I was going to say there are so many butt heads.

Indeed!

You GO young Lady - Tell It Like It IS !!!!!

Unbelievable comments! The congresswoman brought up her jewish beliefs on abortion. There are liberal Christians who believe differently on abortion than do conservative Christians just as there are liberal Jews who believe differently than conservative Jews on abortion. It is never going to be an easy debate as it is such a moralistic issue. Since the discussion was on abortion, why did the congresswoman bring up a vagina. I think when discussing abortion, we are way past the vagina and into the womb! If they were discussing birth control, yeah, maybe, but come on, why the hell would she bring the vagina, no means no thing into the debate. I would be ashamed for my adult thinking children to see this stuff. Grow up, people! Stick to the subject at hand. Shock value doesn't help. All this legislation on such a moral issue where we (conservatives and liberals) will never, ever agree is useless. Something to be said for states rights and keeping the federal government out of the bedroom. Give me a break, anyone mature enough out there to have an adult discussion on the issue?

Yeah, I was wondering about that too...

Yeah.... we need a list and they need to be targeted for, at minimum, a primary fight. What's up with Democrats who move this far to the right? This is NOT the middle, folks.

its called party line voting, republicans run on democratic tickets all the time.

Not much of a difference between corporate dems and corporate rethugs at the state or local level except what groups their racism, bigotry and stupidity is directed at.

@Ned: where? I mean, really ... where?

@Fred: Is that all there is, racism, bigotry and stupidity? Couldn't there be a different point of view on a subject? Why is the Left always so filled with hate and anger? That was the point of the video. No civility. No decorum. Simple vulgarity. All you know how to do is offend. This is one of the reasons so many are turning from the Left. Well, one of many, many, many more.

Since when is saying vagina vulgar...??? Wow...and since when are members of the Legislature not allowed to speak...because they oppose the majority view...That in no way is democratic. GOP are doing the same thing in the Senate, when they refused to let women sit on committees discussing bills that directly effect them. This is gender phobia...This is not democracy...

Saying;

"I'm flattered that you're all so interested my vagina, but no means no",

is crass. The comment was beneath the office and the house. It wasn't the word ... it was the connotation. It was done for effect not cognitive discussion and should have been treated as it was. It was in poor taste. It's not a locker room. Decorum preserves the austerity of the room, the office and the state.

No, it is not crass. You are simply uncomfortable with the correct terminology of the female anatomy. It's a man thing, apparently. You think there's something dirty about even making mention of the lady parts. That's simply your problem, nobody else's.

However, I may be wasting my time as I cannot be certain that you understand what the word "crass" actually means. I say that because it is obvious from the sentences that you use them in that you don't know what "connotation," "cognitive" and "austerity" mean. "Crass" was at least passably appropriate to the context, but I won't rule out the possibility that you had something else in mind and grabbed that word at random.

Since I can't be certain of what you are trying to say, I can't be certain that I can address whatever whackadoodle concerns you have.

There is another one actually, and it shows on TCM also...Tracy and Hepburn in a dark drama called "Keeper of the Flame." Someone in Hollywood knew what was going on underground in America....very chilling movie.

I'll watch Black Legion...thanks for the heads up.

"...sticking their heads in the sand about fascism was not going to make it go away."

A lot of good wittle wibewals need to get that truth into their heads.

Warner Bros., back when the real Warner brothers ran the company during the studio-system days, was in some ways a progressive studio (although very hypocritical on the subject of unions), and was I believe the first and for years the only Hollywood studio to address fascism in general and Nazis in particular.

The first Warner movie that could be considered a treatment of the Nazis is, believe it or not, The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938). (Read "Jews" for "Saxons" and "Hitler" for "Prince John" and you'll get the point. Traditional Robin Hood legends don't involve a pogrom as this film version does.) Next was the overtly anti-Nazi Confessions of a Nazi Spy (1939) starring Edward G. Robinson. The Black Legion was released in 1937, so there's a clear progression, a movement from covert to overt criticism of the far right.

I watched "the Black Legion" last night and thought the same. It seemed so current. Scary indeed.

