Tweety (R. Shill), Asks: "Is Abortion Immoral?"

[Sparkly]

Snarky, smirky and dismissive toward the MoveOn spokesman, Tweety toed the rightwing line by insisting that the *Real* Question about judges is, "Is Abortion Immoral?"

Unfortunately, the MoveOn spokesman wasn't prepared to answer. The answer is actually another question: "Who Decides?!?"

"Are people who believe abortion is immoral out of the mainstream?" Tweety pushed. The answer is NO, many Democrats wouldn't choose abortion, but they don't believe in having the government force their beliefs on others.

And yet Tweety has spent the past 24 hours asking every Republican in sight, "Do you believe the Democrats will hold to their promise? What if they screw you? What if they decide something represents 'extraordinary circumstances?'" Answer: It's an extraordinary circumstance when the rightwing attempts to legislate their religious views, and appoints people who will not uphold the law.

And as I typed this, I just heard Tweety say it wouldn't be "extraordinary," but rather "LOGIGAL," to appoint Scalia as Chief Justice and Gonzales to take his place on the bench. "They're conservative, but they're definitely not rightwing," he said.

:wtf:

[Straight Shooter]

1. Did an obstetrician attending Tweety's birth squeeze the forceps too hard?

I'd really like to know, because that man does not process information correctly. "They're conservative, but they're definitely not rightwing."

Let me join in your consternation, Sparkly.

:wtf:

[slor]

6. He is a fat-headed oaf...

and I gotta tell you, I am getting damn tired of Dems/Libs not pointing out the rape case of owen. They need to hammer that case, and let the world know, that is why she is unfit. The guy from Moveon did mention enron, but I really think the rape case would damage her beyond repair, even in the eyes of the many on the right.

[karynnj]

2. He used Gonzales as the not extraordinary example!

Has he forgotten the torture memo? Abortion is not the only issue in town.

[vi5]

3. Wow..I wish I saved the links to all of last night's threads....

marvelling all googly eyed and such over the fact that he was talking about how this was a victory for dems and a defeat for Frist.

[Inland]

4. You could list the number of immoral legal activities and we

would agree on many.

Lying.

Adultery, and cheating.

Greed.

Sloth.

Gluttony.

Envy.

Coveting your neighbor's ass.

Dishonoring parents, unless they really started it.

List goes on and on. These things aren't illegal because there is more to the decision than "right" and "wrong". It's "we want to to be in prison for this." That's where most people go for legal abortion: they can't see jail time for it, whether its moral or not.

[Sparkly]

12. Exactly.

I swear I hadn't read your post when I wrote/posted my note, below -- but gmta! The question "Is it Immoral" is a simplistic, superficial gloss over the real point.

It almost seems like somebody's been talking to Tweety and feeding him "scripts," even more than usual lately. So many of these people -- Tweety, Scarborough, Blitzer, etc.. -- just don't seem real bright.

[unblock]

5. "is abortion imMORAL?" that's a bizarre question to ask a nominee

obviously interpreting the LAW is far more important than projecting individual morality.

as a nominee, i could readily answer "yes, it's immoral, can i have my lifetime appointment, now, please" and then uphold abortion rights because just because it's immoral doesn't mean it's illegal, or even should be.


actually, it's an interesting language issue in the question itself.

should it be "is abortion immoral" or "is abortion unethical"?

i guess it depends on whether or not you think the fetus is a moral agent. hardline anti-choicers would probably say "is abortion unethical?"

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Abortion can be immoral and still be good public policy

Adultery is immoral, but criminalizing it would be bad policy.

As a political issue, abortion has nothing to do with morality.

[radar]

8. Might be - but starving the kids after birth ain't much better....

..."If President Bush's budget is enacted, there will be many more children in America who fail to thrive," writes David Shipler in this editorial. "Failure to thrive" means babies and toddlers who look much younger than they are, underweight and developmentally delayed, and unable to perform normally for their ages. Proposed cuts to food stamps and housing subsidies will mean more families without enough food to eat...
Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) News Digest
Issue 9, March 4, 2005
http://www.frac.org/html/news/newsdigest/03.04.05.html


"The administration plans to enforce these budget cuts by reducing the number of people eligible to receive benefits, especially for low-income working families. These proposed cuts come at a time when 36. 3 million people, including 13.3 million children, live in homes that struggle to put food on the table...."
Analysis of Bush FY 2006 Domestic Nutrition Initiatives
Hunger and Poverty on Increase; Budget Proposes Food Stamp Cuts
http://www.bread.org/media/archives/2005/feb_7_domestic_budget.htm


Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) News Digest
Issue 18, May 6, 2005
http://www.frac.org/html/news/newsdigest/05.06.05.html

[fooj]

9. He's a jackass...e-mailed the jerk and asked him this-

Mr. Matthews,
While speaking to Senator Allen on your show this evening you said "If the democrats start playing games with you again..." Do you call this responsible, objective reporting? This is only one of many instances that can be referenced to illustrate your SUBJECTIVITY. Shameful. Truly shameful.




