Last night on Hannity and Colmes there was this interesting exchange between Alan Colmes and GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney:

COLMES: The abortion issue keeps coming up. And you were pro-Roe vs. Wade upholding it as governor of Massachusetts. You said just a couple of years ago you had a change of heart about abortion. What happened. Because you later said that a botched abortion in your family had you wanting to uphold Roe vs. Wade.

You then said a couple of years ago you had a change of heart. Can you help us understand what specifically IT was that made you change your view on that?

ROMNEY: First, what I found interesting is, had I been pro-life and then changed to pro-choice, no one would ask the question....

HANNITY: That's a great point.

ROMNEY: But it's - if you go in the other direction, as I have and as Ronald Reagan did and Henry Hyde and George Herbert Walker Bush, it's like the media can't get enough of how - why did you change?

COLMES: People think it's an election year conversion.

ROMNEY: But nobody ever asks that if they go the other way. It's always, like you've come to the side of life.

It's absolutely true that MSM is skeptical of Mitt's pro-life conversion, as if it can't understand. But it didn't bat an eye after such pro-abortion conversions as Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Dick Durbin, and Dick Gephardt.

More than that, I think pro-lifers are also protesting too much. Who would want to convert to our side after watching how we have treated Mitt? We should be welcoming him into the fold, encouraging him as we would a religious convert. But so many of us are skeptical to the point of being hostile.

Imagine how NARAL or PP would respond to receiving a pro-abort convert. They would make that person an aborted poster child.

I saw that last nite...Hannity was kind of smarmy.
All kissy face with Mitt...

Do you like him? Romney I mean, not Hannity.

Romney = the devil.

and im fairly sure hes flipped flopped on abortion a couple times. he became pro choice just to become governor so he could make a launch for the presidency, luckily he messed with the wrong state, hes goin down, and his polls arent too great.

ok, i went to far calling him the devil, but i think you get the gist of what i meant

MK,

I like Mitt, I think he's a stand up guy. He made the conversion over 2 years ago. I'm from Massachusetts, Mitt has stood with catholic church on many issues. There are other Republican running that are good as well though (Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Huckabee, etc). Mitt is leading in the polls in New Hamshire by 10 points.

He's been replaced in Mass by an awful pro-abort, anti-family, pro-gay marrige Deval Patrick (Bill Clinton crony)

jasper, I bet it gauls you that gay marriage was legalized under him too, and he didnt even try to stop it until the near end of his term for publicity mmmm?

and Im glad deval one, not only will he be a better govenor, but healy was/is just a *censored*

oh wow, im really out of it, jeez

won*

governor*

MK, I like Mitt. I agree with Jasper's assessment of all. McCain is my least favorite (campaign finance reform) but I'd take him over Guiliani any day. I used to be mad at McCain for the Gang of 14, but that ended up working in our favor very well. Big surprise to me.

Interestingly, pundits I respect - Ann Coulter and Michael Medved - like Hunter, although they agree he doesn't stand a chance at this point.

Most pundits make me sick, and hannity is no exception. As I have said before, pundits will do anything to stick to their side. I rarely, if ever, see them concede a point (yeah, let's place that on "never"). But I get equally sick watching Michael Moore as I do Hannity. I must say though, Ann Coulter does make me want to throw up more than the others. I tried to be open minded and read a book. The first chapter was such over-generalizing, disgusting garbage I had to put it down lest she actually succeeds in getting a "rise" out of me...

That's why I love my Colbert Report. Fabulous!

Colbert Report is amazing, I love that show, lol.

So good!

I never miss it. Got tickets for the 16th!!!!

I hate you. I want to see it live someday. That would be near the epitome of hilarious

yup. I"m going to try to meet him afterwards. My friend and I had a few ideas to make the meeting eventful but I"m not nearly smooth or ballsy enough to follow them through.

I will definatly try my darndest to get a picture, just to deepen the hatred ; )

Dan:" jasper, I bet it gauls you that gay marriage was legalized under him too, and he didnt even try to stop it until the near end of his term for publicity mmmm?"

Dan, yes he did try. As you know gay-marrige was manufactured by an activist liberal supreme court in Mass. Remember Margeret Mashshall(SJC) said marrige was an "evolving paradigm" (unbelievable).

