huh?

Email  

I'm too depressed to respond to this. Sigh. Okay, I'll try. Just think, the O'Connor replacement will actually have a worse impact....and Bush may yet get to replace two more of the Supreme Court judges. Roberts is 50. Thomas 57, the next nominee is also sure to be young. So Bush will have a disastrous effect on the United States for at least 25 years to come. Oh happy day.

Will this effect my arrival in the U.S.A 16 october??

Email  

THE U. S. WILL STILL BE HERE PIETER ON THE 16TH OF OCT IT WILL STILL BE A SHI. HOLE BUT IT WILL BE HERE YOU,RE IN FOR A GOOD TIME PIETER MICK AND THE BOYS WERE HERE THIS WEEK ,I DIDN,T MAKE IT TO THE SHOW BUT EVERY THING I HEARD ABOUT IT WAS COOL. HAVE A NICE TIME PEACE PAUL P.S. I HEAR THEY HAVE SOME SEATS RIGHT ON THE STAGE PIETER , MAYBE YOU CAN TOSS SOMEONE INTO THE CROWD AND GET A BETTER LOOK AT MICK

Email  

SADLY I,AM SURE YOU,RE RIGHT DON,THINK ABOUT IT WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO, HAVE SOME REPUBLICANS LOOK INTO WEATHER THERE WAS ANY WRONG DOING WITH THE HIGHEST COURT NOW BEING STACKED TO INFORCE THERE AGENDA, IT LOOKS LIKE FROM HERE THAT WERE PRETTY WELL SCREWED BUDDY YOU,RE RIGHT. MAYBE SADLY, AFTER THEY TAKE A WOMANS CHOICE TO HAVE A CHILD OR NOT AWAY, I SAY AT THAT POINT DON WE ALL WINK AND NOD THE WAY THE REPUBLICANS DO,AND AGREE WITH THEM THAT THEY ARE RIGHT ABOUT THE GAY ISSUE (WINK WINK) THEN THEY HAVE BEEN STRIPPED OF THE TWO ISSUES THAT THEY KEEP GETTING RE-ELECTED WITH DON,T GET ME WRONG I,AM SURE THEY WILL FIND SOME NEW ONES TO SHOVE UP OUR ..... BUT I THINK IT,S SURE WORTH A TRY. PEACE PAUL

Email  

Eeek - don't even pretend to be on the side of their anti-gay agenda, pretty please Paul??? And if they take away a woman's right to the ultimate privacy - the right NOT to have government dictate what to do with our bodies, then I gotta admit - I'm outa here.

Email  

You touched on the whole point Pat. For me, this has never ever been about "abortion" rights and I hate seeing the dispute reduced to that. What it's about (or should be about) is whether the government has the right to legislate the use of our bodies. We are horrified when we hear of forced sterilizations of women (and we have a sorry history of that in the US - starting in the late 1920s against mentally ill women, also enacted by the federal government against Native American women as late as the 1970s). Why should we be any less horrified to hear of the forced use of a women's womb to incubate a child she doesn't want or choose to keep. No one has the right to enslave our bodies.

Look at it this way - say there is a rich person in your neighborhood who needs a kidney or cornea transplant; would you like the government to legislate that you must give them one of yours? What if laws were passed that said no medical treatment could be given for cancer if you developed it after a certain age? Or that every man over the age of 50 must have silcone injections to conceal his facial wrinkles? These are our bodies, and no one - and certainly no government - has the right to tell us how to care for them.

Allowing Roe v. Wade to ever be overturned is no less than allowing women to be bound into a form of slavery. It's ironic to me that the very people who claim to want less government - the conservative Republicans - are the very people who seek to impose government ownership of the most private and personal possession we have - ourselves.