The only things that are unconstitutional in this country are what the Supreme Court says is unconstitutional, and SCOTUS has allowed discrimination at the highest level in the past, why should it stop now?

That's really a tragedy. I feel like there's an onslaught from the right wing.

I can definitely testify that they are indeed coming from Grand Rapids, or West MI, per say. There is a crazy amount of right-wing nutjobs that are wealthy, educated, and have their hands in a number of businesses that benefit from deregulation, etc.

The funny thing is that GR is also a college town, with 6+ colleges and universities that benefit from those families' donations. Lots of college graduates stay here and they are more open-minded and compassionate. They get involved in causes - political, environmental, etc. - that go against what those families (and the GOP) want. :)

GR is mobilizing. The whole state is.

It is the classic in-your-face arrogance of those on the right.

Gosh, that would be nice. I'd be happy to drive you.

I really wonder what it is about women that makes so many men feel so threatened. Unless a woman is quietly submissive, then they are either dismissive, insulting, or threatening and abusive. That is, if they don't go all the way to actual violence. The weirdest thing is how they unilaterally define certain areas as male-only enclaves (politics, sports, computer games, etc.) and go totally ape@!$%# whenever a woman appears within bounds. I don't remember there being a vote on that, but everyone is expected to just go along with it as if there had been.

Of course, it's not all men who are like this, but since it only takes one jerk to ruin your whole day, that doesn't really matter.

Me too. Agreed. The woman has the audacity to be something other than however it is they have been taught a woman should act. ;)

A female would have to kick some of these types of men's @sses with their fists just to get any respect. Then get called names or revenge for showing up a male. Sad.

But I know some women who would be capable of doing it. I made good friends with some Women Professional Football Players and know a tough female from the Bronx. I would not want them to do it, but they could.

Long ago I worked in a field of mostly men. I got along just fine with most of them. At a company picnic softball game a runner (guy) dared to take an extra base on me and I threw his @ss out at third base (of course the guy made the tag, too). Women watching cheered it, when some thought it was a "gimme" he would be safe at third. This was a long time ago, now so many women can do that.

She has a higher bar to clear than they do (double standard). I guess it was the boy's club, no girls allowed.

@Monk: You are the one that is clearly feeling threatened. You clump all men into one (bigotry) and decry all men as bigots. You talk about men as though they are abusive and yet celebrate moments when they "dared" to steal a base and failing that the women "cheered". Jezz, what makes you feel so threatened?

Okinny, okinny, pay attention:

sandyc said that, they thought they had an easy extra base because I had a vagina.

Women cheered because they knew that's what had happened.

I am not threatened, I am held to a lower degree of life form until I "prove" worthy by SOME men and you need to learn to read before posting. Monk said

Of course, it's not all men who are like this,

Let's give okinny a big hand for serving as a living example of what I was talking about. He clearly feels uncomfortable in a mixed setting, so he projects and lashes out as means of covering up his discomfort.

In other words: nice try, kiddo, but no soap.

Just being female, or being perceived as female, is enough to earn insults and abuse from random men. It happens all the time. For example, in the topic at hand, the two women were banned from speaking for supposedly throwing temper tantrums. It's clear from the video that isn't the case. But when women intrude on historically male-only domains, some men habitually infantilize women, and so legitimate but controlled anger is perceived as a mere childish wail.

Since sandyc brought up sports, and E3 just happened, let's turn to computer games. Women playing online games experience a great deal of gratuitous abuse simply for being present in games. Not all men are a part of this abuse, some just stand by while others push back, but it is still a male problem whether or not you are man enough to own up to it.

Great bumper sticker! You can wear it on your bumper!

I WANT THAT BUMPER STICKER!!!

How does preserving human life translate into bigotry?

How does bigotry, racism, sexism and subverting other humans' rights translate into preserving human life?

No, usmcholmans. It's the other way around. How does preserving human life translate into bigotry. Gayle suggested (I believe) that, among other things, the effort to preserve human life translates into bigotry toward minorities, including woman. I'm afraid I don't understand the connection and asked that Gayle explain.

