Discussion with a Liberal — Part 1

For the last few weeks I’ve been engaged in an interesting email conversation with a Liberal who happens to be the husband of an old girlfriend of mine from high school. She is a self-described “knee-jerk Liberal”, and detests discussing politics because, I suspect, she’s is unable to defend her “knee-jerk” positions. Her husband, OTOH, approached me a while back, lamenting the fact that we have become such a hopelessly divided nation, and wanting to know if I had any thoughts on the subject. I said I thought the biggest problem is that each side has some misperceptions of what the other side believes, which, more often than not, prevents any attempts to find common ground; misperceptions that are often exacerbated by an agenda-driven media in an effort to further divide us.  I suggested we engage in a one on one discussion on the condition that we keep it civil.  Upon his agreement to give it a try, I led off with the following:

Splendid.  I’ve never been accused of being an ideologue, and I detest confrontational arguments that almost always end up in name-calling.  I look at political debate, first and foremost, as a learning and mind-expanding experience, rather than a win or lose situation, and, as a result, my thinking on a number of issues has changed over the years.  I have neither tolerance nor respect for people who lie or distort the facts to score political points.  For most of my life I was an unexamined Republican until this marvelous thing called the Internet came along, and I was able to not only question everything I heard, read and saw, but was able to at least attempt to search for the truth.  That the truth doesn’t have an agenda and doesn’t need a majority to prevail has become somewhat of my personal motto, and that’s the lens through which I try to examine every issue.

I view the Constitution as a contract between the government and the people by whose consent the government exists, not perfect, but better than any other governing document ever produced.  To anyone who says the Constitution is a living document that needs to change with the whims of the times by legislation, executive order or judicial fiat, I ask, would you work for me with a “living” employment contract, or borrow money from me with a “living” loan contract, or play poker with me using “living” rules?  I have yet to get a yes to those questions — from anyone.

On social issues, I’m pretty much an agnostic.  Neither the Constitution, nor any of the Founders in any of their writings addressed a need for the federal government to be involved in social issues, and I regret that issues like abortion and gay marriage are allowed to play such a predominant role in national politics.

Hopefully that gives you some idea of where I’m coming from.  What drives how you look at politics?

His response was not really what I expected, and, although he denies being a Liberal at the end, he voted for Obama — twice, an admission of sorts that he supports an uber-liberal agenda.


Regarding the use of the Internet, I’d express a word of caution, it can be replete with inflammatory rhetoric that vast majority of which has NEVER been nor will EVER be vetted. A landslide of opinions. And you know the old line about opinions… “Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and everyone thinks everyone else’s stinks.” So cast a cautious eye on whatever you find out there and due whatever due diligence is possible to find the reality/truth of the situation.

You raise an interesting conundrum regarding the Constitution. Just what parts would you hold to be inviolate? Certainly NOT The amendments since they seem to be the mechanism of making it a “living document” that brings it into the “times”. I’m a little confused by your position here and would like to know more before commenting further. I’m also NOT a Constitutional Specialist by any stretch of the imagination so would like to know more.

One of the things that has always puzzled me about laws, legislation and the rights granted by the Constitution is why do rights, seemingly granted under the Constitution have to subsequently be “granted” through extra legislation? Voting Rights legislation, Civil Rights legislation, Right of Women to Vote being primary examples of my concern in this area. Is it because while we have this grand and noble document we still have to reign in human behavior to keep order in our society? Is this the necessary component for the document to remain viable/alive and in concert with changing times?

It also seems strange to me that rights granted to individuals have now been granted to Corporations… What is that about? Citizens United being a primary example of the latest travesty in this arena.

And just what is so holy and immutable about the terms for Senators and Congressmen? As we have previously discussed, we’re lucky to get a year’s worth of service from members of Congress these days since they seem to be campaigning for re-election from the moment they initially attain office. Are these terms spelled out somewhere in the document or an Amendment? And if so, why can’t these be adjusted by the “will of the people” to remain viable in today’s culture of lobbyists and special interests?

Interesting that you use the word “agnostic” in terms of social issues. I’d only considered it in terms of religious views. Personally, I find the area of abortion a personal one and one that gets legislated strictly on behalf of religious moral views. I may not agree with the concept of abortion personally and, if there is truly separation of church and state then why are religious morals driving this issue? Seems the separation isn’t working as intended.

And for gay marriage, just what is the basis for the furor? Who cares? Who would be harmed if this “right” were granted? Why does the right have to be granted at all? Why is the government meddling in the personal lives of its citizens? Again, I blame the religious extremists for continuing to pursue this vendetta. If love is universal and blind, who are these people to denigrate love between people of the same sex when love between a man and a woman is fraught with problems and such a high divorce rate? Heterosexual couples are in no position to speak about what is right for others at all.

I’m not sure if this was what you were expecting.

Willing to continue with your grand experiment. As long as your know that I’m probably NOT your average Democratic bleeding heart liberal. Nor am I an uber-conservative Republican. Just one of the many stuck in the middle while both extremes continue to tear down our country through intransigence.

In Part 2, my response.

Advertisements

95 thoughts on “Discussion with a Liberal — Part 1

  1. neocon01 March 9, 2013 / 2:55 pm

    I was a facility manager for 10 years at an aircraft hangar, for one of the biggest airlines.
    there were close to 500 mechanics (union) who worked there 2-3 shifts.
    When discussing politics they were ALL (99%) democrats.
    I would ask…….
    are you for gun control?………(a) NO
    are you for illegal aliens staying here? (a) NO
    do you support abortions on demand? (a) NO
    are you for the homosexual agenda? (a) NO
    are you for socialism (marxism)? (a) NO
    are you for big government? (a) NO
    are you for a police state? (a) NO
    do you want the government to control every aspect of your life? (a) NO

    Then WHY the hell are you a democrat???

    (a) “they are for the working man” Hellooooooooooo McFly…knock knock!!

    • M. Noonan March 9, 2013 / 4:31 pm

      Let’s see – the infrastructure (by which I presume you mean roads, bridges, etc) has always been the responsibility of government so, if it is “crumbling” then who is responsible? Government.

      Now, let’s see if you can put two and two together.

    • tiredoflibbs March 9, 2013 / 5:57 pm

      flaky forker: “are you for gun control?………(a) NO actual answer) Within reason i e universal background checks”

      Uh, two things….

      ONE and MOST important: abortion is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution. The guaranteed right “to keep and bear arms” IS in the Constitution. Also, “shall not be infringed” is associated with the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

      ANY sort of gun control …. background checks and waiting periods are an infringement.

