Planned Parenthood claims pro-life view turns off women
by Steven Ertelt
Planned Parenthood continues to do everything possible to protect its abortion income — including claiming a pro-life view is a turnoff for women voters.
Yet polling data shows 64 percent of women voters don’t want a candidate who voted against the partial-birth abortion ban; 68 percent don’t want a candidate who supports taxpayer-funded abortion; and 73 percent don’t want a candidate who opposes parental involvement.
Who holds those kinds of radical pro-abortion positions? Oh yeah — Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
With data like that, it’s no wonder Bush had a 9 percent advantage over Kerry among voters who said abortion was important and won single issue abortion voters 3-1.
Obama and Clinton have a long way to go to prove to voters they’re not the radicals they really are — and with Obama’s repeated attempts to block the “live birth abortion” bill in Illinois, he can’t been seen as anything but an extremist.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
LOL, you want to talk about polling data? Because polling data shows that abortion is the least important issue to voters right now.
Whether polls show it important or not, the voters who vote based on abortion will go for McCain 2-3 times more than for Obama or Hillary. Even with 9% voting based on abortion in 2004, with a campaign that is decided on 1-2 percentage points that 9% is MUCH more than the winning margin of victory.
I think it’s dumb to vote for a candidate based on ONE thing. Don’t you?
I think it’s dumb to vote for a candidate based on ONE thing. Don’t you?
Yeah, I agree! It’s so stupid to vote for a candidate based solely on how they feel about lives of all Americans. @@
JLM – You’re completely correct. A politician should make judgments about what they feel is best for most, but certainly their decision will probably not be good for all.
A politician should make judgments about what they feel is best for most, but certainly their decision will probably not be good for all.
Edyt,
Again, I agree! There’s some 40 million dead American babies (and counting) that will be thanking these politicians on Judgement Day!
Oh what a glorious and dreadful Day that will be!
April 11, 2008
Planned Parenthood Claims Pro-Life View Turns Off Women
by Steven Ertelt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well then, it’s a good thing for McCain that he’s a long-time pro-choicer:
GovWatch: 1999: Don’t force women to have illegal operations
Top McCain Flip Flops: #4. Roe vs Wade:
In August 1999, McCain told the San Francisco Chronicle that he would “not support repeal of Roe vs Wade” because it would force women to undergo illegal operations.
Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research
Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?
A: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It’s a tough issue. I support federal funding.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007
With all that evidence Laura, then I guess we can count on your vote for John McCain!
With all that evidence Laura, then I guess we can count on your vote for John McCain!
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 11, 2008 8:31 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
McCain has not only said that we’d be in Iraq for the next 100 years, but he’s suggested that we might need a draft.
I won’t let that nasty bas**** send my nephews to die in that overripe catbox for NO APPARENT REASON. McCain can’t even remember who the bad guys are, and Republicans have a bad habit of shooting even their best buddies in the face.
the voters who vote based on abortion will go for McCain 2-3 times more than for Obama or Hillary.
But how many is that? I think your 9% estimate is EXTREMELY generous. This is not 2004. As bad as the economy is now, and as long as the war has dragged on, and as unpopular as the GOP is now, you’ll be lucky if half a percent vote on the abortion issue alone.
The GOP is demoralized and the Democrats are energized. Democratic primaries are breaking turnout records all over the country. Meanwhile dozens of Republican congress-members are retiring, like rats from a sinking ship.
Good luck getting many pro-lifers to turn out for McCain, a man who flip-flopped on abortion and even considered switching parties not too long ago.
Laura said: “Republicans have a bad habit of shooting even their best buddies in the face.”
But if they were to shoot their babies in the face instead, you’d vote for them.
To all of the pro-aborts in this thread who seem to be extremely afraid of McCain, don’t worry – we’ll be voting for him. Normally I wouldn’t vote for McCain, but two people convinced me to do so. Their names are Clinton and Obama.
Obomba said the following at a town hall meeting yesterday in Indiana, and I quote;
“I think that the mistake that pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past is to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it.”
This coming from the guy that voted twice against the PBA ban and against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Act???????
