Evenstar51

It's all about union busting and nothing to do with balancing the budget. If the governor made no secret of that going into the election then, I for one, don't find it "offensive" that the teachers are striking to protect their rights to collective bargaining. That's not the least bit "offensive" in my book.

Agreed. I find it very tedious that the worst anti-union loudmouths are people who never deign to take jobs in essential services such as teaching, nursing, law enforcement, fire and medical response. They think it's just fine and dandy for someone else to work in piss-poor work environments, and get paid peanuts, as long as it's not them, and as long as they don't hear complaints. Makes me sick.

Count another agreement. This article is a bit more assertive than many I've seen.



http://www.truth-out...of-america67884

No doubt, but that doesn't mean that you're correct...as Simon and Garfunkel sang, "...a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." If you're unable to see that you've painted all single mothers with one broad stroke, knowing full well that there have always been mothers who successfully raised their children alone, whether through divorce, death or lack of connection with the child's father, then you're simply unable to concede that you're not omniscient.

In my personal experience, only the religious right opposes abortion. I myself fully support it for the damage unwanted children cause on society. Freakanomics quite nicely explains why crime dropped off all of a sudden in the early 90s. A bunch of unwanted children were never born in the early 70s due to the decsion of Roe v. Wade. Less unwanted children led to less children running the streets and turning to a life of crime.

I think you meant the damage society causes to unwanted [sic] children.

No, cause I don't buy in to that line of thought. Society doesn't damage anyone. Piss poor parenting, namely from single mother homes, stuck in poverty is the most common background from any violent offender. Soceity didn't make them that way. Their mother choosing to carry a child to term in an enviornment she was unable to properly provide for and more than likely was too emotionally immature to handle is what is to blame. Abortion stops this from happening.

Don't tell me you're one of those people who actually buys in to the whole "It's a woman's body" garbage. That line of reasoning goes out the door in almost every other example. If I try to kill myself and fail, no one says it's his body. They lock me up in the mental ward until someone says I won't harm myself. If I drink myself into a near comma and pass out on a sidewalk, I get arrested for public intoxication. No one says it's my body, I can posion my liver and destroy brain cells all I want. If you really want to take a justified stance on abortion, a fetus is either a life when it's conceived or when it's abole to display cognitive abilities. Anything else is just some arbitray bullshit Rather than try to hide behind a mask of liberty for woman's bodies or trying to cling to some illogical notion of when a baby is a life, I just come out and say I don't care. I'd rather they be removed before they become a burden on the tax payer and end up harming others because they came from a piss poor home. One of us is being honest and the other is just pretending,

Horseshit! Children are damaged daily by bullying, sexual predators, even family members...society certainly can and does damage children. Having spent many years as a single mother, I take exception to your broad generalizations about single mothers. Not one of those women got pregnant alone, and too few men have the generosity of spirit to lovingly raise their own children. My child was Student Body President, then earned a double degree from one of America's best liberal arts colleges. He even has a job...and not delivering pizza. As for abortion, it's not a new concept...there was a small island in the Mediterranean that was famous for only one export...an herb that induced miscarriages. Roe v Wade is important because it guarantees that middle and lower class women have safe abortions...the rich have always sent their daughters overseas for such a procedure, and reversal of Roe v Wade would only return us to that state of affairs. Before the religious right discovered it brought them business, doctors routinely performed abortions, often when medically necessary, and called it a D & C...dilation and curettage. And I've no doubt that every woman on this forum would tell you that their bodies are their own and their choices are their own, and thankfully not subject to the ideas or beliefs of others. One of us is being honest and the other is using prejudices and personal beliefs to try to back up faulty logic.

Just to stay on topic, what's with Palin's obsession with the FLOTUS? The woman is mad as a hatter...she's got a beef with breast feeding?

http://www.politico....0211/49758.html

In my personal experience, only the religious right opposes abortion. I myself fully support it for the damage unwanted children cause on society. Freakanomics quite nicely explains why crime dropped off all of a sudden in the early 90s. A bunch of unwanted children were never born in the early 70s due to the decsion of Roe v. Wade. Less unwanted children led to less children running the streets and turning to a life of crime.

I think you meant the damage society causes to unwanted [sic] children.

I believe you're correct, Ms. Zimbo. The Missouri State Legislature is debating a bill that would drop the Child Labor Law to 14. What jobs will they get? I know that it's common for the kids of ranchers and farmers to be allowed to miss school and work at certain times, but this bill allows them to work during school hours. We aren't talking about baby-sitting and paper routes, but salaried jobs. It seems that, aside from creating an even less well-educated general population, it would knock people trying to support families out of work. Is the GOP aiming for a nation of worker bees? Any thoughts?