Just another democrat who's only hope to make his own side look attractive is to label all Republicans as ultra-extremists. I'm a Republican because I believe in preserving my freedom to choose what's right for me and my family - period.

The democrat vision is for continuing to take away my (your) rights through regulation, taxation and laws that keep me (you) from deciding issues like what healthcare is right for me, what food I should eat, what car I should drive, and how I can use my property. The democrat vision requires that people are seen, not as individuals, but as groups with identical needs so they can decide for us from afar.

There are all kinds of issues that the author wants to use to distract us from the one core difference between the parties at this point in time. That core difference is that Republicans value the individual and their personal ability to make their own, best choices in life. Democrats, on the other hand, think they are the chosen few who somehow know what's best for all of us, and that they should have the power to do just that. It's Freedom versus Oppression. I choose Freedom and I hope you'll choose with me.

Mike has done a good job of setting up a straw man and then knocking him over. Democrats have never told me what health care I should have, what I should eat, or what car I should drive. If I were a homosexual, however, Republicans would certainly like to tell me who I can marry, and if I were a woman, they would like to tell me I cannot obtain an abortion. Some freedom!

The only right answers I claim to have are those for myself and my family. Your's will be different, and I respect that. My point is that I should have the freedom to exercise them and shouldn't be painted as part of some extremist group just for thinking the GOP, overall, is best aligned with that philosophy. Our freedoms are being taken away by things like the healthcare act, increased regulation and taxation.

"had been taken over by terrorist Muslims imposing shariah law,"

Hate to burst your LIB bubble, but here's just one example of Sharia law influencing court rulings in MI. Please note this article is written by an Athiest, not one of those horrible God fearing conservatives.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/muslim-admits-attacking-atheist-muslim-judge-dismisses-case

You're registered as an Independent, so that doesn't make you a LIB? Whatever, here's a saying for you, "if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck". You're just a limousine liberal, I'm sorry you don't have the guts to admit it, but it's true.

I know you don't have a problem with Islam because it is a theocracy just like the liberalism ideals you love so much, you know controlling peoples lives by limiting what they can eat, say etc.

"How long can this nation’s electoral political system function effectively when one party is dominated by true believer types who would rather be right than collaborate in governing this country for the good of all Americans?"

Ha, such a load of manure. When was the last time a LIB who controls the DEM party ever did what was best for the country and not their political interest.? Can't wait to hear it. Maybe you can tell me when the last budget came out of the DEM controlled Senate?

"Feel free to join the discussion once you've gotten your rabies vaccine. "

For being a "teacher", you don't seem to understand what words surrounded by quotation marks means. I address two of your points and you don't have the guts to answer. As far as Randi Shannon, you see Jefferey, unlike LIB's I don't walk lockstep so I'm not a rabid supporter no matter who the candidate is.

So, you see my article where a limp wrist atheist like yourself gets clobbered and the offender is let off the hook, you don't even have the manhood to respond to it.

Troy, our differences will not be solved by simply "agreeing to disagree." Let's face it: you are so convinced only your perspective is "right" (in at least two senses of the word), that your mind is closed to any differing opinion, and you will distort other perspectives so that you can dismiss them. That's called the "strawman fallacy."

Government is not a "net suck" on any economy: public services like a transportation network, education, social services and police and fire protection are all necessary for a modern economy. And, you didn't build your business by yourself: besides your employees, you relied on those very public services which you thoughtlessly denigrate.

I will defend progressive income taxation. As you earn more, the percentage of your income you actually need for subsistence declines, so your ability to pay a larger percentage of your upper levels of income is merely a means for you to pay into the public services which you need for the society to function. Your argument is really a symptom of your refusal to see yourself as a member of a larger society which has made it possible for you to achieve what you have. And, you seem incapable intellectually of paying what really is your fair share to keep that society going. Like it or not, your insistence that you not pay your fair share in federal taxes is contributing to the federal debt. We will never solve that problem until people like you outgrow your sense of selfish entitlement.