I especially like this new quote from Obama:
“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing
Speaking of Obama., according to the local news, he will be attending the Little 500 bicycle race at Indiana University in Bloomington today, as will my parents and my sister who is a student there. Then Obama is off to my hometown of Muncie to speak at Ball State University. Let me know if any of you are going to be in the area for a protest (do people even protest presidential campaign appearances?) and maybe we can plan a get-together.
WHY CONSERVATIVES SHOULD SUPPORT MCCAIN
March 30, 2008 by Len Munsil, 2006 AZ Candidate for Governor
“For nearly 25 years I have actively promoted conservative principles in public policy, as a journalist, lawyer, public policy expert and political candidate.
I have done so because I believe conservative principles of economics, national defense and social policy are in the best interests of our community, state and nation.
On the front page of today’s Arizona Republic Viewpoints section is an article I wrote arguing that conservative interests will best be served by the election of Arizona Sen. John McCain to the presidency this fall.
The article appears alongside two others — written by a press spokesman and a high school student — extolling the virtues of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I was not aware the Republic planned to present my column as part of a “point-counterpoint” series on the candidates. My intent was to make the case for why conservatives should support Sen. McCain.
A few lines were edited out of the printed version, including this important point:
For conservatives, supporting John McCain is not a compromise or a sell-out of our principles. He is a presidential candidate who will strengthen national security, appoint conservative judges, support the sanctity of life, keep taxes low and veto pork barrel spending. He will advance the conservative cause in significant ways.
I will be discussing the article on KFYI’s Mike Broomhead show tonight at 8 p.m. (550 AM). Here is what I wrote in its entirety:
Although Sen. John McCain has locked up the Republican nomination for President, some conservative leaders continue to snipe at him. While I agree with elements of most conservative critiques of Sen. McCain, I could not possibly disagree more with their conclusions
John McCain is a batty old man.
The Republicans were crazy to nominate him.
SoMG:
After what Senator McCain went through in a Viet Cong POW camp, I am surprised that he became an old man.
You should hope for so much.
Somehow I think that whoever the Republican nominated you would say was crazy, except for maybe Giuliani.
Or perhaps you just think all Reps are crazy.
As far as Obamama and Hillabeans, they’re not crazy, just mentally ill. Hey, how come I don’t hear you libs expressing horror at the gobs of money the Clintons made? I personally think Hillary should give all her money to Obamababble.
Man, someday Hillary’s gonna wake up and say, yeah, we should have made those tax cuts permanent.
Actually, HisMan, there’s another reason the GOP was nuts to nominate McCain: he’s a senator.
Sitting senators who run for president NEVER win. Look at Kerry, Dole. Nominating a senator is a way to throw the election. Senators are too compromise-oriented and long-winded to appeal to the public.
The only way Senator Obama or Senator Clinton could have won is for the GOP also to nominate a senator. And they have!
And HisMan, we cannot afford to make the tax cuts permanent. We’re living on money borrowed from foreigners and our currency is being devalued because of the tax cuts. We can’t live in fairy-tale land anymore.
Laura said: “Republicans have a bad habit of shooting even their best buddies in the face.”
But if they were to shoot their babies in the face instead, you’d vote for them.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 11, 2008 9:41 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John, find one incidence where I condoned or advocated shooting babies in the face, and I’ll give you $10,000.00.
Seriously, I will.
Apparently you must be a selfish inconsiderate cat, because you’re crapping all over the soldiers who died over there, saying their deaths are meaningless.
Will you ever learn to think before you speak?
I’ve come to realize you’re not worth the dignity of respect as a person because you insult people you don’t know WHO MAY HAVE LOST A LOVED ONE OVER THERE!
Don’t bother replying. No one wants your foul stench.
If the rest of us had any sense we wouldn’t entertain you either.
There’s a line where personal opinion should cease out of respect for the dignity of others and the sacrifices they make. I suppose I could just treat you the way you treat others, saying it’s merely an opinion, but I know the damage such venom worked against the soldiers who fought in Vietnam. It still haunts them, and it’s PERSONAL.
I can’t go on conversing with you, even jokingly, because you’re not mature enough to know the difference. I converse with adults about serious social issues, not children.
Grow up.