Now, if I misunderstood Gayle, fine. I hope to learn her meaning either way. One hopes that the purpose of commentary is, ultimately, to learn, not just vent. If it IS the latter, than there is little point in discussion. If the former, I remain openminded and anxious to learn.

Bingo!

I just saw/heard that Rmoney bus circled and honked the venue where POTUS Barack Obama was speaking/campaigning.

How mature… AND there are folks that would feel empowered by doing that childish thing. As if they were the 12th man in the stands making noise to drown out the opposing team. Then we have Johnny did it too.

Is that really good for America (not so much), or good for a football game (OK, fun times).

The Constitution needs to be read over and over, including Amendments. It seems the framers wanted to build on their framework.

It's nearly as mature as the Clinton White House staff taking all the "W"'s off the American people's keyboards in the White House just as they left the building. I doubt you had much to say about that bit of maturity beyond cheering.

okinny, I think that is equally stupid, if it is true.

Proving the "Johnny did it too". it seems. eye roll

You know okinny, it's not a very flattering picture you paint of yourself inserting tall tales, fantasy and factless rumors into discussions instead of defending your POV with facts.

I must admit, Sandy, I don't care for the multitude of moments in a discussion on politics with liberals when they constantly do exactly the same thing. On that, I apologize. Still, I think it's interesting that neither you nor usmcholmans seem aware of that incident. While you busy yourself rolling your eyes, keep in mind that you will find countless examples of such childishness in your camp. Well, you won't find them. But an openminded, unbiased person will.

DNFTT

Sandy...,

Flag them early and often.

@Sandy: "DNFTT". Wonderful. What a cowardly dismissal. If you can't argue a point, fine. I can respect that. To cower from commentary because of your ignorance is unfortunate. So, what do you do? You start name-calling.

You stated; "I just saw/heard that Rmoney bus circled and honked the venue where POTUS Barack Obama was speaking/campaigning. How mature, you said". So I argue an opposing point of view and you call me a troll? How mature is that?

I have more respect for the "W" thieves. It's interesting that, when people like you can't intelligently discuss a POV you relegate all opposing view points as that of trolls. You're a coward, Sandy. And an ignorant one at that.

I suppose you and Entropy will continue to "Flag 'em". You need to. You can't beat them so you flag them. Fortunately, people like you don't need to be flagged as ignorant. One need only read your commentary to learn your true nature.

Those on the right just love to wallow in totally unwarranted self-pity and throw petulant hissy fits.

For Offler's sake, okinny, just chill with the self-pity party. If you're going to be a noodge, expect to be noodged back. The reason people are sniping at you is because are deliberately being a complete @!$%#. If you want better treatment, be a better person.

All righty-- here goes. Abortion, whether you agree with it or not, is considered one of the safest medical procedures. [ As opposed to actually giving birth, which can and still does kill women. ] About seventy thousand women die each year from unsafe or botched abortions [ not performed by a doctor! ] and about 5 million suffer disabilities globally. You can check these numbers yourself-- at the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Canada, Dec 2009, Ahman E. Shaw.

There are two types of abortions-- induced, which is the medical one and spontaneous, what everyone knows as a miscarriage. The medical can involve yes, the D/C procedures as well as suction-aspiration or vacuum-aspiration-- these are surgical options. Anything past a certain point, like say twenty weeks, might involve a combo of abortifacient pharmaceuticals and surgical intervention-- and usually done to end a toxic pregnancy or to save the mother's life. [ So these laws are in effect condemning a lot of women to possible future sterilization, cruelty over the unnecessary prolonging of a pregnancy they and the doctor know will end in a stillbirth or that the baby will only survive a few moments after birth if that, and death of the mother. ]

Abortions are also performed chemically-- with the stated abortifacient pharmas, no surgery, no cutting, no vacuums. [ There are also well-known infamous ' natural ' methods that have been in use for centuries. Tansy, pennyroyal, black cohosh-- as well as knitting needles, coat hangers, sticks.]

The partial-birth abortion is banned in the US.

