy?
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 17, 2006 at 01:25 PM
Okay...if you are settled into the labels...can you now support the logic?
Posted by: political moderate | December 17, 2006 at 01:27 PM
Poly Mod:
Your post is interesting. The law (pro-choice is supported by the courts) is on your side, yet you still feel a great need to defend it. You're winning man. But yet you post as if your losing.
Interesting.
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 17, 2006 at 01:32 PM
A variation of name-calling methinks.
Thanks for adding nothing of value to this discussion.
Adios.
Posted by: political moderate | December 17, 2006 at 01:35 PM
To those interested in these topics, the intent isn't to win.
Hopefully, through dialogue we can refine our position or develop insights and appreciation on how others reach their opinion.
Posted by: political moderate | December 17, 2006 at 01:40 PM
You're right. I offered an alternative that has no value. That alternative, common sense, couldn't possibly be supported in the logic of the scientific community. Science is well-thought out and hard. Common sense is way too easy to understand, and therefore must be fantasy which is also easy.
I should start living in the real world and quit shoving common sense down the throats of the well-informed.
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 17, 2006 at 01:49 PM
"I should start living in the real world and quit shoving common sense down the throats of the well-informed."
You be sure and let us know when that happens, okay.
Posted by: | December 17, 2006 at 04:22 PM
How interesting.
You be sure and let "us" know when that happens, "okay?"
(signed anonymous)
a.) no name attached to above post
b.) And apparently 'no name' can't stand alone; must associate with a bandwagon approach and therefore speaks for other people by using the word "us"
c.) saying "me" instead of "us" would have garnered more credibility for "us" is an assumption and assumptions are the bane of learned people
d.) is suggesting through the word "okay" that they (us) are accepting of others views, but that I am not
e.) can dish it out by demeaning pro-life views, but pro-lifers dare not lay question to pro-choice views--obviously can't stand it when someone presses back.
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 18, 2006 at 12:06 AM
jee (I assume that is your birth name) or else you would be considered anonymous, too.
you call that response "pressing back"? LOL
Posted by: | December 18, 2006 at 09:32 AM
No, not my birth name. But it can be used to compare to other posts from me. That way you can see that I don't yank other people into my postings. You won't see the word "us" from me.
By the way, you sound like a Paul Morrison lover. He's Mr. classy guy, right. During an election everything is fair game. It's been that way for two centuries in this country. Grover Cleveland was ostracized in the press (his 2nd term) because he was in his 50s married to a 20 year-old woman. So what Kline did bringing up Morrison's past has been done for 200 years. But the voters spoke and Kline lost. At that point, Kline conceded without further adieu and said he'd help make the transition smooth. No sour grapes from him, he knows it's a contest. You fight like hell and try to win. By the way, it is about winning. Or we wouldn't have elections, Supreme Courts wouldn't hand down votes on issues, juries wouldn't hand down verdicts and legislatures wouldn't hand down votes on bills before them. So it's about winning. Or why do we vote in various venues, if it's not about winning?
But back to your classy guy. With the election over, Morrison decides to take another swipe at Kline by saying he didn't deserve the DA job. That wasn't his decision. The law is out there real clear. But like a true Al Gore-Democrat, he like the vote and subsequently he doesn't like the law that created that vote. Now this is the man who Kansans elected to uphold the "laws" of Kansas. Scares the hell out of me that he is already deciding which ones he likes and dislikes. But that is what Kline did, too. Kline picked the ones he liked and disliked. And voters hated that.
Interesting how they are both similar, but one is right and the other is wrong.
Now the longterm debate is who is right and who is wrong. For now its you who is right, because the vote is in.
It is about winning. Stay tuned, it's only gonna get more interesting.
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 18, 2006 at 11:56 AM
Correction:
But like a true Al Gore-Democrat, he (didn't) like the vote and subsequently he doesn't like the law that created that vote.
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 18, 2006 at 12:04 PM
Going full circle back to the original news that led to all these posts.
Come January, we are going to find out if Senator Brownback is correct about this being a pro-life country. Mr. Morrison has to continue the investigation of abortion clinics.
I can assure you that he will be watched and judged very early in his term of office. He hasn't even seen heat yet. It's coming.
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 18, 2006 at 12:07 PM
jee, WTF??? Kline lover too? Wow, shocked I am, just shocked!
Posted by: | December 18, 2006 at 05:14 PM
Must be Poly Mod,
Sure thing. See, I never subscribed to modern voting decisions. I try to give it a little more thought than just licking my forefinger and sticking it up to the wind to see which way it is blowing.
Can't wait for Morrison's term to begin. While DA, he could just tell people to go away when they complained and they did. AG is not Johnson County. He hasn't met real heat. But he is about to learn.
Poly Mod? I can't wait for your "loose cannon" to have his first meltdown as AG. And many WMDs to come. WMD is (Wholesale Melt Down).
Hey KC Star (Poly Mod will certainly pass this up the ladder), you know I'm right. Be sure you get pictures of him threatening to shutdown everything that opposes him. He'll get so agitated that he'll shutdown things that don't even exist. The guy cracks me up!
And you guys thought Kline was entertaining? Watch and learn.
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 19, 2006 at 06:41 AM
Excuse me sir. When I post, I sign my name.
You won't have to question whether I'm addressing an issue.
Posted by: political moderate | December 19, 2006 at 07:34 AM
"While DA, he could just tell people to go away when they complained and they did. AG is not Johnson County."
Care to elaborate?
Posted by: jenniferm | December 19, 2006 at 08:37 AM
Yea, jenniferm.
His JIAC program is a money pit for his "contract" cronies.
Do you want to call the above "answer" incorrect?