Yup, you are just supporting my thesis, Troy. Read this article from The Economist: while it critiques the Democrats for not wanting to discuss Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, it also takes Republicans to task for refusing to admit the federal government must increase revenues to address the deficit. And, your brand of angry, selfish conservatism offers no way forward, and is politically impractical as a governing philosophy.

http://www.economist.com/node/21559630?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

"It is you who are selfish in wanting to take from me to support your government funded lifestyle."

Uh, Troy, my wife and I both work and earn every dime we make. Since you can read this, thank a teacher like me; if you've ever been vaccinated, thank a research scientist like my wife. We're not blood-sucking leeches, living off the labor of others, like you...

Jeff, I take issue with your point that insurors support the individual mandate in the current healthcare law. That support was only in response to the mandate to cover pre-existing conditions which, by definition, are not insurable. You can't insure against something that has already happened. Given that ultimatum, cover them or cease doing business, they "chose" the individual mandate. I would never deny someone access to care, but I would certainly deny insuring something that already happened.

The result of the current health care law is inevitable and it will be very few "insurance companies", run by the government in all but name, along with rationing of services and an overall reduction in quality, not to mention increasing costs.

As for your point on income tax, I don't know what source you're using for opinion, so I can't address it, other than to say, if it's some average rate paid, it's a meaningless number. I am interested more in the total government take including income tax, property tax, sales tax, excise tax, permits, fees, on and on. I would be interested in your source on the federal income tax bit though.

I also want to let you know that I do "walk the walk", as you advise me. I work daily to help the GOP take a moderate stance on some social issues that I believe are not within the pervue of government.

Jeff Klinzman, good comments! Remember, don't feed the trolls. Anyone who suspends their critical thinking skills and follows a party that's built on faith and not facts is suspect.

Jeff, a dollar spent on medical care is a dollar, no matter where it comes from. I would much rather issue government vouchers toward the purchase of insurance or, better yet, directly to the providers themselves, than put in place this administrative nightmare we're heading toward. Why do we have to ruin the private insurance market to get this done? It's the administrative costs that (supposedly) are to blame for the cost problem, so how does adding over a dozen new federal agencies to manage this new approach cut costs? It doesn't. It also moves the "rationing" decision from the individual to some far removed bureaucrat. That's not an improvement at all.

I am going to totally disagree with your examples of other countries that have better systems as well. The facts don't support that at all, especially when you consider quality and timely access to care.

I believe the market-based approach to most things works the best (not perfectly mind you). We always have to look at the alternative to it and, in most cases, it's not any better and usually worse from the standpoint of individual freedom to make decisions, including education.

Mike, government vouchers would be inadequate to buy health insurance and you know it. It's just a Republican's way of claiming to do something effective to help people who are uninsured when it's not effective at all.

The real question should be " What went wrong with the whole system" ?

Troy, the vouchers would be too small, yes, to buy health insurance from health care insurers, yes. That's exactly the point. The minute you talk about private health care you're talking about medical inflation of consumer costs doubling or tripling the inflation rate of the rest of the economy.

A single-payer system would be cheaper and more efficient.

Uh, Maxine, where the heck have you been!? This blog is almost two months old: I take that to mean you just look around to pick fights long after a discussion has ended. A woman's reproductive freedoms don't end when she becomes pregnent: it's none of your business if another woman chooses to abort a pregnancy.

You will certainly believe anything you want, and you have every freedom to live according to YOUR your chosen faith. What matters is how your beliefs affect people who do not share them when you try to write your sectarian morality into law. You have no understanding of what "freedom" means if you think your freedom depends on telling other people how to live.

I see the "abortion is murder" crowd, while willing to state their bumper-sticker version of reproductive rights, ignores the logical outcome. Maxine, if you really believe that, then to be intellectually consistent, you also need to embrace people like Paul Hill, Eric Rudolph, and Scott Roeder as heroes. You see, you need to defend, even emulate their actions, since, if abortion providers are committing "murder," then you are justified in taking out your 9mm (such a gangster weapon: what's wrong with a good old .45!?) and killing them.

What you can't wrap your head around is the notion that my position, that abortion is a matter of personal conscience that cannot be regulated by law, incorporates YOUR position. After all, if you oppose abortion, then don't have one. Just don't try to use the law to force the rest of us to obey your conscience.