      TWO: EVERY TIME a REASONABLE piece of legislation is put forth for waiting periods for abortions (24-72 hours), you proggy drones start screeching about intruding and stomping all over your “right” to choose. There is no right to choose, never has been. The legal “right” to murder the unborn is a result of clever legal maneuvering outside the spirit of the 5th amendment.

      Existing laws the put waiting periods on gun purchases are within 7-10 days and you call that a “reasonable” infringement on my right to keep and bear arms.

      You want it both ways. I have the Constitution on my side you have nothing more that clever legal arm twisting and maneuvering on your side.

      Marxism encompasses an economic theory, a sociological theory, a philosophical method and a revolutionary view of social change.

      obAMATEUR said he was going to fundamentally change this country. His social change in economic policies is marxist.

      GM has government ownership as well as several banks and the entire student loan program and massive regulation on the private sector businesses, this however is more fascism – which is between capitalism and marxism. We are definitely headed in the direction of Marx. You are just in denial.

      We can’t expect anything less from a forker than denial, hypocrisy and two-faced political BS – “you can’t do that because I said so. However, I can do what I want.”

    • tiredoflibbs March 9, 2013 / 6:15 pm

      flaky forker: “yes that can get things done. Big things like fixing America’s crumbling infrastructure.”

      Uh, forker, this country survived and was built on smaller government long before FDR and LBJ social crap. The interstate system was built and maintained without the need for huge government.

      Only when government began it great move left for massive entitlements (social security was much smaller and self-sustaining long before the massive expansions starting in the 60s), that the government could not maintain its infrastructure. The leftist programs that do nothing but make and keep people dependent on MORE government began sucking resources away from our infrastructure and its ability to be less inefficient than it is now.

      I see you proggies want change, but why change what already was working and why don’t you move to areas where the change has already taken place?

      The answer is you can’t. Your ideology requires everyone to live the way you want them to. Freedom is an all to powerful force that contradicts the political ideology you so embrace.

      History has shown this to be true as well as showing your political model to be a complete failure – and that is the direction we are headed under this SCOAMF of a pResident.

      BTW “MF” stands for Miserable Failure, but you will be stuck in your racist BS and claim otherwise.

      • neocon01 March 10, 2013 / 2:36 pm

        55,000,000 DEAD BABIES and rising mao & hitler would be so proud of you marxist ghouls..

  2. M. Noonan March 9, 2013 / 3:08 pm

    I’ll take the word “granted” and start the ball rolling. To me, this is a fundamental misconception, that our rights are granted by the Constitution. They are secured by the constitution, not granted. Our rights exist prior to all governments and prior to all other actions – at the moment we are created (and this is true whether you think it an act of God or Nature), we are endowed with rights – we organize our government to secure the rights we are endowed with.

    Now, to be sure, our understanding of what is an inherent human right is subject to modification over time. These days, for instance, you probably wouldn’t find anyone saying we don’t have a right to vote whereas in past times we limited the vote a great deal. What this means is that when we founded our nation, we weren’t interested in securing a right to vote because we didn’t believe there was such a thing. These days, we do and so we secure it in our constitution. It is an error, however, to project backwards in time our current notions – those in the past who did not enact laws to secure a right to vote for each citizen over the age of 18 were not engaged in evil; they merely had a different idea of what constitutes a fundamental, human right.

    We can also get it wrong the other way – these days there are plenty of people who assert we have a right to health care, to housing and to food. But to me this is nonsense because if I have a right to any of these things then I essentially have the right to compel people to provide them – and what of their rights if I can so compel?

    In the misconception surrounding “granted” and “secured” is the basic political difference between liberalism and conservatism. You can grant a lot more than you can secure – and as liberalism has been steadily seeking to grant things, it has gone further and further away from securing. I might be granted a “right” to social security checks, but it means I have less security in my right to property. Conservatism is about securing – understanding that it is best, at all times, to preserve and strengthen what is than to seek new mountains to climb. That the new mountains will be climbed is indisputable – but to try and make government the mountaineer means that we’ll steadily erode the actual rights our constitution was established to secure.

    • neocon01 March 9, 2013 / 3:19 pm

      Right on brotha!!

    • neocon01 March 9, 2013 / 3:21 pm

      I always ask liberals, if socialism is sooooo good, WHY do they need fences, barbed wire, mine fields, armed soldiers to keep their citizens in???

      Duhhhhh!

    • rustybrown2012 March 9, 2013 / 5:46 pm

      Mark,
      I disagree with your understanding of rights expressed in your statement:
      “Our rights exist prior to all governments and prior to all other actions – at the moment we are created (and this is true whether you think it an act of God or Nature), we are endowed with rights”

      …”Rights” simply don’t exist in nature; they are social constructs which are indeed created and secured by civilized people or, in short, government. How would you begin to justify your belief that rights are innate?

      • Cluster March 9, 2013 / 6:03 pm

        Crusty,

        You completely missed the difference between “granted” and “secured” that Mark was speaking of. We are all born with the right to our life, our liberty and our pursuit of happiness. Those are the rights our Constitution has secured for us. All other “rights” are manufactured by men, “granted” by men, and can be stripped away by men. Which hardly makes them “rights”, rather allowances. You are “allowed” to do something, so long as the powers to be “grant” you that priveledge.

      • Cluster March 9, 2013 / 6:16 pm

        As another example, the additional rights our founders “granted” us as Americans, and that our Consititution secures for us, ie; the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, etc. are under attack daily.

      • rustybrown2012 March 9, 2013 / 6:37 pm

        Cluster,
        I missed nothing. It’s my contention that in this context the terms “granted” and “secured” are distinctions without a difference. Again, my position is that there are no innate rights. I’ll propose the question to you as we’ll as Mark: what is your argument for the inbred existence of rights?

        With your statement “All other “rights” are manufactured by men, “granted” by men, and can be stripped away by men. Which hardly makes them “rights”, rather allowances”, you seem to be implying that an inherent quality of a right is that it cannot be taken away, yet men routinely deprive other men of life, liberty and happiness. Am I misreading you here?

      • tiredoflibbs March 9, 2013 / 6:38 pm

        Obviously, crustybrown you have never read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers where our RIGHTS ARE “ENDOWED TO US FROM OUR CREATOR”.

        You may disagree crusty, but you are wrong.

      • Cluster March 9, 2013 / 6:43 pm

        …..it cannot be taken away, yet men routinely deprive other men of life, liberty and happiness. Am I misreading you here?

        Tired beat me to it in respects to our rights being endowed by our Creator. And the only “men” that deprive others of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are liberals, and they do that through abortion, big government, and just being having self righteous liberals around pretty much kills the happiness buzz.