I can ask questions, too. (By the way, those who answer a question with a question do so because they don't have an answer.) So prove me wrong by telling me JIAC isn't a money pit.
Here's another answer: He tried to intimidate single mothers whose children were snagged in a "black hole" called juvenile diversion (JIACs brainchild) and students are delivered there, in part, by way of school ZT policies.
Those poor women melted when he heavy handed them.
He'll try to intimidate at the State level and he'll get it right back. Much more powerful crowd there. And if there are single mothers, they won't melt. Oh my gosh, I can't wait to see him in action at the state level. Watch and learn.
As for you Poly Mod? Give it up. I will say this....you are pretty funny. But if you must continue, I can be further humored.
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 19, 2006 at 09:03 AM
By the way Poly mod you said:
"Thanks for adding nothing of value to this discussion.
Adios."
Doesn't that imply that you are no longer going to pay attention to what I say?
You seem to be paying attention. (Smile)
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 19, 2006 at 09:11 AM
"So prove me wrong by telling me JIAC isn't a money pit."
How would I know, I live in Missouri. You seem to be the one with all the answers and accusations, yet provide little in substance to your response other than trash talking. I would bet there is more to these issues than your obviously biased side. How about link to a reputable site where we can read all about them. You certainly have a bone to pick with Morrison (as others do on this site with other politicians), I'm just trying to confirm my need to ignore your posts as willy nilly ranting about nothing or factual concerns about our elected officials. Right now I'm leaning on ignore.
Posted by: jenniferm | December 19, 2006 at 09:37 AM
jenniferm,
"How would I know, I live in Missouri."
This above statement of yours I can certainly appreciate. So if someone asked me about my view on Stem cell research, I'd probably say "does it matter, I couldn't vote?"
As for whether I have bone to pick with Morrison? Nah, I just don't like him because his only reason for switching parties is because he knew he'd get smoked in the Republican Primary. Wishy-washy.
And although he didn't take money from Tiller -- he did discreetly announce that he was pro-choice. How convenient. Yet, if Morrison kis as soundly pro-choice as say Kline is pro-life, shouldn't he take Tiller's money. If you believe in something, you should let it help fund you. More wishy-washy.
So there you have it. a.) He's a bully (JIAC) b.) He's wishy-washy -- put his finger to the sky and sailed with the wind.
And 59% of Kansans voted for a wishy-washy bully. He even referred to himself as a real lawman in his acceptance speech. Well that's the bully speaking. Come January we will see wishy-washy begin to take effect.
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 19, 2006 at 10:25 AM
More like he sailed with a gale, jeetz. Read Hendricks article in Monday's paper as to why JoCo is going Dem in a big way. 60% for Sebelius, 62% for Moore, 65% for Morrison. Sure looks like a whole bunch of fingers in the air towards the Republicans to me...
Posted by: dickeylee | December 19, 2006 at 10:42 AM
jeetzwillagers, if someone asked you for your opinion of stem cells why wouldn't you give your opinion. If someone asked you for your opinion on Amendment 2 in Missouri and you live in KS, that is different (although to you it probably isn't). I'm sure you don't see it that way, but we don't see eye to eye on much, now do we?
Besides you asked about JIAC and I gave an honest answer, I live in Missouri and don't really pay much attention to Johnson County politics. But I did ask that you provide a link for more information, are you planning on doing that?
Okay, your opinion is that 59% of Kansans voted for a wishy washy bully, instead of Phill Kline. I'm good with that and I get that you are not.
Posted by: jenniferm | December 19, 2006 at 10:46 AM
I voted for two of them, but because they weren't wishy washy. And they weren't bullies either. Surprise, surprise. Bet you thought I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. Nope, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Independent. About as "independent" as you can get.
And yes it was a gale. So maybe the phrase should be "which way the gale is blowing."
Doesn't sound right, but is correct. (Smile)
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 19, 2006 at 10:52 AM
jeetzwillagers, good for you to call yourself an independent, but your posts don't read that way. Me, liberal Dem all the way, and proud of it. Not that I won't vote for a R, (I did when I was younger), but I don't find the GOP to my liking. And as I mentioned in another thread, I am ashamed to say that Matt Bartle is my state rep.
Still would like to see more info on the JIAC you mentioned.
Posted by: jenniferm | December 19, 2006 at 11:00 AM
I'm from Kansas. And we have more than enough issues here that I don't need to weigh in on embryonic stem cell research. To me, and just my view, weighing in on that issue is like complaining about a certain candidate and I didn't vote.
Just as I have no view about Blunt, McCaskill or Shields. (Maybe Will Schields)
But if you must know, if Kansas someday sees the need for something like a Missouri Amendment 2, I will support embryonic stem cell research. It can maybe save a life. Simple, I'm for saving lives.
Kind of like: If it looks like a human, it probably is one.
Just my view, but an embryo doesn't look like a human.
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 19, 2006 at 11:05 AM
"Just my view, but an embryo doesn't look like a human."
On that we can agree.
Hope you have a enjoyable and safe Christmas, jeetz!
Posted by: jenniferm | December 19, 2006 at 11:08 AM
Oh, but I am an independent. The truest form of independent. I can't be labeled to lean one way or the other. I'm not a Republican leaning indepoendent, nor a Democrat leaning one. I'm simply an independent. (Smile)
As for JIAC, I'll tell you what I use to tell students who were dying to understand new juvenile law. "If you want to know more, look it up and read about it." (Smile)
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 19, 2006 at 11:10 AM
Jenniferm,
google "ZT policies." It will evenrtually lead to Juvenile Intake and Assessment Centers. You can see nationwide the views of people (especially parents) about juvenile law programs.
Posted by: jeetzwillagers | December 19, 2006 at 11:18 AM