OK first of all in good conscience I myself could never have an abortion for any reason what so ever. If I were raped...no I would keep that baby because it wasn't the baby's fault. And If they told me the baby would be born retarde, well they have a right to life also. And if they came into my room and said there is a problem and it has to be either your life or yourbaby's, I would say...save my child. If women want to abort their children it is their business but it is still MURDER. And Charlotte their are plenty of women who have abortions over and over again, I used to know some of them.

Charlotte why is it better to save the mother over the child? Thats wrong. That mother has already had a life, give that precious child a chance to have one.

Abortion is a metter which should be left ot the conscience of individual women. Thus, I believe that stance respects those women who would never choose to abort a pregnancy. Let individual women decide.

Everything else is sound and fury, signifying nothing. "Pro-life" is a slogan, and a lie: people who embrace that label do so to conceal their real agenda, which is to control women's bodies. Opposition to legal abortion is ultimately based on insecurity and fear of women's sexuality, and grows out of the early christian church teachings that sex must only be used to reproduce, and that women are to be subordinated to men.

Opposition to legal abortion is also an attack on the freedoms of working-class women, since someone like Paris Hilton will always be able to afford to travel for an abortion, if she so chooses, regardless of what the law is in her state or nation.

Stephen, how is it arguing ideas when you have people posting comments like "You are sick and demented if you believe those statements you just wrote. Do you even have any children? I really have to feel sorry for them if you do. You are a total jerk and have no compassion what so ever. I bet you have ice water running through your veins?"

Otherwise, I think I have explained my position adequately: let each woman decide for herself. Funny how some folks think an unwanted pregnancy is punishment for having sex, and that the punishment is to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Sorry, but I've seen no rational arguments yet for legally restricting abortion.

+1, Jeff Klinzman!

Maxine Weimer, watch the movie "In the Heat of the Night." It's a classic, one of the best movies I've ever seen. I own it.

The elderly black woman in the movie is running an illegal abortion business. Solving that mystery is essential to cracking the case in this murder mystery. Justice is served.

Allow me to tie up some loose ends here.

First, finding a moment to define when a "fetus" becomes a "baby" misses the real point. Roe v. Wade defined pregnancy in trimesters, and that decision gave states increasing latitude to regulate abortion within those parameters. Third-term abortions are rare precisely because they pose a medical risk to women. I see no need for state law to regulate late-term abortions when medical professionals can apply medical, instead of political, criteria to decide when the procedure is appropriate.

Related to that point is our continuing semantic game: opponents have no real basis for calling abortion "murder" except to stir emotions. And, people who call abortion murder are cowardly, politically and intellectually, when they refuse to see the connection between their reckless use of language and terrorist acts like the ones committed by Paul Hill, Eric Rudolph, and Scott Roeder. Only a (perhaps closeted) terrorist refers to abortion as "murder."

The real issues are twofold: control and resentment. Abortion opponents do not want to let women make their own reproductive decisions, but want the state to use law to control women's bodies and lives. Resentment comes in when folks implicitly claim that pregnancy is a punishment for women who have unauthorized sex: they resent the freedom many women insist on, to control their own sex lives and reproductive choices.

Maria I have seen the movie more than once and it is STILL murder. You cannot kill a living thing and call it ok because you just don't want it. I really don't care how you try to explain it, to ME is is dead wrong and anyone who can do that to thier unborn child willingly is a murderer. No matter who fathered the child it is still half you. Either those women weren't born with a conscience or they were never taught to love and nurish thier children. I would take a bullet for any child anyday, not just my own.

I would offer the following overview of Maxine's comments. While she expresses concern for fetuses, look at how the women fare in her posts: if a woman's health is threatened by continuing a pregnancy, Maxine has no problem with forcing that woman to carry her pregnancy to term, and, if she dies in childbirth, well she's already had HER life.

As for rape victims, Maxine again is okay with forcing a woman to carry that pregnancy to term. I have to ask Maxine: if a teenage girl under the age of consent becomes pregnant, including if by incest, do you still think she must be forced to carry that child to term?

Maxine thinks women who have abortions have nio conscience. Well, they may not make the decisions that Maxine would make in their stead, but what I can say with all confidence is that Maxine is incapable, or refuses, to see an unwanted pregnancy and abortion from the woman's perspective.

