[redmenace]

I didn't say that other people would approve of this, other than the Trial Lawyer scum that represent these people, but I did say that I do not think that democrats would be willing to tackle the issue as it might not be totally in their best interests. The republicans version of tort reform is unacceptable, period. And even so, they do not even mention the issue outside of the campaigns.

This whole thread though underlies the feelings of disgust with both "mainstream" parties. When or if democrats gain control it will be 12 years of getting nothing accomplished, like the republicans, and then the congress will change hands.

[Kazan]

you express disgust for both mainstream parties, and yet to single out the democrats based on a non-sequitur and bare assertions

color me skeptical

[redmenace]

I said that the republicans hadn't even gotten it accomplished. And I doubt democrats will work to get things changed. I have plenty other reasons not to trust republicans as well.

[Kazan]

but that does't make you hesitant to vote for them

[redmenace]

republicans? It does, but there are a whole host of other issues that I have with them as well. Virginia Senate being an example. Or the leaderships handling of the Foley scandle.

[Kazan]

then why did you single out democrats, there isn't even a third party who would do anything *positive* on the subject

[redmenace]

I also clearly singled out republicans as having being enept on the subject and democracts being unwilling to touch it either at least IMO.

[Kazan]

yet you have no rational basis to assert that the democrats wouldn't touch the subject

[redmenace]

Outside of the fact that I don't seeing them doing something that would necessarily hurt them.

[Kazan]

which requires you to be able to rationally justify the following assertion:

1) Limiting frivolous lawsuits would harm the democratic party


which you CANNOT do

[redmenace]

Limiting how much can be collected on lawsuits would. Such as limiting insano punitive damages

However, in the end of the day, it isn't a matter of justifying. It is a matter or trust and faith. None of which I have in the Democrats nor the republicans.

[Kazan]

you have no rational basis upon which to make that assertion either.

stop shifting the subject and just admit that you have no rational basis for that and your singling them out is absolutely assinine

[redmenace]

Past performance going all the way up the loss of congress is the rational basis. A 70% top tax rate. A failed rescue attempt of the hostages in Iran. Insane welfare state created by LBJ. Vietnam. Limiting how close protesters can be to abortion clinics. Bay of Pigs. These are more than rational basis not to trust democrats. War in Iraq, the Folley nonsense, allowing lobbiests to write legislation etc are reason not to trust Republicans.

[Kazan]

Past performance going all the way up the loss of congress is the rational basis.

oh yeh.. since they lost congress once.. they must be absolutey teh suck

A 70% top tax rate.

that will never be reinstated, that tax hasn't existed since the early 1980s

A failed rescue attempt of the hostages in Iran.

yeah.. because the special forces messing up a rescue is the politicians fault

Insane welfare state created by LBJ.

*i hear the sound of massive whining* "omg, we couldn't possibly help the poor for short periods!!"

How long is the average welfare recipient on welfare?

less than 6 months - the VAST majority are on it less than 6 months, and only once in their life

Vietnam.

yeah... because the democrats are ever going to support that kind of a war ever again

Limiting how close protesters can be to abortion clinics.

yeah, because the protestors were interfering with the rights of women via intimidation, they were also killing doctors and bombing clinics

Bay of Pigs.

a mistake... wow because like.. the republicans never make mistakes.. and those nutjobs the Libertarians are any better than the republicans

These are more than rational basis not to trust democrats.

if these are the best you got... then you have no claim to rational objection

War in Iraq, the Folley nonsense, allowing lobbiests to write legislation etc are reason not to trust Republicans.

now those are actual objections that are current - let's add
corporate welfare
theocratic dreams
violation of minority rights
homophobia and other bigotry
....

[Kosh]

Limiting how close protesters can be to abortion clinics.

So stopping terrorists from vandalizing and bombing them is a bad thing? I could go on about your other points, but Kazan beat me to it.

[NGTM-1R]

Protesters=Terrorists!

Yes. That makes perfect sense. I see no logical contradiction at all.

[aldo_14]

Protesters=Terrorists!

Yes. That makes perfect sense. I see no logical contradiction at all.

Terrorists have been known to protest in the past.  It's a good way to get into the target.

That is, of course, ignoring the protestors who taunt, threaten and verbally abuse both patients and staff going into abortion clinics, which is in itself terrorising those people (lest we forget what 'terrorist' means).

[redmenace]

Two things, where does freespeach and the right to assembly and protest end? And where does terrorizing begin. Is talking to individuals who might be going into a clinic wrong?