He couldn't do much with a democrat controlled House and senate (Mass). He worked to put gay-marrige to a vote, which could be going on the ballot in 2 years. But the 95% democrat Mass legislature is doing everything to stop the people voting on it.

"People think it's an election year conversion."

Bingo! And it is.

We don't celebrate the conversions in the other direction because it's simply not that important to voters on that side. Conservative voters notoriously latch on to one or two issues, usually a culture war issue, and it's everything for them, all else be damned. During the last election, several friends and I conducted a sort of informal poll asking people who they were voting for and why. Conservatives typically had one answer, usually word for word GOP talking point, even upon further coaxing... war/abortion/gay marriage... that's pretty much it in a nut shell. Liberals provided lengthy long winded answers invoking elaborate considerations of numerous factors.

For example, HisMan, absent a glowing monitor in his face, would be hard pressed to provide more than one or two issues off the top of his head... let alone a critical evaluation of those issues beyond parroting what he's heard elsewhere.

Try it (the poll) for yourselves this time around. It's very telling.

Any conservatives here think Fred Thompson should run?

Dan:" jasper, I bet it gauls you that gay marriage was legalized under him too, and he didnt even try to stop it until the near end of his term for publicity mmmm?"

"Dan, yes he did try."

not until the end of his term when he was thinking of running.

"As you know gay-marrige was manufactured by an activist liberal supreme court in Mass. Remember Margeret Mashshall(SJC) said marrige was an "evolving paradigm" (unbelievable)."

marriage is secular, get used to it. It was around LONG before christianity, and certainly has evolved.
It has gone from business agreement, to men and women of the same race and class, to men and women of the same race, to men and women of all races to now, men and men, women and women, completely logical.

"He couldn't do much with a democrat controlled House and senate (Mass). He worked to put gay-marri[a]ge to a vote, which could be going on the ballot in 2 years. But the 95% democrat Mass legislature is doing everything to stop the people voting on it."

in case you havent noticed, a majority of MA supports that legislature, is proud of it. If there is a vote, the amendment would fail anyway. Once again, he did nothing before his aspirations became clear to appeal to the more conservative crowd.

PIP,
If you were my daughter, I would suggest you stop watching the goofy Daily-show. How about Bill O'Reilly instead?

"Liberals provided lengthy long winded answers invoking elaborate considerations of numerous factors."

...that don't really mean anything.

jasper, O'Reilly doesnt know what hes talking about half the time. he thinks liberals are "waging war on christmas", when in reality it actually began WITHIN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENTS, long before ANY of us were born. in fact, before the COUNTRY was born.

He blames liberals for pretty much everything, and its ridiculous

jasper, it means they put a lot of thought into it and think about a variety of issues and why they think that way, etc and know for sure why they are voting the way they are

Valerie, I was high on Fred Thompson until very recently. Am watching.

PIP: Hannity gets on my nerves, too. We're not all perfect... :)

"If there is a vote, the amendment would fail anyway"

Good Dan, then why are so many gay-marrige activists trying to block the vote?

minority rights should never be put to a majority vote.

how do you think the civil rights acts passed hm?

"jasper, it means they put a lot of thought into it and think about a variety of issues and why they think that way, etc and know for sure why they are voting the way they are"

Yes Dan,Cam; we conservatives don't put much thought into anything. How can we become smart like you?

Jasper,

I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence.

"how do you think the civil rights acts passed hm"

Dan, by a bill overwhelmingly supported by Republicans:

The original House version:

* Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

* Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Jasper, often O'Reilly does make my stomach turn. It's so bad, I think Stephen Colbert not only does a better job imitating O'Reilly, but is infintely more entertaining.

And Daily Show rips on everything governmental, because it's a comedy show. O'Reilly is anything put impartial and twists stories just to make his side seem "logical" (which it isn't). Any extremist that does that is frightening. If anything is funny on that show it is how seriously he takes himself.
Dan, if I were backstage, I'd steal his microwave too ; )

"Pick a side, we are at war. This is the Colbert Report." Oh, you never let me down...

PIP,

Is politics just suppose to be "funny" ?. John Stewart has young people just laughing at government.