Hey Laura, show me one incidence where a Republican intentionally shot his best buddy in the face or advocated shooting his best buddy in the face and I’ll give you $10,000.00.
Sorry, Laura, turnabout is fair play. If you can take an accident like Cheney trying to shoot birds and accidentally hitting his friend, and use that to claim that Republicans are just so evil and that they delight in shooting their best friends in the face, then I can say that you delight in shooting babies in the face.
Plus since you are using the Obama-spin to say that McCain wants us to keep fighting in Iraq for 100 years, I’ll say, I dunno, since we’re just making stuff up… maybe Laura wants to kill every baby for 100 years until the human race is extinct. You post crazy BS, and I’ll reply to you with crazy BS. How about that?
John, I went to your blog. I see you’re really worked up over Senator Obama. You called him “trash.” You even find his photo “ugly.” How charming of you. Nice respect for our next president. I can only assume you’ll be joining some kind of your own “code pink” group to disrupt the Obama administration at every chance. You don’t have to vote for him, but you do have to live by the votes of the majority of Americans who will.
He’s not backing off his statement. I like him even more now:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/obama-responds.html
Hal, he is trash. If he’s elected, he’ll still be trash. Your inability to see that says more about you than me.
And by the way, no, I would not join an anti-American organization if Obama were to be elected. Obama’s election would indicate that a majority of Americans are f’ing idiots who don’t deserve the right to vote, but I would still believe in the ideals upon which America was founded, UNLIKE Obama.
I apologize to everyone that read my post above, except Laura.
I incorrectly inferred that others weren’t using good judgment in responding to Laura. That’s not fair to those who do respond, who have often shown dignity and respect under trying circumstances, and still care about her.
Yes – her remark was harsh in a personal way, but I myself should have been more considerate of you in my reply. I’m guilty of being insensitive to others myself. I’m sorry. Please forgive me.
I’m no longer responding to Laura, and I’ll leave it at that.
Plus since you are using the Obama-spin to say that McCain wants us to keep fighting in Iraq for 100 years, I’ll say, I dunno, since we’re just making stuff up… maybe Laura wants to kill every baby for 100 years until the human race is extinct. You post crazy BS, and I’ll reply to you with crazy BS. How about that?
Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 12, 2008 9:12 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I never said that McCain wants us fighting in Iraq for 100 years, He wants us there as the World’s babysitters.
If being pro-choice means that I want to kill babies, doesn’t your being Catholic mean you want to molest them?
Laura, rubber baby buggy bumpers.
Doesn’t make sense, does it? Nope, and neither does your post.
By the way, I feel the need to point out that anyone who says they agree with Snob-ama’s “bitter” remarks is essentially saying that abortion is not an important issue to them. Well then, I’m glad that you all are no longer pro-abortion, but have decided to be neutral on the issue. So now you won’t mind when we ban abortion, right? After all, if you continue to fight against we pro-lifers, you are admitting that Obama was wrong.
“Hal, he is trash. If he’s elected, he’ll still be trash. Your inability to see that says more about you than me.”
John, what are you trying to do, be the person here I detest the most? You’ll have to fight Hisman for the title.
You don’t agree with these comments? Fine. You call him “trash” for stating them? Not fine. He’s a decent guy. You don’t have to agree with his policies, but your attacks on his character do say more about you than you intend.
“Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism.” Senator Obama.
How bout this one Hal, Obomba said the following at a town hall meeting yesterday in Indiana, and I quote;
“I think that the mistake that pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past is to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it.”
How is Obama going not back down from this one.
When somebody follows up that answer with, why then did you vote against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Act? Obama, God have mercy on his soul, must be having these gut-wrenching moral debates with “pro-life” people like you and SoMG.
I don’t know about morally gut-wrenching but psychologically it makes me want to vomit.
I thought FF, or Laura was banned for being exactly like the Laura that is posting on this page.
Poor Hal,
Obama screwed up. He did not have to mention religion and guns in his economic analysis of Pennsylvania.
And when you reply, your reply will try to explain Obama connecting guns and religion for some reason only known to you and your elitist pov of Americans who own guns and go to church.
In the end, it was a hugh blunder because many people who own guns and go to church also vote Democrat.