      • rustybrown2012 March 9, 2013 / 6:43 pm

        Cluster:
        “As another example, the additional rights our founders “granted” us as Americans, and that our Consititution secures for us, ie; the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, etc. are under attack daily.”

        …you seem to be contradicting yourself. I thought you agreed with Mark that rights can’t be “granted”. Take a breath.

      • Cluster March 9, 2013 / 6:54 pm

        Of course they can be granted crusty. Again, your reading comprehension is lacking. You missed the point Mark was making about secured and granted. You then go on to miss my point about rights endowed, and rights granted. Try and keep up.

      • rustybrown2012 March 9, 2013 / 6:59 pm

        Tired,
        I’m quite aware of that declaration and it provides exactly zero evidence that rights are innate. Anyone, including our founding fathers, can “claim” rights are inherent, but that in itself does not make it fact. In this case it just makes it a founding legal principle of our country. Our founding documents are written by men outlining their view of society in often flowery language. This in no way means that every one of their statements is inviolate, objective fact. So you, dear sir, are the one who’s wrong. Still waiting for a real argument for the innate qualities of rights – one more powerful than “he said so”.

        What a world you guys live in – “if a man that I admire says something, it’s an undisputed law of the universe!”

      • Cluster March 9, 2013 / 6:59 pm

        Mark had an excellent point, but I believe that we three inherent rights endowed to us by our Creator – that is with or without government. We then have rights granted by our founders, and secured to us by our Constitution. And again, those rights are under attack daily.

      • Cluster March 9, 2013 / 7:02 pm

        So Crusty, you believe that men do not have the right to life and liberty? Or to a lesser extent the pursuit of happiness? That’s actually frightening. That’s a hell of a statement and one I would only expect from someone like Stalin.

      • rustybrown2012 March 9, 2013 / 7:07 pm

        Cluster,
        Your the one who’s confused. Marks original point that I took issue with is that “rights exist prior to all governments and prior to all other actions – at the moment we are created”. So if they already exist, simpleton, how in the name of Zeus can they be granted? Idiot.

      • Cluster March 9, 2013 / 7:12 pm

        Wow, you’re really going off the rails crusty. First of all, my point is not Mark’s point. Mark had said that some rights are inherent, and I agreed with him to the extent that I believe there are three inherent rights that need no government involvement. There rest in my opinion, are granted, and secured by our Constitution. You missed the point entirely about the inherent rights, of which I noted. You then went on to claim that men DO NOT have the right to life and liberty, of which I believe is a very dangerous belief.

        That’s all. Have a nice day.

      • rustybrown2012 March 9, 2013 / 7:21 pm

        I see you are back to insults and personal attacks. Do you not understand the rules or are you playing a game to see how far you can go before you are kicked off again? //Moderator

      • M. Noonan March 9, 2013 / 7:26 pm

        Rusty,

        Well, we hold these truths to be self-evident – essentially, in order to be an American, you are required to believe that we are endowed by our Creator with rights.

        Now, if you wish to assert that our rights are not self-evident, then you’re treading on dangerous grounds because then they become contingent upon society, as a whole, wanting you to have them…and that works out well as long as society wants you to have a right to life, liberty, property, etc. But if your rights are not endowed and a majority wants to, say, take away your right to life, then what is your argument against it? Mine is that I have a self-evident right to life.

      • Cluster March 9, 2013 / 7:30 pm

        Again crusty, my argument is not Mark’s. Try and stay focused for once in your life.

        And again, I will only say that to believe the all men DO NOT have the right to life and liberty, is a very dangerous belief and one that is at the foundation of fascism.

      • rustybrown2012 March 9, 2013 / 7:35 pm

        So Cluster “believe(s) there are three inherent rights that need no government involvement.” Priceless! Who knew we didn’t need laws against murder and kidnapping? Cluster, that’s who!

      • Cluster March 9, 2013 / 7:38 pm

        So now you’re equating an inherent right endowed to by us our creator with a law??

        How in the hell did you make that jump?

      • rustybrown2012 March 9, 2013 / 8:26 pm

        Cluster,
        It’s right there in your quote. You state that inherent rights “need no government involvement”. Laws are government involvement. You’re a very confused man, aren’t you.

      • Cluster March 9, 2013 / 8:54 pm

        Crusty,

        A right is very different from a law.

      • Cluster March 9, 2013 / 8:56 pm

        In other words crusty – I don’t need government to have my right to life, right liberty, or my right to pursue happiness.

      • tiredoflibbs March 9, 2013 / 8:59 pm

        Then crusty the left’s whole argument that the gays have the right to marry is wrong. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT UNTIL IT IS GIVEN TO THEM BY SOCIETY. That is your belief, therefore gays do not have the right to marry – it is not endowed by the creator nor innate to them. They don’t have that right, period.

        Thanks for clarifying that.

        Don’t you just hate it when your own words are used against you?

      • rustybrown2012 March 9, 2013 / 9:04 pm

        Mark,
        I think these truths are self-evident to a modern, civilized society, but they come from man and man alone. Maybe we’re just getting into semantic boundary waters here because we both believe that we should ACT as if these are innate rights in order to live in a just society, it’s just that in the proper sense of the term, they ARE NOT innate rights – and there is a difference between the two thoughts. And like it or not, these rights are contingent on society. This is self-evident in that many cultures do not value these rights as we do. So yes, I’m admitting to the fragile, transitory nature of rights.

        So I think you misspoke when you claimed “Our rights exist prior to all governments and prior to all other actions – at the moment we are created (and this is true whether you think it an act of God or Nature)”. To me this means rights are like freckles and cleft chins. But this is not so. Man bestows rights upon man, and as we’ve grown more civilized, particular rights become inviolable to a just society.

        Further, your statement “essentially, in order to be an American, you are required to believe that we are endowed by our Creator with rights.” is flat out wrong and you know it. There are quite obviously no requirements to believe in a creator or the inherent nature of rights in order to be an American. I’m living proof of this.

      • rustybrown2012 March 9, 2013 / 9:13 pm

        Tired,
        I never claimed that I don’t believe in RIGHTS, you blockhead, only that rights are generated by man and not innate. So yes, society should grant gays the right to marry.

        What a pathetic attempt at a gotcha.

      • tiredoflibbs March 9, 2013 / 10:12 pm

        Wow, crusty, you got a little hot under the collar with that one!

        I never said “you did not believe in rights”. Your failure at reading comprehension has gotten the better of you once again.

        You wrote: “”Rights” simply don’t exist in nature; they are social constructs which are indeed created and secured by civilized people or, in short, government.”