PIP:"O'Reilly is anything put impartial and twists stories just to make his side seem "logical" (which it isn't). Any extremist that does that is frightening."

O'reilly is a opinion show (OP-ED), not a News broadcast. What about his opinions are not logical? or extremist? ...What dumb professor is telling you this?

jasper, i believe i already said, he blames liberals for everything.

for god's sake, he said if just about everyone had a gun, vt wouldnt have happened! come on, you cant say thats logical/safe!

oh, and jasper, my point was that it wasnt put to a POPULAR VOTE

"oh, and jasper, my point was that it wasnt put to a POPULAR VOTE"

it wasn't decided by the court either.

"or god's sake, he said if just about everyone had a gun, vt wouldnt have happened!"

you took his statement out of context

"Is politics just suppose to be "funny" ?. John Stewart has young people just laughing at government."
1. Since when is politics off limits for comedians?
2. The government nowadays is pretty funny. As I said before, often Jon doesn't even have to say anything other than the actual story!

I've watched O'reilly on several occasions (and several times for research purposes). He often twists news stories so he can seem like a "voice of reason" when the stories themselves are usually not a big deal in the first place. Or he would do like the rest of the pundits do-anything to justify their side. Is there anything they won't do to defend their cronies?

"O'reilly is a opinion show (OP-ED), not a News broadcast"
Exactly. Since his opinions make me sick, why should I subject myself to him?

And no, sorry, I don't get opinions from my teachers (the fact that this has been implied so many times suggests a patronizing attitude from many of you). I listen to all voices and figure out my own opinion based on facts and arguments. Yes, my opinions may change as new information is added. Not surprisingly, O'Reilly is nothing new.

"(the fact that this has been implied so many times suggests a patronizing attitude from many of you)"

No patronizing here, I can see that you're intelligent. When I was in may early twenties, I formed some opinions on what I learned from older, wiser people. Not everything, but some things..

"Since his opinions make me sick"

like what, give me one.... Ok, do you think millions of illegals should be crossing our border illegally when law abiding immigrants are waiting in line to get into this country?

jasper, never said it had to go to court. I said minority rights should never be put to majority vote. if a vote were put in place for the fourteenth amendment, it wouldnt have passed. there would have been no civil rights movement at that time period, and who knows when slavery would have ended.

jasper, than what IS the context?

bill o'reilly is ridiculous, he essentially tries to make it so he, and those who agree with him, are always right, and that the liberals are the reason why a majority of things go wrong, its just ridiculous, like that whole "war on christmas" the gun control bit, and everything else. he just needs a reality check. Heck, a lot of Americans need a reality check, we havent really been accomplishing much lately other than argue over politics which doesnt help anybody.

jasper, we had a discussion on illegals in a bunch of my classes.

we OWE the illegals. they are, whether you like it or not, one of the driving forces in our economy. they keep prices of goods low. if we deported them all, there would be plenty of vacant jobs that would not be easily filled, if at all, and prices would sky rocket.

we have acknowledged their presence for years and have done very little about it. They pay into taxes and social security. They work jobs no one else will, they work for wages that most people could come anywhere NEAR living off of.

As much as you may hate to admit it, we owe them whether you like it or not. deporting them isnt the way to go, but neither is complete amnesty, there has to be some sort of compromise.

oh, and jasper, i want to know what border you're talking about, because there are still plenty of european illegals in this country, weve mainly only been cracking down on mexicans. yes, they are the largest illegally immigrating group, but that doesnt mean we should only crack down on the mexican border.

I think we need to stop making the illegals a burden on the system. Lets help the people who have settled here gain citizenship. Let's tighten security at our borders. Let's stop crowding our prisons with illegal immigrants. Let's put harsher penalties on those who are caught coming across the borders illegally.

I do not think demeaning people is the answer. Sadly, conservative thought on this issue has bred a lot of unnecessary hatred towards hispanics, whether they intended to or not. I've mentioned this before, but when the government started recognizing immigration as an issue, the KKK started having growing numbers of people against hispanics.

I dislike the style of Bill too. Rather than just calling people out, he calls them names. When they piss him off, he cuts off their mike.

