Fw: [extropy-chat] No Joy in Mudville

[Olga Bourlin]

Sorry, my fingers got gimpy on me and I sent off my reply before I meant to.
This is the complete version.

From: "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>
 >
 > > On Nov 5, 2004, at 12:06 AM, Olga Bourlin wrote:
 > > Let's just start with ... er, Republicans (all generally speaking here)
 > > support a woman's right to choose?
 >
 > Yes.  It has been dropped as a real platform for a reason -- there was
>  no consensus within the party.  I do not personally know any
>  Republicans that are not pro-choice, and I know quite a few
>  Republicans.

Well, Bush carefully walked around the issue and only dealt with "partial
birth abortion."  And the whole matter with stem cells has something to do
with the so-called "pro-life" stance, too.  Remember how I kept emphasizing
"generally speaking"?  You may not personally know any  Republicans that are
not pro-choice, but you have to admit there are many more Republicans (than
Democrats) who are anti-choice out there.

And, get this - *anesthetizing fetuses*?  What will they think of next?:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/politics/campaign/04conserve.html?pagewanted=print&position

Ahh, Ashcroft (may he soon retire so he will have more time to handle snakes
and sing in his gospel choir) - remember the brouhaha over the statue with
exposed breasts? (he was against it - or, them - and put a drape over the
statue before he would speak in front of it).  Censorship is a problem with
*conservatives,* more so than with the liberals, wouldn't you say?

> > Republicans led the marches for civil
> > rights, gay rights and women's rights?

 > You may want to read some history.  The Democrats were on the wrong
 > side of a great many civil rights issues.  They've only claimed many of
 > them after the fact.  The Deep South has been pretty much 100% Democrat
 > for more than a century up until the last few years and one of its core
 > constituencies.  Any faults regarding civil rights you see evident in
 > or would paint on the Southern culture throughout history you'll have
 > to paint on the Democratic party.  Which includes race, gender, and
 > sexual orientation discrimination.

Baby, I didn't just read history - I *participated* in it.  Civil rights was
a *liberal* cause and victory.  Southern Democrats notwithstanding (and
note, many "Southerners" have shifted parties since), the civil rights that
have been won for people (not just "racial" civil rights) over the decades
has been far-and-away largely due to Democrats.

> > Republicans want to support stem
 > > cell research?   Republicans want the separation of church and state?

> Yes, and yes.  Your analysis has been shallow.  ... The Republicans are a
coalition of two major factions, a libertarian faction and a religious
conservative faction.

Yes, I am aware of the two major factions.  Remember how I kept emphasizing
"generally speaking?"

Olga