        I wrote: “NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT UNTIL IT IS GIVEN TO THEM BY SOCIETY. That is your belief, therefore gays do not have the right to marry – it is not endowed by the creator nor innate to them. ”
        You muffed that one – just like several others.

        You said yourself that gays should be given the right to marry. So, the leftist argument that gays have the right to get married is wrong. They don’t have the right until the people – government – GRANT it to them. You said it yourself, as I have proven. If society does not see fit to do that then they are SOL.

        It’s not a pathetic gotcha. It is USING YOUR WORDS AND ARGUMENTS AGAINST YOU. If there is any pathetic attempt at a “gotcha” it is on you.

      • M. Noonan March 9, 2013 / 11:20 pm

        Rusty,

        Don’t blame me – those are Jefferson’s words, not mine. But that, if anything, is the real, bedrock creed of an American – it is the reason we have a nation. If it is not a self-evident truth that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, then there’s no point in the whole, 236 year long experiment here in these United States. We fought because our unalienable rights were being denied…had we not had them, then there was no reason to fight.

        As for me, I have a right to life – absolute, granted by God and neither you nor anyone else, under any color of authority, have a right to take it from me. If someone tries to, I’ll fight them, even to death. The weakness of your view is that if a solid majority of the voters decided that you should no longer live, you have no argument to make against it. They just need calmly inform you that the latest information indicates that your granted right to life has been revoked, and you’re cooked. Me? I fight against it – because I have a right to live, and I’ll appeal to my fellow citizens to stand with me, warning them that if someone can kill me without cause, then anyone may be so killed…you could say the same thing, of course, but the advanced thinkers you present your case to won’t understand because, after all, what the voters have given the voters can take away…sure, they were keen about keeping you alive for a while there, but then they found some good reason to kill you.

      • rustybrown2012 March 9, 2013 / 11:22 pm

        Tired,
        I’m gonna try and explain this in a way that even you will understand. There is no gotcha. You are not using my words against me. I stand by every single thing I said and none of it is contradictory. I never said “gays have the right to marry”, somebody else may have said it, but it wasn’t me. What I said was “gays SHOULD have the right to marry”. Even your addled brain should be able to comprehend that I can’t be held accountable to what someone else has said.

        So I agree with your assessment of my position, that people/government should grant gays the right to marry, but there’s no gotcha because that’s consistent with what I’VE ALWAYS SAID. Now go find someone to read you a bedtime story.

      • tiredoflibbs March 10, 2013 / 6:41 am

        As Count said before, crusty.

        “apology accepted”.

        Nice way of backtracking there crusty! You accuse me of misrepresenting you, then after realizing your mistake you try to make nice, while ignoring everything else that took place.

        Are you a politician?

        There is one item I had slightly incorrect – the left (including the pResident) has said that “gays have the CONSTITUTIONAL right to get married”.

        Which still supports my assertion, that you believe rights are not innate. Therefore, they have no right until society deems as such.

        No bedtime story is needed, since you apologized for your tantrum and inaccuracies earlier.

      • rustybrown2012 March 10, 2013 / 1:18 pm

        Tired,
        I can see this is going to be a template for you guys: when you’re clearly whipped in a debate, say “apology accepted” and declare victory! It’s a tactic not used by anyone other than slow schoolchildren, but if it works for you who am I to discourage?

      • tiredoflibbs March 10, 2013 / 6:10 pm

        crusty get’s it wrong again!: “when you’re clearly whipped in a debate, say “apology accepted” and declare victory!”

        Uh, this from a guy who misrepresents (lied) as to what I said about him on two occasions!

        To reiterate since you have a huge problem with reading comprehension. You claimed that I said to you “you did not believe in rights” – I did not, LIE #1. You claimed that I stated that you said this, “gays have the right to marry.” – I did not, LIE #2.

        The only claim I made as to what you said was “”Rights” simply don’t exist in nature; they are social constructs which are indeed created and secured by civilized people or, in short, government.”

        That is the only claim I made towards you. If you are going to say that I was whipped in the debate when you have made accusations and arguments of things I said that were not true, then there is no way anyone can win an argument with you if you keep moving the goal posts.

        You then made nice in your final post hoping to end the argument there before you dug yourself any deeper.

      • rustybrown2012 March 10, 2013 / 6:56 pm

        Tired,
        I shouldn’t be doing this, but one last time. Here, verbatim, AND IN ITS ENTIRETY is your original “gotcha” post on the subject at hand, with my annotations in parentheses:

        “Then crusty the left’s whole argument that the gays have the right to marry is wrong. (Yes, i agree with this. They are wrong) NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT UNTIL IT IS GIVEN TO THEM BY SOCIETY. (Again, yes, i agree with this) That is your belief, therefore gays do not have the right to marry – it is not endowed by the creator nor innate to them. They don’t have that right, period. (Yet again, yes, I agree with you. Gays do not have the right to marry. Society should grant them the right to marry.)
        Thanks for clarifying that.
        Don’t you just hate it when your own words are used against you?”

        …so since I agree with everything you state and have never said anything previously to contradict this, where exactly is your gotcha?Is your defective argument finally clear to you now?

      • tiredoflibbs March 10, 2013 / 8:26 pm

        I don’t know crusty, you said it was a ” pathetic attempt a gotcha”, when you claimed that I said that “you did not believe in rights”. You tell me where….

        Sheesh.

      • tiredoflibbs March 10, 2013 / 8:47 pm

        Another thing crusty, I have explained it several times and EACH TIME YOU GET IT WRONG with you distorting what I said.

        If you haven’t understood it now, there is no hope for you. I was very clear. Have someone else read it to you, that way your poor reading comprehension won’t get in your way.

        You are just going in circles and deflecting – a typical lefty tactic.

      • rustybrown2012 March 10, 2013 / 11:23 pm

        Tired,
        In my last post I quoted YOUR ENTIRE ORIGINAL POST VERBATIM where you claimed a gotcha, and clearly demonstrated that no gotcha exists. If ya don’t get it by now, ya never will. Good day, idiot.

      • tiredoflibbs March 11, 2013 / 5:33 am

        crusty: “Tired,
        In my last post I quoted YOUR ENTIRE ORIGINAL POST VERBATIM where you claimed a gotcha, and clearly demonstrated that no gotcha exists. If ya don’t get it by now, ya never will. Good day, idiot.”

        Uh, you quoted my original post and ignored the entire exchange following where I explained it and pointed out where you LIED about my responses.

        If you want to cherrypick posts that hardly prove your point and ignore the rest that is fine with me. It just shows what a small man you are. To you denial, is only a river in Egypt.