Why don't you explain this to me:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703220018

"bill o'reilly is ridiculous, he essentially tries to make it so he, and those who agree with him, are always right, and that the liberals are the reason why a majority of things go wrong, its just ridiculous, like that whole "war on christmas" the gun control bit"

many americans feel that our culture has taken a turn for the worse. The far left is, yes, responsible for alot of it.

"we havent really been accomplishing much lately other than argue over politics which doesnt help anybody"

Oreilly does try to accomplish things, like pushing Jessica's law to have mandatory sentences for convicted child predators, etc.

"They work jobs no one else will, they work for wages that most people could come anywhere NEAR living off of."

I just disagree, yes the prices will go up a little. There are law abiding people who will work those jobs, it will cost a liitle more, but I'm willing to pay that price. Plus their driving wages down.

"As much as you may hate to admit it, we owe them whether you like it or not"

No we don't. Your not counting medical bills, education, and especially the cost of inmates and prisons (in California 30% of inmates are illegals). They pay very little taxes to cover this.

The important thing here is to just follow the law. Don't cut in front of somebody who has filed all of the paper work and is waiting in line. It's not fair.

Jasper, you act as though the republicans and conservatives have done no wrong and that the left is the reason the US is gone down the toilet. Why do you feel you need to attack an entire ideology for the problems caused by an individual?

"Lets help the people who have settled here gain citizenship"

No, I rather help people who came here legally and followed the law.

"I do not think demeaning people is the answer"

Yes, I agree, let's not demean those people who have filed for citizenship legally.

"I've mentioned this before, but when the government started recognizing immigration as an issue, the KKK started having growing numbers of people against hispanics."

ILLEGAL immigration. If there's a growing problem with the KKK against hispanics ( red herring ) then we deal with it.

"Jasper, you act as though the republicans and conservatives have done no wrong and that the left is the reason the US is gone down the toilet. Why do you feel you need to attack an entire ideology for the problems caused by an individual?"

No, the Republicans have done some wrong things as well. I just think the left has done most of the damage. The democrat party used to be fairly moderate (JFK days) but it took a bad turn in the late 60's.

I live in Okahoma. There are a lot of hispanics there.

The derogatory language I hear about "illegal" immigrants also seems to apply to the hispanic public at large. It's absolutely appalling, and it's no small wonder that it's becoming a racist problem as well.

Yeah, you can justify hatred on "citizenship status." Many people do. I just don't think it's right.

This is not a real conversion. Do you think that Mitt didn't foresee his presidential run two years beforehand? Running for president is a pretty intense and complicated process. If it takes two years to make a silly Hollywood movie, don't you think it takes more than two years to try and figure out the best possible positions/ways to run for President of the free world? I saw a clip of Mitt, looking incredibly sincere, discussing his first conversion, to the pro-choice position, because of having a relative die from a botched abortion. I imagine if I were a liberal in Massachusetts and I heard that speech, I might be far more inclined to vote Mitt than before. Here he is, compassionate guy, still personally against abortion, but for the woman's right to choose to save women's lives because of a personal experience. Really touching. Now he's pro-life again, because that's how you feed a Republican base. I think Bush, as terrible a fiscal conservative as he is, truly does believe that God wants him to save the babies. Bush was a pro-life president. Mitt is a politician pandering to the public. If you really are going to vote by the abortion issue alone, don't throw your hat in with Mitt Romney, because he won't take any further action with the issue as President, and any Republican is going to have to be pretty moderate to win the election this time around.

"Yeah, you can justify hatred on "citizenship status." Many people do. I just don't think it's right."

who said anything about hate PIP?

why can't we respect the immigrants who have filed legally (including many hispanics) and not let illegals jump in front of the line? why is that so hateful?

But Jasper, it's not the ideology as a whole, it's the individuals that take that ideology and warp it to fit their agendas. It's advisable to that one stops making generalizing comments about "liberals" or "conservatives" as they are generally not true for everybody, only the select few who are in the spotlight because of their extreme views of said ideology. Do you think that would be possible for you? Please, let me know of any time you have noticed me saying anything derogatory about conservatives and I'll promptly eat these words and correct my behavior in the future.

Listen to my argument, jasper.

I'm saying that actually working to help the problem is a good thing.

