Thank you so much. My favorite part (I love it all) is 'we can't out-liberal the liberals'. We don't have to. It's not about gender or race or demographics. It's about right and wrong. The liberals are killing our children in their mothers' wombs. That's wrong. That's criminal. Our purpose is not to win elections but to stop mass murder. They have no defense there. Aim for the big chink in the armor that just happens to be located right over their black heart.

Well, 'my emotions vs. your reasoning' is not a debate, its a quarrel. And while I realize that the guidelines that Katie layed down might not accurately reflect those of the management, I don't think staying within them would stop her or others like her from more of this anyway. Unless you practice civility yourself, all the admonitions are nothing but a fatuous conceit.

So goodbye. Lot's of nice people here.

Katie O: Your entire post, from beginning to end, begs the question. And I'm sorry you didn't see fit to soften the tone.

Now I've got work to do around the house.

Foxfier: Well, if there was a price to pay here, I'm the one who paid it. I've never been called those things. If the OP read my post and was offended, she at least had two defenders immediately at hand.

If I were at your table and you claimed to have a magic lamp, I'd be either intrigued or incredulous but I would not challenge you. On the other hand, if you made that claim in a serious political debate, I would be so inclined. The debates that surround the abortion controversy and their outcome are deadly serious and I don't think any advocate should be given the privilege of making a claim of fact that cannot be challenged. That's one good reason why we should all be as economical as possible with the claims that we make.

Katie and Herbert: Both of you think my post was in poor taste so I retract it for that reason alone. Katie, you've been here longer than I and I accept your advice at face value although I do not accept the tone of your post. I'd like to think you chose your words in the heat of the moment.

But, for the record, my post had nothing of smear or character assassination about it nor was it disrespectful. In politics -- and, don't kid yourself, that's what this is -- I do not and will not accept every statement at face value. If the rules of this forum state that some claims are beyond questioning (and my post questioned; it did not refute or smear, as you put it), so be it. But is that the rule? What exactly is beyond questioning?

Retracted

'He was a great thundering paradox of a man, noble and ignoble, inspiring and outrageous, arrogant and shy, the best of men and the worst of men, the most protean, most ridiculous, and most sublime.'

 -- William Manchester's biography of Douglas Mac Arthur, American Caesar

Elizabeth Blackney: You are willing to openly accuse a commenter of lying? Who lied? What is the lie?

Roe v. Wade is the law of the land but it is not settled law and it does not correlate with what many good citizens consider natural law. The law of the land, also supposedly settled law, once protected slavery.

I think you know that no one here is judging you in any sense of the word, certainly not in the sense of the Biblical reference you made.

And I am surprised to see this: First build a just society where abortion is not 'needed'. I don't think I've heard that one since the Clinton years.

Western Chauvinist: Thank you.

Only God can make it all better. Rev. 21:4: 'He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.'

You invited Ricochet people into your personal life and elicited sympathy and support and let me add mine. I wish you well.

But you conflate your personal experience with politics and I'm always sorry to see that because it is unfair to use sympathy to promote a political agenda. Tragedy and suffering can bring many noble qualities but they do not confer moral superiority and they should not confer trump cards in the game of politics.

If you have something to say about abortion, please present your case on the merits.

Cornelius Julius Sebastian: Well I am an optimistic person. I hope I can live a happy and productive life in the midst of calamity. You could even argue that those who live during times like these are actually blessed in a way.

Reading Voegelin is really hard but he will open your eyes. Here's a good book about him: http://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Against-Modernity-Voegelin-Postliberal/dp/0700608737/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345754152&sr=1-1&keywords=ted+mcallister

Amen!

My real name is Steve Prescott. Eric Voegelin, 1901-1985 was a German philosopher who identified the sources of political order and disorder. Order comes from things that exist in transcendent reality; disorder comes when those things are denied. We live in an extremely disordered period which is probably far beyond repair.

Glad to hear you're out. Regarding being on the wagon, I was on chemo plus Rituxan last Dec. through May and could not have any alcohol at all. Strangely enough, I didn't miss it but, when it was over, there was a lust that could not be denied. One ice cold bottle of beer after six months of nothing sure tastes good.

Incidentally, the month or so after my diagnosis (stage 3 lymphoma) was a time of intense spiritual ferment. If it didn't sound so ostentatious, I would call it ecstacy. Did you experience anything like that?

Obama can win only if America fails itself and that is possible. But if America is still the same or even nearly the same country that it has always been, then he can't possibly win; the list of failures is too long and too obvious. Americans don't reward failure.

Rocket City Dave: I think of philosophy as a way of living your life and I have to think it's the best way. And, as an aside, I don't think that philosophy and faith exclude each other. A Christian philosopher just accepts revealed truth on it's merits and it's own terms. So I have to disagree with your statement that Philosophy is a tool. It means the love of wisdom. That is a way of living, not a tool.

But on the subject of online learning, I think much of the discussion is missing an important issue and that is cost and school capacity. If there are not enough available opportunities in good schools to accomodate the supply of deserving students, what are the ones that can't get in going to do? It isn't enough to say that the classroom is better than the internet, we know that. The challenge is to find a way to serve those students who can learn and want to learn and it seems to me that the online option should be looked at. It isn't the best option but it's better than nothing.