        “Good day, idiot” – and now we have the typical leftist response when he has used the last of his tricks after losing the debate.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 11, 2013 / 3:29 pm

        William Blackstone ( on the Law of England)held that the job of formal law “is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights which were vested in them the immutable laws of nature.

        James Kent (writings on American Law) ~ the advantage of written laws among nations, “the most useful and practical part of the law of nations is instituted or positive law, founded on usage, consent, and agreement” However, one could not exclude, Kent wrote, the importance of “natural jurisprudence.”

        But rusty knows more of “law” than these old dead white guys.

    • rustybrown2012 March 9, 2013 / 11:41 pm

      Mark,
      Show me where Jefferson said “in order to be an American, you are required to believe that we are endowed by our Creator with rights.” I must have missed that.

      As for the second part of your argument, I must confess I find your logic to be very peculiar and unconvincing. I can’t even really respond to it because it simply makes no sense to me; I don’t know where to begin. The notion that I would have no argument against others who arbitrarily decide to kill me; this strange dystopia you present where people would be deaf to a victims cries for his right to live. I’m sorry, this is a fevored fantasy, not a logical argument.

      • rustybrown2012 March 9, 2013 / 11:43 pm

        I meant “fevered”. I think I have a fever.

      • M. Noonan March 10, 2013 / 12:05 am

        Pel,

        Its a matter of reading it – “we hold these truths to be self evident”. Sure, you can be an American citizen, legally, and not subscribe to that…but I wonder what the point of being an American is if you don’t believe in the ideals enshrined in our Declaration.

        What you’re missing – on purpose, I suspect – is that if your rights are granted, they can be un-granted. Your rights are either absolute or they are not – if they are absolute, then you are endowed with them an no one may justly take them away…but if they aren’t, and your view is that they are not, then its just a matter of people voting to take away from you any thing they want.

      • rustybrown2012 March 10, 2013 / 12:35 am

        I’m reposting this – plopped it in the wrong place the last time:
        Mark,
        Sorry, you’re just making a logical error here. My rights would be in no more danger of being rescinded than yours because whoever is doing the rescinding is a human being, or a collection of human beings with their own reasons and wouldn’t give a damn if those rights were granted by man or if you were born with them. History is flush with both atheistic and religious brutes taking away the most fundamental rights of others. So you could cry out to your tormentors “but my rights are god-given”, and it might even give you solace, but it wouldn’t deter them.

  3. 02casper March 9, 2013 / 3:38 pm

    “To anyone who says the Constitution is a living document that needs to change with the whims of the times by legislation, executive order or judicial fiat, I ask, would you work for me with a “living” employment contract, or borrow money from me with a “living” loan contract, or play poker with me using “living” rules? I have yet to get a yes to those questions — from anyone.”

    The teaching contract I operate under isn’t the same as the one my father operated under 50 years ago and it’s far different than teaching contracts 200 years ago. Legal agreements have changed and continue to change over time. Our country isn’t the same country that our founding fathers lived. It has evolved. it would make sense that our interpretation of the constitution has also evolved.

    • neocon01 March 9, 2013 / 3:42 pm

      it would make sense that our interpretation of the constitution has also evolved.

      only to some nitwit that does not understand our country.

      • 02casper March 9, 2013 / 5:01 pm

        “You want it, now – and, darn it, if we won’t give it to you, you’ll just ignore the law and ram it down our throats.”

        Except that isn’t what is happening. No one is ignoring the law or the Constitution.

      • tiredoflibbs March 9, 2013 / 6:27 pm

        cappy: “No one is ignoring the law or the Constitution.”

        Wow. Let’s see, we have obAMATEUR declaring that the Senate is in recess (they went home for the weekend) and makes appointments to the Labor Relations Board without the oversight of Congress. The courts ruled that these appointments were not within his powers since the SENATE WAS NOT IN RECESS. Those individuals are still on the board and imposing their decisions on us.

        how’s that for ONE example of “ignoring the law”

        Then we have others one especially directs the justice department not to enforce laws that would result in ILLEGAL ALIENS not being deported as required by law!

        obAMATEUR is required by law to put forth a budget – he has not for four years! Deadlines come and go and no budgets.

        Defense contractors were encouraged by the White House not to issue layoff notices as required by law that just so happened to coincide with the election.

        The list goes on and on, cappy. Of course we all know you choose to ignore facts. You choose not to do the research necessary to back up your statement (you can’t because nothing will support it).

        Your statement is either a massive lie or massive ignorance.

        pathetic.

      • Amazona March 9, 2013 / 6:35 pm

        casper is willfully blind to the subversions of the Constitution committed by his hero, Barry, and the Boyz. But then he thinks the Constitution ought to flex, bend and give whenever it gets in the way of something someone wants.

        We can be sure that if the Constitution was being bent, flexed and forced to give to accommodate the whims of the Right, cappy would be squealing like—–well, like cappy.

    • M. Noonan March 9, 2013 / 4:34 pm

      Casper,

      Change is built in to the Constitution – but if you want to change it, then you have to amend it. The Founder’s idea – which is 100% correct – is that major changes in the way we govern should only come about after they have become the general desire of most people…and so a 2/3 vote in Congress and 3/4 of the States must ratify. The problem with a “living” constitution is that your side wants to essentially change the document without gaining the necessary consensus of what the change should be. You want it, now – and, darn it, if we won’t give it to you, you’ll just ignore the law and ram it down our throats.

      It doesn’t matter what good is desired – if you can’t get most of us to agree to do it, it shouldn’t be done…and, just perhaps, if most of us don’t want it, maybe it isn’t as good as you think it is? A little humility could go a long way – but that is a Christian virtue, of course.

    • tiredoflibbs March 9, 2013 / 6:34 pm

      cappy: “it would make sense that our interpretation of the constitution has also evolved.”

      Really? so what does the phrase “shall not be infringed” mean today? Does it mean “it can be infringed within reason”? Because that is what all you mindless drones keep regurgitating when it comes the RIGHT to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS! But, of course, it cannot apply to the right of “free speech” – oh wait, only to conservative political ads.

      If you were knowledgable, you would know that the Founding Fathers put in a mechanism for changing the Constitution and never intended for it to change with the political winds.

      Legal agreements have changed, but their change is well documented. “Interpretations” are not well documented and will mean something different from one person to the next. You cannot have a basis of law that is so wishy-washy as that.

      Wow, cappy, I am more afraid for your students more and more. Hopefully, you are teaching math where 2+2 will always equal 4 and is not left to your “interpretation”.