The rhetoric used to enact said solutions is what is apalling. I once heard a conversation about illegal immigration between adults, and all I could do was look in my glass of diet coke and try not to say anything. If I didn't know it was about illegal immigration it could be directed as any minority by any racist. It was sickening.

Jill, I think pro-lifers are right to be skeptical, because up until about 2005, Mitt Romney was very staunchly pro-abortion. His explanation for why he changed his mind isn't convincing or believable. It's so bad that Rick Lowry of National Review said he should stop telling it. The only reason for the conversion seems to be that he wants to be President. And you've got to be careful, Jill because a lot of people have run as pro-life but haven't voted that way and haven't governed that way, and you can't afford to be naive about someone whose for all appearance playing the game.

"It's advisable to that one stops making generalizing comments about "liberals" or "conservatives" as they are generally not true for everybody, only the select few who are in the spotlight because of their extreme views of said ideology"

Not true for everybody, but most. No, not a select few. I don't see a problem using the conservative or liberal labels where they apply. I know professors like to push (not using labels), but it applies.

::headdesk::

My professors haven't taught me jack about not using labels, I'm sorry to disappoint you. In fact, my professors very rarely (if ever) put their two cents in about their views about anything in any of my courses...even my Poli Sci classes...they were all taught with an even hand.

It's really quite distressing how you look down upon America's teachers and professors. With that attitude, it's genuinely not surprising that the academic standards of the US are so much lower than any other country as education is so looked down upon.

"I once heard a conversation about illegal immigration between adults, and all I could do was look in my glass of diet coke and try not to say anything. If I didn't know it was about illegal immigration it could be directed as any minority by any racist. It was sickening."

Well, I agree with you. It shouldn't be an issue about race at all.

Good-night

Rae: I find this distrust for academia so insightful in regards to the pro-life position. "Those liberal professors are filling their soft heads with crazy ideas." Really? So, the college educated intelligent people teaching me about academic and non-political subjects are secretly feeding me their views. I could tell you one of my professors where I was completely sure what her political inclination was, and she was an English prof. who never discussed politics. The only reason I know is because she was super happy after the November 2006 elections. Professors are professional. They aren't supposed to tell you what their views are and expect you to puppet them, they are their to encourage you to think for yourself. I have to write papers and come up with my own original arguments. If I feed them back trite bs and unoriginal thought, I don't do well. If I do research and come up with an interesting and novel ideas, I do well. Critical thinking is encouraged. Questioning everything (including my liberal notions) is encouraged. I've read ethical theories that disagree with my point of view and had to change my view because of it. I've read factual information in many areas that has influenced my views. Intelligence isn't being a puppet, and well-educated people aren't taught to parrot, they are taught to think critically.

Hear, hear, Lynn.

I'm tired of the insinuation that what I believe is based on someone else telling me how to think. This idea that my brain is mush and I repeat back whatever someone else tells me. I have spent so much time researching the abortion issue it is ridiculous. It's become a very personal issue with me, as has reproductive health options available to women in general. Why do conservative southern states have higher infant mortality rates? Does that have to do with limited access to health care for poor mothers? Have these "pro-family" conservatives been voting for measures which cut poor people's access to health care and increase infant mortality rates among blacks to three times the percentage of white children?

PIP: I understand that you are still a liberal and that you've recently converted to the pro-life side. And I respect your choice because I know that you have deeply considered the issue to come to your conclusion. I guess I just have a lot of trouble respecting the opinions of those on here that constantly tell me and other pro-choicers that we are immoral morons who can't think. And when some of the people speak on here and are completely serious, I just stare in shock. Cameron is jokingly representing pro-choice the way some are seriously representing pro-life, and I am surprised that leads to any conversions.

@Lynn: I took this one poli sci class that was specifically about the various political ideologies and my professor made a point at the start of class that he would do his very best to be neutral on all of the topics and that he would NOT inject his opinions on ANY of the subject matter. Though we were all curious as to what his personal ideology was, he refused to tell us until the last 5 minutes of the last day of class.

He did an excellent job of not putting his views on anything. Sure he'd say a snarky comment or two, but he said something snarky during EVERY lecture, regardless if it was liberal or conservative as he was just trying to be funny to engage us to learn. He poked fun at liberals, he poked fun at conservatives. It was a fantastic class and I learned a lot about the various ideologies (in fact, one of his best lectures was on traditional vs. modern conservatism).