How sad.

Life exists on a continuum: the fertilized zygote is certainly "alive," but is it a "human life" whose rights override those of the woman? I say "no," and am confident that women can and should be allowed to follow the dictates of their individual consciences to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

The rest is folderol, and the continued references to abortion as "murder" are only meant to inflame passions, and justify acts of political murder, e.g. Scott Roeder's, directed against abortion providers. Again, foes of legal abortion cannot offer rational arguments to defend the real proposition they argue: that a woman's autonomy ends once she is pregnant, and her legal rights to make her own reproductive decisions are over. And, saying that, once pregnant, a woman who has chosen to have sex must carry any resulting pregnancy to term is to view pregnancy as punishment for that woman straying from patriarchal norms.

It's ironic this thread has devolved to a discussion of abortion, when my original blog was about how a Paulite insurgent managed to grab an official GOP nomination. I would think "libertarians" who favor "small government" would understand my point, that government has no business regulating what should be a personal, private decision which women must have the ability to make for themselves.

Makes me wonder who wants "big government running our lives," or at least the reproductive lives of women.

I stand by my beliefs and I don't expect anyone else to stand with me.I still believe anytime you take the life of a human being for whatever reason it is murder. You talk about it being the woman's right, well what about the child's right to life or dosen't it have one untill it is actually born? Is that it....you think the baby isn't really a person untill it has come out and detatched from the mothers body? Won't fly...it is still wrong.

BTW it is the Demcrats that love having the "BIG" government and I damn sure ain't a Democrat!

Everybody, please keep this debate civil. We don't allow personal attacks or abusive language. We want to be a place for debate and discussion. It is good when the comments continue on. On the flip side it is difficult to read each and every comment when they get up in the 90s and 100s, so at times harsh comments stay up longer than they should but that is not an endorsement that they are ok. Here is a reminder of our terms of use: http://iowacity.patch.com/terms

Ok,but you maria and Jeff are just as guilty

Jeff and Maria....why is a Mothers life more important than that of a baby? Would you say your mothers life is more important than your fathers? Well what about you? If someone said to you . either you or one of your siblings have to die, how would you make decision? To me it is the same thing between a mother and child. Except you both would choose the mothers life and I would save the baby, that is fundamentally the bottom answer.

This discussion has devolved into a shrill shouting match. On the one hand, you have folks like me, Maria and Charlotte who, although possessing different levels of ambivalence about abortion, argue passionately that the decision must remain with the woman.

I will restate: I believe that individual women have the strength, ability, the right, and the freedom to make their own reproductive choices. A woman's autonomy does not end at the moment of conception, her body does not become a compelling state interest, and she should have every right to terminate a pregnancy, working with a medical professional.

On the other hand, you have Troy who asserts he has dominion over his children, including over his daughter's body. He is not far from a precedent which U.S. Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas once cited: a colonial statute which permitted parents to hire the labor of their children out and keep the proceeds of that labor. While the comment may have been deleted, Troy had to throw in a cheap shot about my mother, ignoring the fact that she WANTED to carry me to term, and, if she had not, I wouldn't be here. Big, fat, hairy deal: that is perhaps the lowest kind of emotional pandering.

Over and over, Troy and maxine have wanted to call abortion "murder" by offering a sophist's misuse of biological science, while refusing to accept the logical outcome of using that label: it gives justification to terrorists like Scott Roeder and Paul Hill.

I continue: maxine has chosen to make light of the work of mental health professionals by asserting I am "sick and demented" and need "therapy." I guess you nailed that one, maxine: I take Lexapro for anxiety, and stoutly defend the efficacy of metnal health care. I guess you share Tom Cruise's, and Scientology's, contempt for psychiatric care and pharmaceuticals.

Troy at one point used the adjective "retarded" in this discussion. It is thanks to folks like Troy that professionals in the field (I am one) now refer to our clients as "people with intellectual disabilities" instead of "people with mental retardation/developmental disabilities." We no longer use the word "retarded" because Troy and others use it as an abusive epithet, refuse to see how wrong they are to so so, think their freedom is conditioned on denigrating people with intellectual disabilites, thus refuse to clean up their acts. I pity people like that, who lack basic compassion, empathy, and human decency.