    • Retired Spook March 9, 2013 / 6:52 pm

      The teaching contract I operate under isn’t the same as the one my father operated under 50 years ago and it’s far different than teaching contracts 200 years ago.

      That’s not the kind of “living” change I’m talking about, Casper, and I think you know that. If you don’t, then you’re more dense than I thought. Would you work under a contract that stated that anything in it could be changed by the principal of your school without your input, or by the school board without negotiation with your union? Nah, didn’t think so.

      • 02casper March 9, 2013 / 7:34 pm

        ‘That’s not the kind of “living” change I’m talking about, Casper, and I think you know that. If you don’t, then you’re more dense than I thought. Would you work under a contract that stated that anything in it could be changed by the principal of your school without your input, or by the school board without negotiation with your union? ”

        Different boards and different principals have interpreted the contract in different ways just as different courts, congresses, and presidents have interpreted the Constitution in different ways. The document that I work under changes from year to year and in some cases the changes have been made without negotiation or input.

      • Retired Spook March 9, 2013 / 8:05 pm

        The document that I work under changes from year to year and in some cases the changes have been made without negotiation or input.

        Well, my first reaction is, it sucks to be you. Upon second thought, and, at the risk of calling you a liar, I don’t believe a legally binding contract can be breached by one of the parties to the contract without legal consequences. An exception might conceivably be if the contract contains a clause or clauses that allow for modifications to occur under certain circumstances. But that’s not what we have in the amendment provision of the Constitution. If we have any attorney’s in the audience, I’d be interested in a (free) opinion.

      • 02casper March 9, 2013 / 8:28 pm

        “Well, my first reaction is, it sucks to be you. Upon second thought, and, at the risk of calling you a liar, I don’t believe a legally binding contract can be breached by one of the parties to the contract without legal consequences.”

        I didn’t say the contract was breached, only that it is sometimes interpreted in different ways. Much has the Constitution is interpreted in different ways.

    • Amazona March 10, 2013 / 10:39 am

      casper, if your teaching contract says you get paid $ x per month, do you think this should mean that you absolutely DO get paid $ x per month? What if a new superintendent were to “interpret” your contract to say it means, for example, $ x per quarter? Or if you were to be paid $ x per month but only if you meet certain criteria that were not in the original contract?

      You are hired to teach, paid to teach. What if a new authority decides to interpret “teach” to mean every student has to learn to a certain level, and you only get paid if all your students can prove that you have actually taught them by getting 100% of test questions right? It’s not in your contract, but an “interpretation” decides that teaching means imparting information and if you have not imparted an arbitrary amount of information you have not done your job, so you should not get paid.

      You say “It has evolved. it would make sense that our interpretation of the constitution has also evolved.”

      What utter hogwash. What makes sense is that if changes are necessary they are made to the Constitution itself, through its process for amendment, and not simply by the vagaries of “interpretation”.

      Surely even you can see the dangers of having an infinitely flexible “living document” dependent upon “interpretation”. Oh, you are fine when the “interpreters” represent your own political alignment, but I am sure if the “interpretation” were to be made by people with whom you do not agree it would be a different story. That’s when you would suddenly decide that the letter of the law is what counts, not on how it is “interpreted”.

      And just what would you change about the Constitution? What in it does not work, or would not work?

      • Retired Spook March 10, 2013 / 12:04 pm

        Surely even you can see the dangers of having an infinitely flexible “living document” dependent upon “interpretation”.

        Amazona,

        Many of our current problems stem from 100 years of doing exactly that.

  4. mitchethekid March 9, 2013 / 4:04 pm

    Leave it to Neo, to take a a nice friendly discussion and pee all over it.

    • tiredoflibbs March 9, 2013 / 6:16 pm

      Leave it to mitchie to be cowardly enough not to comment on topic but attack other posters.

      Typical and pathetic.

      • Amazona March 9, 2013 / 6:32 pm

        Hey, that’s mitche. He never has anything to offer but unwelcome peeks into a rage-driven irrational psyche.

        He is a Liberal but doesn’t know why. He has no clue, or interest, regarding the political system that the Left represents, as it hides behind the emotion-driven issues that lure the brainless into their tent.

    • neocon01 March 10, 2013 / 2:38 pm

      bmitch

      what’s the matter bomber boy cant handle the truth?
      most of your kind cant!

  5. GMB March 9, 2013 / 5:25 pm

    You regret that abortion an homosexual marriage have become such divisive issues?

    Ok why don’t you go and see how much taxpayer money is spent to subsidize abortion and the homosexual agenda.

    Then put an end to it.

    Then join the growing movement to amend the Constitution to permanently end legalized murder and another amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

    You can call social conservatives such as myself what ever name that makes you fell better. However if you wish to keep the Republican Party a viable option , you best pay heed to this.

    The Republican Party wants our time, money, and votes and will give us nothing in return. This only insures that until the collapse comes you will be ruled by the communist/progressive left.

    • Cluster March 9, 2013 / 6:09 pm

      This only insures that until the collapse comes you will be ruled by the communist/progressive left

      So your isolated from that rule? Is it better for you to be ruled by the progressive left, than by fiscal conservatives who aren’t 100% socially conservative as you are?

      • Amazona March 9, 2013 / 6:55 pm

        Cluster, we will see this argument over and over again, because if FEELS good to make it, because by making it some can lay claim to the Higher Moral Ground.

        But it is based on either ignorance of or indifference to the way our government is established.

        We’ve been through this before but GMB is far more interested in staking out his claim than paying attention to reason or fact.

        The very important moral and social issues upon which we all agree are not, Constitutionally speaking, within the purview of the federal government. To demand that they be placed there is to be the exact equal of the Left which wants to distort the Constitution for its own ends, just the other side of the coin.

        The places to fight the Issues Battles are local government and state government. This is where laws can rightfully be made and where amendments are approved.

      • GMB March 9, 2013 / 8:07 pm

        I depend on government very little right now. If all government should collapse tomorrow morning, my family and I would survive very nicely. There is very little that we can not provide for ourselves.

        “Is it better for you to be ruled by the progressive left, than by fiscal conservatives who aren’t 100% socially conservative as you are?”

        I am telling like it is. Not how you wish it to be.How far left are you willing to go for your silver?

      • Cluster March 9, 2013 / 8:58 pm

        I am just asking you GMB. Why can’t you answer without turning it around on me? I think social issues should be decided at a local level, not a national level. How about you?

      • GMB March 9, 2013 / 10:02 pm

        Did you not read my first post?

        ‘Ok why don’t you go and see how much taxpayer money is spent to subsidize abortion and the homosexual agenda.