Rae: re: traditional vs. modern conservatism. That drives me crazy. If Republicans were actually "conservative" than they wouldn't be working to restrict people's personal liberties. How can any traditional conservative get behind the Patriot Act? be against gay marriage? Think that the government should find new and better ways to restrict people's liberty in the name of Christian morality and fear?

Lynn- I still maintian a respect for pro-choice, because I've been there before. And it is pretty tough to be a liberal, pro-lifer. The conservative religious ferver surrounding pro-life is part of the reason that turns others away. It's hard to come here and complain about how incompetent some of our politicians are when a lot of people practically worship them simply because they are "pro-life." I wish that this issue will be less of a political tool and more of a "this is, in my opinion, better for the American people." Honestly, most of the times this encourages mass generalizations that often prove untrue and completely ridiculous. Nowadays politics is really frusterating, but hopefully we'll have the courage to call out hypocrisy, regardless of party lines (I"m talking to you, frigging pundits) and actually work for a better future.

So Lynn, I'm pretty much right there with you. I appreciate your positions and all that, definately. I"m not here to rag on all of you conservatives either, because far-left is equally guilty of what I'm complaining about. I just wish that pro-life and pro-choice should be taken and viewed by its own merits rather than playing political games. Frankly, I don't think America can afford it.

I feel like a lot of politicians (on both sides)throw around the issues that get people emotionally charged, and then the voting public ignores other (in lots of cases, more important) issues. I mean, I am all for gay marriage, but the only time it gets brought up is around elections. I want the lynchpin issues that a candidate has to have clear positions on be education, how to spur economic growth, and not issues that just get thrown around to incite the public.

I like Bill O'Reilly. However, I was disappointed in him for not ever covering the March For Life in DC. I think Fox told him to zip it!

As a social conservative, the more weary I get with being one of the Republican party's useful idiots, the more leery I am of expedient conversions.

I like Romney. He's smart, for one thing. But if his smarts are in service of expediency only, then here I am just a useful idiot again.

He's artful enough to impress with an interesting point ("nobody asks in the case that...") in the very act of dodging the question. ;-)

Rasqual, I think I like you. I understand why, if someone were a believer in the pro-life cause, they would feel morally obligated to vote for a pro-life candidate, and it's really refreshing (in the sad way that we have to be completely cynical about our political leaders) that you are taking into consideration the possibility that Republicans are pandering to the "fundamentalist Christian" vote. (not implying that you are a fundamentalist Christian or that that is a necessarily bad thing, but that usually encompasses the issues like abortion or gay marriage.) In my personal opinion, I think the pro-life crowd isn't going to have many true voices for their side in the upcoming election, because people like Brownback and Huckabee, who would certainly be truly pro-life, are very unlikely candidates. While the likely candidates consist of a man who changes his views on abortion to fit where he's running for office, Rudy Guiliani, who is personally against abortion, but would support having abortions funded by the government, since it is currently a constitutional right, and John McCain has very non-standard pro-life positions, in not seeking to repeal Roe V. Wade and being in favor of embryonic stem cell research. Like I said, you seem like a good person rasqual, but I think that you're going to have a tough time finding a true pro-life candidate as the Republican runner.

Val,

I'm with you...I like Fred Thomson...I think!

I can well remember when Jesse Jackson was such an inspirational supporter and speaker for the pro-life cause. At one time he was a man I had the greatest admiration for not only for this but for his other work of fighting poverty, injustice as well. What a huge disappointment when he suddenly turned tail on the prop-life issue for political expediency and his own glory seeking. He called abortion genocide of the black community.
I heard the account of the woman who founded an African-American pro-life organization. I believe her first name was Alice and she always wore a hat. Anyway she explained how she became involved in the prolife cause. She said she had been on the sidelines of the pro-life movement but one day listened to the most inspirational pro-life speaker she had ever heard. Deeply moved, she approached him afterward and said "Rev. Jackson, what can I do to help"? She was inspired to become a speaker and founder of a pro-life organization. Rev. Jackson turned tail. She made no secret of her disappointment.