Although Troy dislikes my tendency to "sight" (sic) statistics and quotes from authorities, I strive to conduct myself in these discussions to a a high standard. I think this comment thread speaks for itself. Stay tuned: my next blog will be about the retention vote for Iowa Supreme Court justice David Wiggins.

+1, Jeff Klinzman.

I appreciate the backup, Joe. As you can tell from the exchange, Troy and maxine have simply voiced the same slogans repeatedly, and have represented themselves and anti-abortion people very poorly, in my opinion.

The stuff you see here is very similar to what we ran into on the Gazette site before they basically shut down commenting. I think Troy's rationalizing his use of "retarded" speaks for itself: he used it as an insult by intending to say I have an intellectual disability, and he thinks it's okay to denigrate people with intellectual disabilities.

Reminds me of the good old days in the 1960s, when you'd hear the compound epithet "n----r-lover" thrown around by opponents of black civil rights.

Brian and Stephen, I will continue to blog, and refuse to be bullied by a troll who rationalizes, but refuses to reflect on, his own behavior. Using "retarded" as an abusive epithet is wrong, and can never be defended at all, since the only context within which it makes sense is the implication, "you have an intellectual disablity, just like a retard does."

"Abortion is murder," ergo, for anti-abortion activists to be intellectually consistent, they must defend as justifiable homicide the assassination of abortion providers. BTW, I didn't come up with that myself: it was an argument used 20 years ago in a Daily Iowan editorial by David Mastio, a member of Young Americans for Freedom and College Republicans, after Paul Hill murdered John Britton, an abortion provider, and James Barrett, Britton's bodyguard, with a shotgun. Troy and maxine, if you don't want to be associated with murderers like Hill or Scott Roeder (who shot his victim, George Tiller, IN CHURCH), then stop saying abortion is "murder." It's not.

Funny how some folks can't give up their abusive language, and really only want to intimidate into silence people who challenge their thinking. I take a slogan from the LGBT liberation movement: "Silence equals death." I won't stop: too bad maxine and Troy are bullies who cannot argue logically, or keep to issues, but always resort to ad hominems. Is that the behavior, Troy, that you'd like to model for your children?

Speaking of models, I have to go finish up the "skirts" for my Panther A, fabricate the antenna, and I've finished one element for the diorama, "Troika," which I plan on entering in the next Alexander Lippisch Chapter Model Expo...

Then have these women sterilized and it won't be a problem. Jeff, I see you won't answer the questions I posed to you. Am I to deduct that you indeed would not think twice about saving yourself? Jack....maybe if the law said you may obtain an abortion but you have to totally pay for it yourself, would that make a difference to you?

Can we all just meet in the middle on this issue? By that I mean: can we all agree that people (women AND men) need to take personal responsibility and use birth control....so we reduce and maybe even eliminate the use of abortion? All this name calling and back and forth doesn't solve anything ; it's like some manic verbal loop that doesn't get us anywhere but angry....and who does that help in the end?

Exactly Troy....that is what I said before. If you have sex with or are raped etc. please just take the morning after pill and don't wait untill the fetus is viable. There is always a solution to every problem, This one to me is simple. And to those women who do prefer to use abortion as birth control over and over again, then the state should step in and automatically have them sterilized.

Ok Jeff maybe it shouldn't be up to the government but my point still stands that when a women chooses to have multiple abortions because she hasn't got the sense to prevent a pregnancy she dosen't want in the first place obviously tells me that she dosen't WANT any children , so what is wrong with making sure it cant happen again instead of murdering babies over and over again? And what is horrid to me is your belief that it is ok to murder babies.

BTW..I do not believe in controling other peoples sex lives, I only believe it is morally and ethically wrong to again..MURDER babies under any circumstances and that is exactly what abortion is, even more so after the fetus is viable.

So Julie you think it is perfecty ok for a woman to have multiple abortions and not think twice about it? Really?

Jeff...alot of woman are sterilized after the birth of a child for that very reason....because they don't want anymore children, is that horrid to you too? What about the men who get vascestomies to prevent pregnancy, its the same thing.