        Then put an end to it.”

        Do that first then we will see. Once you have that little victory under your belt it will do wonders for your morale. As long as you are spending federal money advancing the homosexual agenda and the abortion clinics, you are making it a federal issue.

        Is that clear enough?

        As far as turning anything around on you, how? You asked me a question and I answered it.

        In my opinion, a Republican Party, that is more interested in associating with those that are abortionist, advancing the homosexual agenda, or the illegal immigration agenda, than the Christian Right are not even worth talking to anymore. You have already made your choice who you want under your big tent.

        A dead baby in one hand or money in the other? You tell me, as a Christian, which issue should be more important to me?

        Amazona.

        I do not even read your posts anymore. There is no point in it. I see your name and I skip over. If you really want me to read your thoughts, best use one of your many sock puppets.

      • Amazona March 9, 2013 / 10:28 pm

        waaaaaaa waaaaaaaa waaaaaaaa

      • Cluster March 10, 2013 / 10:15 am

        GMB,

        Why are you waiting for people like me to do your heavy lifting? How about if you Christian Right social conservatives form your own party, gain the majority and take control? Any thoughts on that?

  6. Amazona March 9, 2013 / 6:49 pm

    Spook, one of many things that stands out in your friend’s comment is his submission to the idea that there is something wrong with being judgmental. If you take his refusal to make a moral judgment on abortion to its logical end, then then every decision is a personal one. The decision that you have an equal right to property currently held by another is, at heart, a personal decision. The decision to drive after ten drinks is, at heart, a personal one. The decision that you will benefit more, financially, by killing your wife instead of divorcing her is, at heart, a personal one.

    The role of society is to make judgments on what is acceptable and then to establish rules to rein in actions which go beyond those boundaries. The most basic of these boundaries protect life and property and country. When a group decides that only some life should be protected, and that those who stand to benefit from the ending of a life have the sole decision-making power to do so, society is poorly served. Those who support the protection of the ability to end human life for the convenience or profit of others based upon the age of that life—–a bar which has been steadily moved to expand the age of vulnerability—-are saying that society has only the responsibility of protecting lives which others have deemed to be valuable.

    We understand the concept of conflict of interest. We understand that a judge cannot rule in a case where he has a personal interest. Yet we have millions of people who blithely dismiss the most blatant conflict of interest of all, that of a female to kill her unborn (or even recently born) child because this will benefit HER.

    The Left spins this as part of its justification—that this is a decision to be made only by the female involved. This is turning fairness and conflict of interest on its head. That is like saying the decision of a judge in a matter affecting his life is supported by his interest–who better to make the decision than the one most impacted by it?

    • rustybrown2012 March 9, 2013 / 10:18 pm

      Ama, your tortured analogies are farcical. And when pretending to take the high moral ground by advocating making abortions illegal, you should really know what you’re advocating: no change in the abortion rate and greatly increased maiming and death for women:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=2&

      • Amazona March 9, 2013 / 10:28 pm

        Abortion is always dangerous for the inconvenient human being targeted for death, and I find it hard to come up with much sympathy for what happens to a female gestator who exerts her power over a helpless human being because it is just not convenient for her to carry it to term.

        You people are all about “choice”. Well, the “choice” to kill off a human being sometimes includes the choice to run the risks associated with this “choice”.

        “Maiming”. What a drama queen.

        As a woman who was brought up to feel proud of being a woman, I can’t consider a female so pathologically selfish as an abortion-seeker a woman. Or a mother. She is merely a female.

      • neocon01 March 10, 2013 / 2:29 pm

        JR

        Progressives and the useful idiots who support them abort themselves out of existence.

        BINGO….or just keep on shooting them selves like in chiCago.

    • rustybrown2012 March 9, 2013 / 10:40 pm

      OK, got it. You advocate making abortion illegal not for the protection of innocent babies but to increase the likelihood of injury and death for women getting abortions. Pro-life indeed.

      • rustybrown2012 March 9, 2013 / 10:53 pm

        …and what’s your beef with my accurate use of the word “maiming”?
        Are you having another one of your idiosyncratic vocabulary problems again? I hope Wikipedia isn’t too arcane a source for ya:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortion

      • Amazona March 9, 2013 / 10:54 pm

        Oh, come off it! Show me where I “advocate” harm to pathologically selfish females making the decision to kill off inconvenient children. Of a history of abysmally stupid comments, this latest one of yours sets a record. No, it is not just stupid—it is an outright lie.

        You guys are all about “fairness”, right? Well, isn’t it fair to, as you guys love to say, “level the playing field” and let the female gestators share some of the risks?

        After all, no one makes them seek out baby-killers to scrape or suck out the product of their sexual indulgences. This is a “choice” they make, just as it was a choice to have sex when they already knew they did not want to have a baby. You people just want the “choice” part to kick in when it allows ease of ducking the responsibility for prior choices.

      • Amazona March 9, 2013 / 11:00 pm

        You’re so funny. For one thing, ALL abortions are “unsafe” for the innocent victims of the irresponsibility and selfishness of female gestators. The very term “safe abortion” is an oxymoron.

        Second, just what “maiming” are you squealing about? There is more “maiming” due to botched breast implants than to illegal abortions. Get your own terms straight.

        If you claim that a side effect of infertility is a “maiming” then come right out and say so. STDs also cause infertility. Why don’t you carry on about them?

        .

      • rustybrown2012 March 10, 2013 / 12:16 am

        If you’re not advocating harm to women seeking abortions, you sure as hell sound like you are. In the very post where you clutch your pearls and deny it you state:
        “You guys are all about “fairness”, right? Well, isn’t it fair to, as you guys love to say, “level the playing field” and let the female gestators share some of the risks?”

        In your post before that you state:
        “I find it hard to come up with much sympathy for what happens to a female gestator who exerts her power over a helpless human being because it is just not convenient for her to carry it to term.”

        …and this in response to the information that illegal abortions greatly increase injury and death to women who seek them. What the hell do you mean by those cold-blooded comments in this context? You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, and everybody knows it.

        Secondly if the term “safe abortion” is an oxymoron, the term “SAFER abortion” is not. Not by a long shot:

        “Some countries, like South Africa, have undergone substantial transitions in abortion laws in that time. The procedure was made legal in South Africa in 1996, leading to a 90 percent decrease in mortality among women who had abortions, some studies have found.

        Abortion is illegal in most of Africa, though. It is the second-leading cause of death among women admitted to hospitals in Ethiopia, its Health Ministry has said. It is the cause of 13 percent of maternal deaths at hospitals in Nigeria, recent studies have found.”