Darn - I knew I shouldn't have stopped reading this last night.

PIP - I'm really curious, because I like the way you think, how you would react to the illegal immigration problem around here.

We have legal citizens and legal aliens that cannot get jobs here and cannot get good affordable housing because the illegals will work for less and pay more for apartments. Did you hear me? The illegals are being taken advantage of. The illegals are being used so the rich can get richer. All the while the middle group is being screwed because they can no longer feed and house their family. Why is any of this okay?

Our high school students cannot get jobs around here because the illegals will work off the clock and for cash and more hours than what is legally allowed. Many high school students here use the jobs to try to save money for college (not tuition, but books, housing etc.)There is one high school student that I used to work with had to drive over one hour and to another city in order to get a job.

The jobs that everyone says no one will fill if the illegals are forced to leave are not even being done by illegals! The farmers and business around here hire legal people because of all the unions. You don't want to tick off the unions! You're entire business will go under if the union decides to ruin you for not taking care of their people. And the jobs that the illegals are actually working would be filled in a heartbeat by the high school students and college students. I just don't believe we are the 'unusual' situation considering my family says the same thing is happening in Ohio, Kentucky, and Illinois.

And on a personal note: I can't even go to a fast food restaurant and order in English! I have to either point or use my very limited knowledge of spanish. (yes, spanish. I know all illegals are not from Mexico, but around here it does seem that way). My neighborhood is full of houses for rent. Many renters are legal mexicans. But their illegal family and friends (yes, they have admitted this to me)live with them until they can get an apartment that they pay too much money for. (yes, I do tell them that they are being ripped off) And in the meantime - there can be 3-4 families living in one house. I think the biggest house that is a rental is 1600 square feet.

My sister works in children social services. She says that illegals are the major group of people that she helps. Their kids are Americans because they were born here so they are getting services even though their parents are here illegally. My sister lives in a 'dying' town (Most factories are leaving) and they do not have enough socail workers to handle all the families. The amount of socail workers that is employed is based on the census. Illegals don't get counted and usually their children are not counted either because the adults don't turn in the paperwork. Families that truly need the help are not getting it. She works for the Early head start program which is help based on needs of children AND on income of the family. If the family makes less of an income than a specified amount they are automatically signed up for the program. Since the illegals do not report their correct income, they are getting services when they don't deserve it.

oh - AND polls have been taken. The illegals don't want to be legal. How's that for a kick in the pants. They don't want citizinship. There are multiple reasons why, but they would not sign up for any program that would make them citizens. And I have talked to the neighbors and they say that they don't understand why they should become legal, they have a family memeber who is legal, and to them that is good enough.

So, what do you propose should be done?

(We have an abundance of illegals here BTW. The school system is one of the best in the state and they want their kids to get a good eductaion - what parent doesn't? )

_________________

Also, the link you provided for the O'Reilly, Liz Wherl radio show. You have to understand their relationship before you judge what happened. If you don't watch The Factor you wouldn't know about that, now would you? Turning off the mic is something that doesn't surprise me and she would do the same to O'Reilly on any of her shows. (On his TV show, she even told him to "shut up and listen for once in your life". He sat there quietly and listened. )

I have found a problem here .... Lynn, Dan, PiP and Rae might assess it as a large problem, or dismiss it entirely. So here goes: first of all, there is a strong myopic-view that the USA is all that is important ... American citizens love to speak of the USA 'as the land of the free'. To other nations, that is a pile of smoke (that is the sweetest word I could think of)... self-delusion at it's worst. Then there is academia and wanting your to think ... but the trick is to link these better thoughts with action ... mere thinking good thought is not enough, and never has been!

I will now propose to you an idea of democracy that actually engages people rather than force them. I call this a 'floating Constitution'. Every 50 years, the people decide which rules will govern them for the next 50 ... starting with rights ... forms of government, civic responsibilities etc, etc. So as not to get bogged down by government = money/business ... in the middle of the 50 years (for the next 50) an economic/business strategy is written.

A few good things come from such a system ... the politicians remains as subject to decided laws/policies. Talk between generations is assured .........

...............................

