"Partial Birth" - the baby comes part way to the exit, and then is killed; sounds like an apt description, if you ask me; at any rate, what we're really after is a ban on third trimester abortions (like, you know, France has it) - we needed an illustrative way to make the case that after a point certain, it's no longer a matter of "choice" but of ending an unborn child's life (strictly speaking, any abortion is such - but politics is the art of the possible, and it isn't possible for a full ban). The people agree with us, the law was passed - we didn't get a judge to impose our views on you; we did not usurp your right to participate in the debate.

On the other hand - "baby tax" is just a semantic attempt to make an item into something it's not; there was no tax imposed on babies - I know the desire was to some how convince that we GOPers were imposing an economic burden on future generations but this rings hollow from the Party that wont even consider reform options for Social Security. Our view, of course, is that the economic growth resultant from tax reform will pay in the long run by making the economy so large that the initial additional debt can easily be retired.

What you need are new ideas - the ones you currently advocated having been rountinely rejected at the polls. Isn't insanity the act of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? I have no clue what a leftwinger should be advocating for, but its a sure thing if you keep advocating the same things, even with different slogans, you'll keep losing.

Mark:

The national right to life committee claims that only 1% of all abortions are so called "partial-birth abortions" You use this inflamatory term for late-term abortions in order to spread the negative view for all abortion. How is that not like what you are calling the "Donks" liberal idiots for?

How is calling the debt we create now that will be paid by our babies not as viable for being a "baby tax" as calling late-term abortions "partial birth"? I'm not saying this rhetoric is wrong or right. Try to weasel out of it all you want, but I'm just trying to say that both sides use this misleading rhetoric. It's the way media politics works.

Liberal ideas have not been rejected routinely. They are not represented fully at the polls so they cannot be truely rejected. If we had a campaign system that didn't parade big names around and throw cash everywhere, perhaps we could have real debates where candidates, right and left, discussed issues which are real and important.

A leftwinger could advocate any number of things frankly. I advocate more open and honest elections. Elections with less money and more content. Both sides agree with this but we don't get them. It seems only one of the two big parties bitches at a time because no matter how shitty the election was, one you won. I also advocate stricter environemental laws. Laws which don't let corporations pollute rampantly while we wait for them to decide to not pollute on their own.

It just goes on and on, Mark. Let's talk about it more sometime...