Keep defending his mistake, which he has admited Hal, and you’ll look like a puppet propagandist who must defend a statment which simply offended potential Obama voters who own guns and go to church.
Hal said: “John, what are you trying to do, be the person here I detest the most?”
Just catching on to that now?
“You’ll have to fight Hisman for the title.”
Gladly! I’ll consider it a contest between the two of us, then. I’m not sure which one of you guys I detest most, but it’s either you or Doug. Though honestly, I can’t tell the difference between the two of you. You might as well be the same person, as far as I’m concerned. Mind if I just call you both Haldoug? Or maybe Doughal?
Let me repeat myself: Obama is trash. He thinks that we’re cynical about the government ‘helping’ us? Newsflash, trashman: WE DON’T WANT YOUR HELP. Conservatives aren’t bitter because the government hasn’t done enough; conservatives are bitter because the government has done TOO MUCH. Too much taxation. Too much regulation of business. Too many social programs. Too many attacks on the family, and on the unborn, and on our Constitutional Rights. And what does that piece of trash in a suit promise us? Why yes, it’s more taxation, more regulation, more social programs, and more and more attacks on traditional society. Yeah, that’s REALLY going to bring America together! Hahahahahahaha!
And it’s not our “bitterness” that drives us to be pro-life, or pro-gun, or pro-sovereignty. We just happen to be pro-life, pro-gun, or pro-sovereignty as a matter of PRINCIPLE. But then, maybe Obama and his supporters don’t know what “principles” are. It’s a foreign concept to them, so they assume that we “cling” to that kind of stuff just because we’re mad that the government isn’t putting us all on Welfare.
To make this as simple as possible: Obama is trying to dodge this issue, just like he did with the Jeremiah Wright thing.
The Wright issue was all about the fact that Obama chose to associate with a racist, anti-American dirtbag who calls himself “reverend” for 20 years. It was about Obama’s judgement, as well as his competence, if he’s truly so dumb as to not know what Wright’s beliefs are (but he’s not that dumb, so he was lying about that). So what was Obama’s tactic to make the Wright issue go away? Pretend that the issue was all about America’s attitudes on race… which had NOTHING TO DO with anything. But you Obama supporters such lapped it up, like a bunch of pigs gulping down whatever slop the farmer feeds them.
Now we have the issue of Obama saying that “small town” people are a bunch of bitter hicks who are concerned about stupid stuff like religion, guns, and border security. So Obama uses his normal strategy of obfuscation – and he pretends that the issue is that he said that some people are bitter. He must think we’re stupid. Well, clearly his supporters are stupid, but he must think as little of the rest of us as he thinks of them. The problem with what Obama said isn’t that some people are bitter. OF COURSE some people are bitter. The problem is that he said that those of who are bitter end up being obsessed with non-issues like abortion, or gun rights, or national sovereignty.
So not only is Obama insulting, he’s also dishonest. Are we honestly to believe that this strong supporter of the right to kill innocent, defenseless babies really thinks that abortion is a non-issue? Of course he doesn’t believe that, but he wants to have it both ways. He wants to say that abortion is a non-issue while fighting tooth and nail to make sure that abortion remains legal.
And that is why he is a piece of trash.
John L. You so rock. I love reading your posts.
John, people ARE bitter. People are admitting he has a point. It was not nearly the most eloquent way to put it, but its true. There are people from New Orleans who have come out saying they are bitter, there are people here in MA who are bitter over the economy and (at my age) the cost of college and need for aid reform. There is bitterness over loss of jobs and the fact that the government has aided in that in some cases. I mean, in all honesty, it probably isnt the small towns but much of America that is bitter/frustrated over the economy, the war, et al. There is truth behind what he says. As for non-issues, that isn’t completely true, but those shouldn’t be on the forefront of people’s minds right now if they think rationally. Last I checked the second ammendment was still there, cant really worry about losing the right to bear arms, there hasnt been a proposed ammendment to reverse it so the worries shouldnt be so great. What should be on people’s minds is the economy, the war, education. These are possibly the 3 biggest issues this nation is facing immediately. The economy needs a boost, fast. The war is an importatn issue, regardless of your view, as the president will play a major role in its continuation or end, and thus in setting down a new foundation, or continue building upon Bush’s foundation of American foreign policy. Public education in America is swirling the hole in many places, esp inner cities, and college costs are sky rocketing. In a world where a college degree has become the new high school diploma, that’s pretty important in providing a work force (granted more jobs need to be created so that work force can be tapped into!). In short, guns, abortion, etc arent exactly the biggest issues facing this nation at present, there are bigger issues at hand that could determine the fate of this country and/or its citizens.