Second issue is that not all protesters commit civil disobedience. Only a small percentage of those would ever commit murder, bomb a clinic, place raw meat into the ceilings etc. And if people were being 'terrorized' then have local law enforcement present to prevent any interference that could be considered harrassment. However, it does infringe on the rights of those wanting to protest. For example, would we ban unions from striing outside a place of work on the off chance that they would hire scabs and that these scabs might be harrased by strickers? Or that strickers might damage property there in. Or how about we ban enviromental protesters from demonstrating in front of GM and other car manufacturers because the off chance that there might be a member of the Earth Liberation Front, or NAMBLA, waiting to carry out terrorists acts. Telling people that they cannot demonstrate and protest in certain places diminishes and handicaps their message. Thus impacting their message. But I guess it is ok to do so as long as you disagree with them?  Also, it is worth pointing out that, IIRC, that this legislation was protested and opposed by the ACLU for this very reason.

Ultimatly, I don't think this had anything to peoples safty. It had more to do with the abortion lobby, NOW and pandering.

[aldo_14]

Two things, where does freespeach and the right to assembly and protest end? And where does terrorizing begin. Is talking to individuals who might be going into a clinic wrong?

Second issue is that not all protesters commit civil disobedience. Only a small percentage of those would ever commit murder, bomb a clinic, place raw meat into the ceilings etc. And if people were being 'terrorized' then have local law enforcement present to prevent any interference that could be considered harrassment. However, it does infringe on the rights of those wanting to protest. For example, would we ban unions from striing outside a place of work on the off chance that they would hire scabs and that these scabs might be harrased by strickers? Or that strickers might damage property there in. Or how about we ban enviromental protesters from demonstrating in front of GM and other car manufacturers because the off chance that there might be a member of the Earth Liberation Front, or NAMBLA, waiting to carry out terrorists acts. Telling people that they cannot demonstrate and protest in certain places diminishes and handicaps their message. Thus impacting their message. But I guess it is ok to do so as long as you disagree with them?  Also, it is worth pointing out that, IIRC, that this legislation was protested and opposed by the ACLU for this very reason.

Ultimatly, I don't think this had anything to peoples safty. It had more to do with the abortion lobby, NOW and pandering.

So it's ok for protestors to block doors?

There is, I acknowledge, a thin line between protection and censorship.  But there is also a thin line between 'talking to' and intimidating or threatening.  Even a softly spoken threat is still a threat.  At the time this law was enacted, I believe there were huge protests outside abortion clinics, including 'rushing' of patients and staff as well as criminal damage; co-ordinated to try and close down medical facilities providing a vital medical service.  That's the most severe instances, of course - but isn't pressing leaflets onto people, calling the murderers, or shouting through glass door entrances harassment?  Not to mention physical confrontations when police are absent.

You might compare striking staff outside a GM plant - but what if protestors were blocking a police station, a fire station, or a hospital entrance?

Fine, though.  Let them protest.  Just give every person going in and out of that clinic a police escort and protection from harassment, and let those police establish a protective zone that allows free access without the harassment that forced this law in the first place. 

And why do the protests need to be right outside the clinic, anyways, if not for the purposes of intimidation?  Why not have rallies on a park the same way most other religious or political protests do?

EDIT; terrorism is simply attempting to coerce through threats.  Inspiring fear and terror through intimidation.  Hence terrorism.

[redmenace]

Civil Disobedience is still disobedience.

A hospital and a women's clinic are hardly the same thing. An abortion is hardly a necessary medical service either. It is also worth stating, that these clinics give medical facilities a bad name. Unsually the way that abortion clinics get closed down is for FLAGRANT violations of medical regulations and in some more or less rare cases bonafied murder and neglect.

Protesting outside a clinic has the purpose of getting the message to the targeted audience. There is a line between intimidation and persuation. Challenging what someone is about to do isn't wrong. Being abusive, pushy and threatening is. Just like protesting outside a GM plant or protesting outside a car dealership, why do groups need to protest outside these locations? Why can't they strike or protest in the middle of the park some where? We wouldn't want them to 'intimidate' scabs or someone want to by an Hummer? If you do it for one group based on fears of 'intimidation' than you should equally be applied to all. To some extent, this at its core might even violate equal protection as it seeks to and directly names a specific industry instead off applying to all IIRC. I could be wrong. I don't know the specifics of the law.