When there are education programs in place, when there is family planning that is accessible to one and all, when we truly start giving a sh!t about children, AND THEIR MOTHERS, then, gee, wouldn't there be less of a need for abortions? All these laws do is kill women or treat them like farm animals, let's be frank, let's be earnestly frank about that. They, these collections of women-hating laws, that's right, I said it!! don't stop anything-- never have, never will. [ And-- a bit of snark-- do these laws and others like them, uh, create jobs? ]

There is no doubt about your facts. About seventy thousand women die each year from botched abortions. Almost a million babies are killed each year. More than fifty million people have been killed by abortions since Roe v Wade (quite possibly the most flawed legal decision ever handed down by a Supreme Court in the history of the bench). At it's peak, over one million two hundred thousand human lives were chopped up, severed and thrown in the trash in just one year in this country. That's over three thousand two hundred A DAY! Now it's down to two thousand three hundred a day. EVERY DAY!

Please. Explain to me how the lives of seventy thousand women are more important than the lives of over eight-hundred thousand other lives, of which likely four-hundred thousand - are woman; woman chopped up into manageable pieces for disposal?

Medically necessary abortions are not in question here. This issue is not a necessary medical procedure but a butchery conducted largely for convenience. The vast majority of doctors abhor abortions because they know the distinction between medically required abortions and butchery.

You use words like "induced", "D/C procedures", "suction-aspiration", vacuum-aspiration, "abortifacient pharmas" ... These words mask the reality that human life is being destroyed. The very word "Abortion" is shroud used to conceal the fact that humans are being chopped, cut, sliced and vacuumed out of the womb. You mention chemical abortions using abortifacient pharmas. Are you kidding? The baby is burned with saline to a crisp! Oh, the chemical may get a more eloquent design ... but the baby is still killed! AND IT FEELS PAIN! It isn't painless. The baby suffers terribly. My God, get a clue.

You paint abortions as nice, neat little medical procedures. It's a horrible destruction of human life. You weep for the seventy thousand. Weep for the innocent eight-hundred thousand.

You talk of women being treated like farm animals? Let's be frank, let's be earnestly frank about this: woman are being coerced into thinking that the life inside them can and should be easily dismissed. Just another procedure. Sending young women into a meat-grinding sausage factory - that's treating woman like farm animals. They're not given the facts of what they are about to have done to them. Show them pictures of aborted babies BEFORE they have the abortion. Respect them enough as human beings to make an informed decision. Instead you let them learn of the horror long after they abortion is done. It's evil the way these young woman are kept in the dark of what an abortion entails.

Education? Yes. I could not agree more. Educate people, damn it. Start giving a sh!t about children AND THEIR MOTHERS and, gee, there will be less chopping up of human life or burning of babies with chemicals and throwing them in the garbage.

How about-- it's none of your business? How about it does not concern you what women choose to do or not do with their bodies. I'm not painting abortion as some nice, neat, whatever. Far from it. [ And you can hysterically describe about anything and make people react as you want, I'm gonna call it propagandizing-- using florid, heavy-handed language and phrases to get an expected and practiced reaction. ] We need to move beyond the bathos, though, and the knee-jerk-edness of these circular arguments. It accomplishes nothing. And to lecture me about babies and to get a clue...you honestly need to examine yourself and what you're writing to a woman who knows very well what her choices and options are, no matter the laws. And to assume women don't know their own bodies or what an abortion is?? For flock's sake, what century do you exist in?? Informed consent? Again, as if women are too idiotic to breathe on their own, let alone know enough to put on socks THEN shoes. Will there be regrets? Sure, because we're human. Am I callous and satanic in my regard to children? Uh, no, since I've spent most of my life taking care of kids no one else could or can deal with.

You assume women don't matter or count. I am gathering this from your actual wordage. [ Those seventy thou who died and those 5 million who were disfigured or disabled deserve what they got? ] You seem to have no empathy toward a woman facing this decision. None. Fine. Those are your beliefs. But you do not have a right to impose your give birth no matter what on anyone, sorry, sorry to be so blatant and awful and raw, but there it is. I do respect life, I respect other women who have gone through this, who are facing it now, who will face it in the future. And I will support their choices-- I'll help babysit, I'll find an adoption lawyer, I'll hold their hand and they can rage and weep or laugh with me, and I'll listen, I'll listen if they need to talk. Because I've seen real life, I've seen children thrown away, I've had to deal with their pain and their rage. So thank you for your views, and work on getting real, honest sex ed programs in place and community programs that actually help families.