So Julie you are still saying that it is ok to murder babies. Man are you and Jeff siblings? It is WRONG to murder unborn children and even more wrong for you to say it is perfectly ok. The devil works in mysterical ways I guess. And besides the difference between men and women who choose to be sterilized and the ones who are too stupid to prevent an unwanted pregnancy tells me they would be too stupid to inguire about a tubal ligation or vasectomy. There are some people who just don't get it. Those are the ones I am talking about. If a women keeps having abortions over and over again because she dosen't want children then make it so she can't.

Heh, heh, heh: Troy and maxine, may I introduce you to my posse?

Troy, the only reason you want to play the standard male libertarian game of defining an exact moment when HUMAN "life" begins is to be satisfied with squaring the circle: being able to reconcile your belief in individual liberty with your desire to use the power of giovernment to run someone else's life. I see that as an irreconciliable contradiction. Again, I prefer to let each woman make her own decision, and to hell with trying to use the power of government to control or punish women who make life choices I may disagree with. Some women are going to make choices you disapprove of: get a life and deal with it.

I hope you don't have medical insurance; if you don't have car insurance, you are violating Iowa state law. If you do have those kinds of insurance, guess what? The premiums you pay DO help pay for other people's "mistakes," whether it's to pay for collision repair, medical care for someone who has Type II diabetes, or (horror of horrors!) someone else's birth control. Its preposterous to assert you refuse to pay for other people's expenses when, in effect, you do every single day. That happens not just when you pay insurance premiums, but also when you pay property taxes which fund educations for other parents' kids or build roads you will never drive on, or when your federal tax dollars buy military equipment you will never see, used to kill people you'll never meet.

Sheesh, Troy...

BTW, since this thread is so long, it's time for the probability of Godwin's Law to be 1.

Forced sterilization was once common in this country, and targeted individuals with intellectual disabilities and blacks. Nazi Germany also instituted forced sterilization, based on intellectual disability. Abortion was illegal for "Aryan" women, mandatory for "inferior races." Abortion was also illegal in Stalin's Soviet Union. Red China's infamous "one-child" policy was enforced by forced abortions.

In every example above, government power was used to deny people reproductive freedom. You're keeping terrible company, Troy and maxine.

Jeff you say one thing and turn around the words to insult others. You don't even read what people are posting correctly.I know all about women being sterilized in the US and other countries, my point is IF WOMEN ARE GOING TO KEEP KILLING BABIES OVER AND OVER AGAIN BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO STUPID TO PREVENT THE PREGNANCY IN THE FIRST PLACE THEN MAKE SURE THEY CAN'T KEEP DOING IT. Did you hear me this time?

Thank you Jack, but it is clear that God himself could not make these bullish types see the logic that we do.

+3 Jack I totally agree with you. And BTW who cares if anything is mispelled etc, I do it all the time only because these far left loons get me so aggavated I type too fast and mess up. But if they aren't bright enough to get my gist well thats just too bed.

see I did it again...I meant BAD!

Uh, Maxine...? Will you answer my questions?

Actually I did Julie...I said that it would be up to the doctors to report women who keep having multiple abortions................And Jeff I would rather think with my spleen that what I am sitting on right now like you do.

Julie people like you and Jeff don't understand what you are reading half the time so may I suggest that when you don't understand what I am posting just kindly skip over it.

As for who they would report this to? Well since right now there isn't anyone to report to I suppose that would be a new job for someone. You guys are just plain missing the point and just don't get it.

Julie no I don't want government to control all women's uteruses, ONLY the ones that think its ok to murder babies instead of taking responsibility for not getting pregnant in the first place. So you are ok with a women who has gotten pregnant say 8 or 10 times and obtained abortions to rid herself of all of them? If that is ok with you then I am ashamed to be lumped into the same catagory as you under the assumption that we are both women. I am woman hear me roar, I don't know what you are if you believe that.

BTW, maxine, I hope you know the historic Gestapo was the Geheimes Staats Polizei, translated from the German, "Secret State Police," which began as the political police arm of the Prussian state, and was taken over by the Nazi state and became the principle secret police force which hunted Germans who committed political "crimes" against Nazi Germany.

So, did you REALLY mean to assert that secret police should monitor my teaching, and arrest me and send me to a concentration camp if you dislike what I teach?