Hal-
Glad to see I’m not the only one who’s glad he’s standing by his statement even though it’s gotten him in hot water.
Dan, you have fallen for Obama’s obfuscation technique exactly as I have already explained. Of course some people are bitter. I have already said so. But then you went on to tell me, no, John, you don’t understand. Some people really are bitter! No, really?
You should try reading my posts before replying to them, lest you continue to look foolish.
Though I am glad to see that you have abandoned your pro-abortion position, because, as you said, it’s just not that important of an issue. Now that you’re neutral on abortion, you’ll stop opposing we pro-lifers…. right? It’s such a non-issue, so that means it’s OK if we ban abortion. You and Obama will no longer oppose us. Unless you’re lying hypocrites, that is.
John-
no, I am pro choice, but it isnt hypocritical to say this election cycle it shouldnt be weighed upon heavily! This nation has far bigger things to worry about than abortion.
And btw, saying its a non issue or being neutral would be advocating pro choice as it would leave it to the citizens to decide, not the politicians.
And I saw you said they’re bitter, but I was expounding upon it, excuse me for adding to a discussion.
John L: Gladly! I’ll consider it a contest between the two of us, then. I’m not sure which one of you guys I detest most, but it’s either you or Doug. Though honestly, I can’t tell the difference between the two of you. You might as well be the same person, as far as I’m concerned. Mind if I just call you both Haldoug? Or maybe Doughal?
I have no doubt it is frustrating to you to be confronted with things that are true for all of us, rather than people merely agreeing to the unprovable things you often focus on. Hal’s really straightforward, and he neither claims that you “should” believe as he does nor that his subjective opinions are anything in an imaginary, external realm, and that is one difference between him and you.
Dan: John, people ARE bitter. People are admitting he has a point. It was not nearly the most eloquent way to put it, but its true.
Dan, true indeed. Obama came off as generalizing too much, but yeah – the economy, the war, education. Education and the economy go together for most people, and that to me is by far the biggest issue, and one that will become proportionally larger as the next few years go by.
There, I do not think that Obama or anybody else can “fix” things – the troubles are too large and too long in the making. Tell you what – you think people are bitter and frustrated now? Just wait awhile, regardless of who the next President is.
Anti-immigration sentiment and desire for protectionist trade policies are on the upswing IMO, a swing that’s only really started….
Doug
Dan said: “And btw, saying its a non issue or being neutral would be advocating pro choice as it would leave it to the citizens to decide, not the politicians.”
ROFLMAO! And the award for Best Spin of the Day goes to… Dan!
Doug said: “I have no doubt it is frustrating to you to be confronted with things that are true for all of us, rather than people merely agreeing to the unprovable things you often focus on.”
No, not really. It’s just frustrating to talk to a dumb-bleep who devours whatever crap Obama puts in front of him and then comes back for seconds.
For the longest time it’s been the women, “bickering” amongst themselves…cat fights! How refreshing to see the men go at it. Wow! You guys don’t hold any punches, do you? lol If this was a bar, I’d have to ask you guys to take it outside!
Hey MK, got a cue stick I can break over Doughal’s head?
For the longest time it’s been the women, “bickering” amongst themselves…cat fights! How refreshing to see the men go at it. Wow! You guys don’t hold any punches, do you? lol If this was a bar, I’d have to ask you guys to take it outside!
Posted by: mk at April 13, 2008 3:58 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Outside?
OUTSIDE?
This debate can only be settled by testosterone-driven hot-oil wrestling, and that should be kept indoors.
John-
you mean kind of like “no new taxes” mccain having a change of heart after realizing he needs the far right to have a shot at winning? At least Obama has been consistent overall, McCain is trading in his reputation as a middle-ground man and pandering to the far right so he can get elected.
