Freedon of relegion and speech does not equal freedom from responsibility or consequences.

Every Day Republicans PROVe they HATE people of the US
Conservitives => HATE GROUP and should be treated as one

I could include quotes – and more importantly, acts in the form of legislation passed into law – by members of both parties, yet I don’t believe all “Liberals => HATE GROUP” anymore than I believe all “Conservatives => HATE GROUP”. It’s a collectivist thought, and there is no practical humanitarian use for those (unless you believe perpetual war is the best way to control overpopulation, in which case the “us vs. the world” mentality comes in quite handy). It’s similar to saying any member of a given minority is inferior to the rest of humanity, and would be better off as slaves. It’s equivalent to believing the Jews were, as a group, responsible for Germany’s social and economic woes of the 1930s, and therefore “The Final Solution” was justified. It’s just un-American as well.

Yes, there are responsibilities and consequences that come, not just with free speech, but with freedom in general! The consequences in this case are this: Until “enlightened” extremists like this one start judging people by their individual merits instead of clinging to easy-for-them-to-understand stereotypes, there will be no useful political dialog, while the problems this country face will only mount – without ever being addressed in a productive manner. Progress will be, not just impeded, but halted, so long as there are folks like this willing to treat all individuals of a group who disagrees with their chosen group, as a “hate group” – just because they disagree with them. The only thing this achieves is a vengeful “eye-for-an-eye” society. What’s more, saying all members of any group should be treated as a hate group, with no evidence other than your hearsay, is a pretty hateful expression in itself.

L.  responded ‘Yes’
L. voted in the poll: “Do you beleive abortion should be legalized nationally? ” along with 56712 other people.

And here’s a newsflash for a country suffering from historical Alzheimer’s:

Roe v. Wade Headline 1973

OK, admittedly, it’s not news, since this paper is dated January 23, 1973. Almost 40 years ago! But some things never change: GM is still recalling cars, Kissinger’s still an idiot (though the Vietnam war is long over despite his best efforts), and the NY Times is still getting things wrong like reporting the “Country Mourns Truman” when Lyndon Johnson died. And, of course, we’re still talking about Roe v. Wade!

The stupidity of that survey is breathtaking, starting with the misspelling of believe! But obvious stupidities in the survey creator aside, even the most staunch conservative isn’t claiming abortion is illegal. At the very least, they want that option available in the event their chaste and pure daughters are violated by some undesirable they don’t approve of.

With so many other issues that haven’t been decided, that weren’t even an issue in 1973, and that are for more critical now, why would anyone care about this almost forty years later? I was thinking my friend L., who is an avowed socialist, was just doing this to impress some feminazi with how liberal he is in the hopes of getting laid.

But the comments to his post prove me wrong:

J: Icky L!!! I don’t want to see that picture
L: Then don’t look at it, J. I’m assuming a conservative made up this poll, they used the craziest photo they could find.

The picture referred to is a bloody aborted fetus – it’s tasteless enough to lead me to believe it was used just to be provocative. However, L likes to use pictures of Charles Manson for his profile picture on Facebook. He currently has one with Manson’s eyes whited out to give the impression of being a zombie or demonically possessed. People in glass houses shouldn’t talk about crazy photos!

Apparently though, the real motive is this: because a conservative made up this poll, L apparently felt it was not only necessary to take the poll but to share it on his wall with all his Facebook friends. He’s letting the Republicrat party determine the “issues” for him, instead of being a free agent capable of his own thoughts and deeds who tells his representatives what the issues are. As liberal as he believes he is, he’s just as reactionary as the most puritanical teetotaler screaming for a boycott of a cable network because they showed some nipple at 3am, rather than just changing the channel or going to bed. Just as divisive too, over an issue politicians love pedaling to the masses and do nothing one way or the other to ever change.

L had better watch what he wishes for. I have a feeling that if we had outright socialized health care as he desires, abortions would be even more limited than they were before Roe v. Wade, because they are both expensive and risky and would have to be limited for purely economic reasons. Why do we follow these thugs? They’ll legislate birth laws into health care, they’ll legislate even more on when and how we’re allowed to die than they already have (anyone remember Terry Schiavo?), and of course, they’ll tell us how to live every day of our lives in between birth and death. There is nothing liberal about losing your liberties over a non-issue.