Ideological zealots? The preservation of human life is not the sole domain of theological ideals. However, did you actually read what you posted here?

"christian zealots came up with a diversion that, in my opinion, was the public
relations coup of the 20th and 21st centuries. By painting themselves as
compassionate, they disguised, from themselves as well as others, that they're
actually ruthless and unmerciful."

Do you honestly believe that people of faith conspired to preserve life in a some evil plot to be ruthless and unmerciful for some unmentioned end? Stopping the chopping up of human beings or burning of their little bodies to the tune of over two thousand lives A DAY is something you think is cruel and ruthless? The taking of another persons life in such horror is, to you, merciful and benevolent?

And they way you relegate human lives to zygotes or gastrula ... at what point did your life become human? What was the exact moment so that we all may know the magic hour upon which our existence, in your eyes, begins with meaning and purpose? The day you came out of the womb? Before that moment you were nothing more than a zygote? What kind of convoluted thinking is that?

And if you don't know (and you can't) wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution? And, since you decide not to, why do you, or any living person, get to decide when another persons life begins?

Your compassion for fathers that don't want to be fathers is compelling. So, if a sperm donor does not want the zygote, why can't he order the abortion of the zygote? And if he can't order the abortion (may that never happen), why isn't he absolved of any responsibility for the zygote he doesn't want? Why should he be forced to pay for the little zygote for the rest of his life just because the egg donor decided the little zygote was a baby?

You fill your passion with some confused perception of history founded on little more than a cursory understanding of theology within that history. The people you so casually dismiss as zealots were, in fact, evolving socially, theologically, politically, etc. You judge them in their time with the enlightened perspective of your time without realizing that you owe them your enlightenment. They sought to gain the very enlightenment you now enjoy and you condemn them for their effort because it was so barbaric.

Like you, they viewed their killings as compassionate. They believed they were freeing the souls of their victims just as you seek to free the souls of other women by enabling them to kill their babies. They justified their butchery then just as you justify your butchery today.

You're not so enlightened after all, Sofferclese. In fact, you're cut from the same cloth.

We learn from those that are passionate about a subject. One goes to college to learn from those that know a subject well, enjoy discussing the subject, relish a spirited debate and offer insight. We don't seek to learn from those that are undecided or dispassionate on a subject.

I believe that, with an open mind, we can, in fact, find compromise and conclusion. I don't give up until I've run out of argument. When I do, the opposing point of view prevails. I have changed my mind on many subjects. When people fail to remain openminded they get angry and mean. That happens often in commentary. We're not professionals; just people. But if we stop debating we have no hope of understanding.

If the fight is not here ... where is it? If this type of forum stops because no solution is immediately found, what value is there in the internet? Isn't this, at its purest, the very essence of communication. The most important freedom of all?

No, I shall not save the discussion for others. My knowledge and experience, like yours, is of value. I seek the ideas of everyone here, not because they agree with me, but because they don't.

BTW, I once thought as most here seem to. I felt that a woman had the right to decide for herself and I argued that point passionately. I can to understand that the argument was, at best, flawed. I continued to argue but I honestly and sincerely listened to what others said and felt. I have friends that had abortions. My mother lost her first baby and had to have an abortion. So did my wife. I haven't lived in a bubble on this issue. I know it well and first hand.

I have four daughters. I know what they face and what they might come to face. I'm not a religious zealot, a bible thumper, a Right-wing radical or a Pro-life extremist. Having an opposing point of view does not mean that I am anti-woman, a homophobe, a hate-monger or any other type of category one might wish to push me into to dismiss my perspective.

I have a different view and so, by so many here, I am the one that is intolerant and unmoving. The problem is that so many comment to be heard, not to hear. You can't learn when you talk. One only learns when they are listening. Most don't. This discussion stands largely in support of that premise.