Doug said: “I have no doubt it is frustrating to you to be confronted with things that are true for all of us, rather than people merely agreeing to the unprovable things you often focus on.”
John L: No, not really. It’s just frustrating to talk to a dumb-bleep who devours whatever crap Obama puts in front of him and then comes back for seconds.
Heh – first of all, your frustration is often evident. Yet in no way is that saying that Obama or anybody else is really telling the truth about the situations in the US. The populace is really not ready to hear that.
All the politicians are full of crap. I’m not saying that Obama can really change things. I do not think anybody can, anybody that is even remotely electable at this time. Obama appeals to many people, just as do the other candidates, and there are always going to be people predisposed to like certain things and certain people.
Hey MK, got a cue stick I can break over Doughal’s head?
:: laughing ::
John, if you could reach that high, it might feel good….
For the longest time it’s been the women, “bickering” amongst themselves…cat fights! How refreshing to see the men go at it. Wow! You guys don’t hold any punches, do you? lol If this was a bar, I’d have to ask you guys to take it outside!
MK, we men bicker too, but I don’t think it rises to the level of a true “catfight.” Or are Hal and John L. going for it? Maybe we should get out Laura’s hot oil…. Hal is often so “deadpan” that I like to see a wee bit o’ fire from him. (John L. don’ have dat “problem” heh heh heh….)
The worst fight I ever saw was between two girls, 7th or 8th grade. I mean – this was for live or die – this was scratching, clawing, eye-gouging, elbows, knees, feet aiming for the most vulnerable zones. 1971 or 1972, had to be…. Still remember it like it was yesterday.
So here I am, back from Argentina. A great time, now hard to face going back to work tomorrow. Damn….
Doug
Dan said: “McCain is trading in his reputation as a middle-ground man and pandering to the far right so he can get elected.”
The far-right?! For talking about tax cuts?! Usually the term “far right” is used to mean pro-lifers, not tax cutters. You continue to amuse me today, Dan! Kudos!
Doughal said: “John, if you could reach that high, it might feel good….”
Nah, I was just messing around. I don’t fight with the elderly; my normal response to demented old people is to roll my eyes and walk away. Now go pick up your Cialis prescription, old man.
This debate can only be settled by testosterone-driven hot-oil wrestling, and that should be kept indoors.
The first round (of beer, not wrestling) is on me…!
John-
it isnt just tax cuts, he’s changing previous stances/votes, calling them mistakes, etc. Its ridiculous
Dan, usually candidates go left/right during the primaries, and then run to the center for the general election. Are you saying that McCain, having wrapped up the nomination, has now decided to run to the right?
And surely you can give some examples of exactly how McCain is pandering to the ‘far-right’, riiiight?
The worst fight I ever saw was between two girls, 7th or 8th grade. I mean – this was for live or die – this was scratching, clawing, eye-gouging, elbows, knees, feet aiming for the most vulnerable zones. 1971 or 1972, had to be…. Still remember it like it was yesterday.
Doug, I used to work near Detroit … one of my coworkers would weave razorblades into her hair because when other girls attacked her (going for the hair of course), they would instead get cut.
I was shocked. She had to be 17 or 18.
John L: Now go pick up your Cialis prescription, old man.
:: laughing ::
Now listen here, you young whippersnapper….
(Is that a backwards baseball cap on your head?)
Edyt, yeah – Detroit, whew….
Years back (before John L. could even spell “Cialis”) we were working in Detroit, for what’s now DTE Energy, I think, the old Detroit Edison.
It wasn’t the best section of town, and our contact people warned us, saying it wasn’t wise to be in the area late in the day or at night.
“You guys can do what you want, but come 4:00 p.m. we’re outta here….”
(Heck, probably even before there was a Cialis.)
“This debate can only be settled by testosterone-driven hot-oil wrestling, and that should be kept indoors.”
MK: The first round (of beer, not wrestling) is on me…!
Oh come on now, Sis, you know that after a couple beers you’ll be rolling around with the rest of us.
John, did you get a haircut and a real job yet?
; )