He's a total ass!

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

10. ...he also exhibits nasty behavior. Did anyone else notice last

night right as he went on for his 9 pm special (he must not have realized he was live), he yelled at some people to basically STFU as "this is a set"? He looked startled when he realized he was on the air.

[Jane Austin]

17. He's a classic bully.

He sucks up to those he thinks are in the ascendency, and he kicks whoever can't do anything for him and is easy to kick.

[Sparkly]

11. Part of my email (I know, I know, why do I even bother...?)

The question is NOT "Is Abortion Immoral," as you state. The question is, "Who Decides?" The difference between those two questions is the real crux of the matter. Many things are considered immoral by some: spanking children, practicing sodomy, hoarding wealth, driving SUVs, drinking alcohol, dancing, being Muslim, being gay, having affairs, using porn, eating meat, wearing fur -- off the top of my head. The point is, America isn't about deciding one way or the other on "morality" and then legislating it. The right to privacy, and the right of choice in private matters, exists.

The question is NOT "Are people who consider abortion immoral out of the mainstream?" There are many Democrats, Republicans and Independents who believe abortion is immoral, but do NOT believe it's right for the government to force such a decision on others.

The question is NOT "Were Supreme Court Justices before 1973 out of the mainstream?" The question is, "Were the 1973 justices 'out of the mainstream?" Moreover, it's not as if the issue was adjudicated at the USSC every year before that; nor is it true that for every ruling of the USSC, every prior bench was "out of the mainstream" for not making the ruling earlier.

The question is NOT "What if Democrats screw you and claim somebody's nomination is an 'extraordinary circumstance?'" The question is, "What do Democrats consider an extraordinary circumstance?" Is it not extraordinary for 51% to run roughshod over 49%? Is it not extraordinary to pack the courts with people who do not believe in laws of the land? Is it not extraordinary when claims of "faith" are leveraged for political gain, under promise or threat (depending on which side you're on) of merging church with state?

The question is NOT "Are Scalia and Gonzales out of the mainstream?" I am speechless at your assertion that they are "conservative but not rightwing." In my view, they are as rightwing as it gets. If you go by polls on specific issues, the Bush administration itself is out of the mainstream. They are so far right they're off the radar.

Finally, in my own opinion, the question isn't "abortion" or "faith" or "gay marriage" or "values" at all. The question, in my view, is corporatism, and these issues are held up for votes, throwing just enough of a bone to create and fire up a "base." They'll pull the strings only insofaras it helps them politically. I don't believe the rightwingers really care a whit about such things.

On edit: I should have said, "rightwing politicians." Obviously there are rightwing citizens who are motivated by such things -- they're making sure of that!

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. That's his idea of investigative, hard-htting journalism?

[Sparkly]

14. He's a dimwit, but I think somebody's talkin' to him.

Louder than usual, more directly than usual, more in-person than usual, something. Karl Rove couldn't have framed the past 24 hours more laden with rightwing propaganda than Tweety has. He's gone to bat for them full-tilt.

[fooj]

15. Don't forget that his big bro is a prominent Rupuke!

:puke:

[July]

16. He is not a journalist. He is a self-anointed pundit.

As is Russert. O'Reilly. Hanitty. Coulter. etc.

A journalist is something else entirely.

[gratuitous]

18. Try this one Tweety: Is war moral?

Particularly one waged by the wealthiest nation on the planet against one of the poorest nations? Please take into account that this wealthy nation spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined, and its major offensive weapon is to bomb civilian populations that can't shoot back, can't get away, and never had the capacity to launch an attack.

Take your hypocritical fake outrage and stick it where the sun don't shine.

[librechik]

19. what a fu**ing menace

he's unschooled, unaware, and disgustingly without principle.

I also think he's a first class lunatic and ought to be institutionalized. Or at least off the fucking stage!