Let's return to the abortion debates .... the issue presented so-far is poor because it is so myopic. Many of the arguments will blanche beside the newer kind of abortion that is unfolding right now. Because of vastly altered population demographics YOU will be asked to abort your parents in just a few years hence and your sweet little ones will be asked to abort you.

The argument about body-autonomy will be replaced with a survival argument: THEM vs US. Are you ready or are you already-dead (pro-choicer's's)? [Will you pro-choicers be relying on us pro-lifers for help in just a few years?] SoMG and Cameron can open a franchise - like why stop at killing kids, eh?

Romney's ducking the question is a larger problem than a straight forward answer, imho.

"I call this a 'floating Constitution'. Every 50 years, the people decide which rules will govern them for the next 50 ... starting with rights ... forms of government, civic responsibilities etc, etc."

This is possibly the worst idea I have ever heard of. There is a reason why a stable Constitution is preferable, because you do not trust the rights of others in the hands of a majority vote of the people. Would a vote to end slavery have won if it were up to the people? Would women have garnered the right to vote if it were up to the men who were allowed to vote? I think that civil rights should not be decided by the populace as a whole, because the spirit of the people often does not change until after the laws have changed and a minority has spoken against injustice.

(I don't understand what your second part is in reference to. Young people killing old people because we are running out of resources?)

And as far as linking the thoughts with action? I most certainly agree. That's why as a college student I'm volunteering at a center that helps women who are victims of domestic violence, and that's why I want to work in the field of environmental ethics. I learn about issues that are important to me and take action where I can, and I can certainly agree that actions resultant from rational thinking are more apt to make change than just discussing ideas. If you are speaking about actions to change the process of government, than I leave you with the tried and true phrase:"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." If we seek to have anything other than anarchy (no one ruling or holding order), there are going to be those who take advantage of power given to them. I hold the candidates I vote for accountable by assessing their voting record, following what they do after I vote for them, and writing letters about what I disagree with. Of course, the first few times I voted, I didn't have the chance to follow up on that process. I've been keeping my eye on John Lewis, can't do too much with Georgia's Republican Senate seats though.

Lynn:
"I think that you're going to have a tough time finding a true pro-life candidate as the Republican runner."

Yep.

Personally, I'd like to see the two largest cohorts of useful idiots in this country -- social conservatives and Blacks -- make political hay together. I'd compromise on a vast number of issues that might make me look democratic, if Blacks would be willing to embrace some minimal social conservative causes. Happily. Some things are utterly dispensible commitments. Compared to the right to life, I couldn't care less about fiscal conservatism. Give me a socialist state that bans abortion and holds men accountable for the children they sire, and I'll vote alongside anyone who's been a useful idiot for Democrats. I couldn't care less.

If I could punish the Republican party by contributing to a powerful enough independent movement that would be capable of gaining a head of steam, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately I believe there's always a generation of folks who are vulnerable to the cajolings of civil religion who just won't know how badly they're being manipulated. It took Billy Graham 20 years to realize just how much he'd been used and abused by the Nixon administration.

Bush freaks me out. His administration has mishandles many things, but he's the only president who has ever publicly intoned the words that are too rarely heard in public at all, let alone by national leadership -- "protected in law and welcome in life."

As ever, the alternative to any bad thing -- whether it was Clinton's embarrassing idiocy or the poor leadership Bush's administration has shown (whether it be FEMA, Justice, or State) -- is never utopia. This is the unfortunate delusion I think so many advocates of change suffer -- that if only [whatever], then the Millennium would be here. Nope. The alternative to one set of problems is another set.

It's like shopping for a mate. One shouldn't blind oneself to reality by shopping around for virtues alone. One should shop around for which set of faults one is willing, open-eyed, to live with for the rest of their lives. ;-)

John, Thanks for a terrific post. Glad to see you didn't leave!!!

Valerie--I have several ideas, but my Organic exam is friday so I do not have the time to respond yet. I will get back to you though!

PiP: You have an organic chem exam this week too? Mine is in 13 hours... :-p

Good luck on your exam!

Yes, Rae. It is the ACS standardized final. I'm freaking out. I'd fake appendicitis if I didn't already have plans for next monday!

And good luck to you too!

Good luck on those exams girls!!! I'm sure you'll both get A's.