You'd best plead ignorance...

No it would not be rape, but the slime who commit murder over and over need to be in jail along side those rapist you speak of.

Well, isn't that special! Threaten assault when someone disagrees with you!

*winks at Julie*
How You doin'?

For the love of God Megan! Please put an end to this thread. The IQ level of Patch readers across the country is taking a serious hit. After reading many of the posts above, we can't afford to go much lower. Back on topic folks. What's wrong with the Republican Party. C'mon moderator. Keep it on subject.

And BTW Joe I wouldn't expect you tocare about what I think of you, it was mearly an observation.

It's beginning to feel like the bar scene from Star Wars....

*The aircraft cabin is filled with smoke. Jeff, parachute on his back, kicks open the hatch.*

Good luck spitting on people, maxine, by law that is assault. Oh, and next time, please address me as DOCTOR Klinzman: it is a traditiional perk (since you so respect tradition) due us PhDs.

*Jeff bails, counts to ten, hits the silk, watches the aircraft, trailing smoke, plummet towards the Earth.*

I wouldn't address you as Doctor if your first name were Doctor. I have no respect for baby killers and I have none for the likes of you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lioRCye2Dug&feature=fvwrel

ouch!

Because of profane language, name-calling and otherwise uncivil behavior, comments to this thread now need approval. Grow up, kids. Make your points without resorting to name calling. We want Patch to be an open forum where people feel they can make their points (whether you agree with them or not) without being attacked.

Jeff after reading your comment, I suppose I will apologize for any name calling but that dosen't mean I don't stand by what I have said. Abortion in any form is still murder. And I have to stand by the fact that I do indeed believe you are in need of an evaluation from the staff at Kirkwood. No professor or teacher has any business teaching to vulnerable young people with you being totally far left and have no approach to see things from the center let alone the right. Apology yes, respect...no.

No, thank you for responding. I do apologize but when people find out what trips your trigger and then do it on purpose just to get a reaction, well that is what happens.

maxine, you are not apologetic, at all, in any way. It is so clear you love tripping others triggers, and do so on purpose, just to get a reaction. Well- that is what happens, as you say. But, if any of your views are your real views, with the abortion issue (who should live and die), the hcm (forcing payment of contraception and sterilization), well...You should be fired! Who made you the awful spokesperson? You are that. If your views are true, however can a compromise be reached?!!! Back down with your vehemence, with your bean-only views, with, well, I am tired now of you and yours...Only one pathness...And, quit trying to make this election, again, as the last on this issue. NOT! You are so totally catholic, or at least evangelical on this issue and others. Realize "they" are wrong in some ways; not the ultimate voice. Go forward.Quit alienating followers.

maxine, finally, is there any redemption for those you keep calling "Murderers", with their murderous acts? It seems abortion now is equated with that term, murder, with all the horrible ways we know people have done so, to their victims. Does your church accept those mothers back into their fold? How do they do so, without ever calling their act, murder, at least out loud? Oh, I know, never out loud. How do you deal with your vehemence, in this being your definition of murder? While welcoming back into the flock those who strayed, so sinfully? Is there ever a place for them in your church? It doesn't matter who strayed, why, how, etc,but it seems now, we will truly see how those stray sheep will live and bleet again, while maybe being lost still.

maxine, do not think I am a lost sheep. Not. You and yours are, with no room to compromise. Funny, how, while the catholics are the no. 1 hate-mongers, other religions here are not far behind in your similar hate-mongerings, not to mention one based east of our dear country, in their extremist beliefs. We all know we strive to not be like them, but, really, show us the way here...

Lasty, maxine, if you have not been able to see from my comments, my views on abortion have changed in my life, and you should be glad for that, maybe? I think not, if that murder word is ever viable now, for you and yours. To put it more clearly, I do not think abortion should be a method of birth control. But, it seems other methods, in all their variety, now are being questioned. Only in who should pay, while rallying on slim religious tenets, so outdated, while being cloaked in a certain amendment's right. All for the no. 1 quest of this church now, while always and forever ignoring a woman's right, to chose, perhaps anything in her life? In the past, she had no power, now, well, don't take her last right away, so well-earned, if this needs to happen. And, please, this election, like the last, is not about your murderous issue. Get real, and compromise, but I doubt you and yours can at all.

Charlotte...I am going to say this one more tme and then I am done. I believe women who have multiple abortions as a form of birth control is wrong. When they don't have the sense to prevent a pregnancy in the first place and then choose to abort those babies over and over again is wrong. And yes I do believe that abortion is murder because you are taking the life of a human being. I also stated that the women who can't control themselves and choose to have multiple abortions should be sterilized so they can't keep killing babies. They could take the morning after pill in cases of rape etc. They could give birth and let someone who actually wants a baby to love raise that child. There are many different and better ways to go other than murdering innocent babies.

Ok Charlotte...I will bite. If abortion isn't murder what would YOU call it when one takes the life of another human being?

Ok, maxine, I'll bite, too. Jeff's blog here only mentioned the word "abortion" once by name, while references were made to women's rights on contraception, perhaps? Oh, don't quote me on that "once" figure, since I just re-read his blog very fast. Follow me here, if you can...Jeff's blog appeared on my local patch awhile back, and I soon saw how far off-topic comments like yours can become. I had a hard time remembering Jeff's blog at all, with all his views, since one view seemed to take center stage, at least when I came on board. Fine, my views have changed over the years, but I see no future for said Republican party, if they are dominated by this issue. I seriously doubt Mitt will do what you want, maxine, if he is elected. Do you?

Mitt will not outlaw abortion. He knows to do so would set us-WOMEN-too far into the past, not to mention in league with the current countries out east who, we know, do not value women at all, let alone any rights they have and deserve. Give it up, maxine. Mitt is not a one-issue candidate, but we know certain churches are- in muddling their "separation of church and state", constitutionally guaranteed from day one. But, how some religions rest, while crying constitutionally, only reminds me of how women's rights, even still, have lesser importance, now as ever. If you are ok with that, fine. Pray in your church, as I do, too. But, we all know God is watching us.

maxine, I seriously doubt GOD could ever imagine, in all his greatness and knowledge of our future, that one of His Commandments would be taken so literally by those such as you, so far into the future of we humans. I doubt he ever had in mind, that MURDER could become what you say, now. If abortion is ever outlawed, it will still be done.

You know abortion will be still be done, if it is outlawed. I think it is so outlawed, in some countries, but is still done quietly. Is this the future you want here? Is this what you are so passionate about, at all costs, maxine? Like I said, my views have changed over many years, but never should certain reasons for abortion ever be taken away.

maxine, if you vote on this issue alone, and if any one of us does, heaven help us and the republican party. Same goes for those in the hierarchy of their churches. They know they have to be careful. They cannot tell their flock who to vote for, but they do, right? Not just now, but years back, but never so cloaked as with the election of this president, back in '08.

maxine, I doubt I make sense to you, and I don't care. Because, this election is not about your main issue. But, with the hcm and paying for contraception, we see again how this issue of abortion is too present again. I just wonder, where all these MURDERERS, that is potential mothers, will ever be incarcerated, if caught, in our future? Mars? Go, space exploration! Oh, maxine...when I first saw your name here, it reminded me of those cards, by such a funny lady, with all kinds of views. You-not! No room for negotiation. Btw, I am not a dem. My views have changed, here, too. God bless you, and good luck!

Charlotte, may I ask what nationality you are? I think if I knew it might help me see your point of view.

maxine, I am American, the only nationality I have ever known. I am like you, I am afraid. Our ancestors came here many years back, many. I highly doubt now, how this can help you see my pov. You are not interested in that, and it is high time to close down this blog post. Good luck on how you post in the future, with time running out until the election. I fear you will get ever more vicious. Will you? BTW, you and yours do not help me and mine, with truly objective minds.......again, good luck!

Sorry I didn't mean to insenuate that you were not American. It's just the words you use that made me wonder if you were maybe Spainish. It dosen't matter because you just totally miss my point of view anyway. Charlotte, I am not afraid of anything here, I am highly concerned that our country is being led down a very dark and gloomy path. I have 8 granchildren to worry about, we have to get back to the roots and begin over or there is no hope for their futures.