        And last, just “what kind of maiming am I squealing about”? This kind, among others:

        “between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease (incomplete abortion, infection (sepsis), haemorrhage, and injury to the internal organs, such as puncturing or tearing of the uterus).”

        …maybe Santa will bring you a thesaurus for Christmas, then you’ll be able to understand the meanings of words just like the big kids.

        One last thing. My provided citations for my assertions. Any sources behind your claim that more maiming occurs with breast implants than illegal abortions? Nah, I didn’t think so. Classic ama, you don’t disappoint.

      • Amazona March 10, 2013 / 11:18 am

        Many things are sad. It’s sad when a skydiver’s parachute does not open but when he made the choice to jump out of the plane he understood that this was a risk every time he made that choice. It’s sad when a skier who goes out of bounds is caught in an avalanche, but when he made that choice he also chose to take that risk.

        Every woman who has sexual intercourse knows that every time she does so there is the possibility that she might become pregnant. Therefore she has accepted that risk when she made that choice. And when she chooses to kill off the result of her first choice, she accepts the risks associated with THAT choice, as well.

        At a certain age my mother talked to me about the immense responsibility that was, from that point onward, part of my life. I grew up with the awareness of that responsibility. I saw women—real women, not just female pleasure-seekers—deal with unwanted pregnancies. I had school friends who had babies and gave them up for adoption. I saw my own mother and my aunts and women in our community find themselves pregnant and go through the original stages of what might almost be called despair, being poor and not wanting another child, only to find themselves loving and cherishing those unborn children once the shock had passed, and welcoming them into their families in spite of the hardship of another mouth to feed. A friend, a young mother, when we were in our early 30s, was forced into a divorce when her husband got involved in a cult, and got pregnant the first time she got involved with someone she later realized was not husband or father material. She saw a lawyer, interviewed families who wanted a child, accepted the responsibility of her pregnancy, allowed the family to adopt the child, and was able to live with the knowledge that she had done the right thing even though it was not easy.

        I had the honor and privilege of growing up with and around, and then associating with, real women. Women with courage and strength and integrity, who accepted the responsibilities of their biology.

        I am far closer to the reality of unwanted pregnancy than you ever will be. It has been part of my life in one way or another for all of my life. I know the pain and fear it can bring, I know the simple fact that nearly all women who get past that first scary stage come to love those children, and I know that while pregnancy is temporary death is final.

        I have a friend who spent years counseling women who had had abortions and then found themselves wracked with guilt. I have heard her talk about the brutality of a system which pushes young women into this fatal decision, telling them lies about how this is not really a baby but just a clump of cells, who have later seen proof that babies at the stage of development at which they killed their own children actually could feel the pain of their deaths, responded to various stimuli, were sucking their thumbs in the womb—WERE PEOPLE. These women were devastated by what they had done, and were victims of a system which promotes abortion. A system which parades the word “CHOICE” but which pressures vulnerable and frightened women into making irreversible decisions.

        I have a sister in law who, at the age of 17, went to Planned Parenthood for a pregnancy test and when it was positive found herself in a room with three people hammering at her to get an abortion. She was in a relationship with a young man, was planning to get married in a year or so anyway, and in any case could not imagine killing her child, and she says the bullying and haranguing and pressuring was so intense, with everyone telling her how stupid she was to not get an immediate abortion, she pushed her way out of the room and ran out of of the clinic.

        Last night she and my brother took this “fetus” and her grandchildren to a local dinner theater. The idea that this lovely young woman, a beloved daughter and wife and mother and teacher, was supposed to be poisoned in the womb and sucked out like garbage is so reprehensible it is nauseating.

        So I don’t need some snot-nosed pseudo-political wannabe with no closer relationship to the reality of unwanted pregnancy than a knee-jerk hostility to people who object to killing unwanted children because they are inconvenient, to lecture me on something you know absolutely nothing about.

        You can reframe my comments all you want, but all you are doing is exhibiting your belief that if you cloak your own rage and hatred and malice in a pseudo-political persona it means you are engaging in political discourse instead of merely wallowing in a distasteful personality disorder.

        You are not only a liar, you are lying to defend and support one of the most brutal, inhumane, dehumanizing agendas of a brutal and inhumane political system. For this, and for you, I have nothing but contempt.

      • rustybrown2012 March 10, 2013 / 12:51 pm

        Ama,
        Well, you’re making an awful lot of bold, unsubstantiated assumptions about my familiarity with the issue; a very unsophisticated debate tactic, but a level of discourse I’ve come to expect from you.

        For someone who often makes claims of being the cool-headed rational thinker and routinely chides “the left” for being overly-emotional, your post sure is chock-full of ferved personal anecdotes. Let me wring out my hankie while I steer the conversation back to the world of objective fact.

        As I’ve illustrated, illegalizing abortion does nothing to reduce the actual number of abortions but only greatly increases injury and death to women. In light of this fact, it is incumbent on you to explain exactly why you want to ban abortion. Simple logic as well as your own chilling words dictate that you advocate the suffering and death of women seeking abortions since that seems to be the most prominent difference between legal and illegal abortions. Get it?

        Your mistake is to view abortion as “the agenda of a brutal and inhumane political system”. That’s insane. Abortion has existed under EVERY political system and has been practiced by human beings since we discovered we could do it. This is not pretty, but I’m dealing with reality. Abortion is, unfortunately, part of the human condition, at least up to this point in history. The best we can do is try to minimize it. Your approach does no such thing and only increases the amount of suffering.

        Look, nobody wants more abortions. But some of us are committed to living in the real world and advocating real solutions. To quote the journalist Ian Murhy:

        “The only things that reduce a nation’s abortion rate are an increase in its overall living standard and a strong commitment to reproductive/contraceptive education. For instance, Uganda is one of the poorest countries in the world, abortion is illegal, and its sex education focuses on abstinence alone. At 54 per 1,000 women of reproductive age, that country subsequently has one of the highest abortion rates in the world. The Netherlands, by contrast, has a much higher living standard, abortion is legal, and the rate is a scant 6 per 1,000 women. The United States’ living standard is generally on par with the Netherlands, and yet the abortion rate is 21 per 1,000—double that of Western Europe.

        Why? Well, according to the National Institute of Health, the low Dutch rate can be attributed to their firm commitment to family planning services, and sexual/contraceptive education.”

        …so ya want to reduce the abortion rate? Do these things, don’t just bloviate your outrage.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) March 10, 2013 / 1:04 pm

        Look, nobody wants more abortions.

        Actually, Rusty, that’s not entirely true. For many on the left, abortion is akin to a sacrament. And I may be a minority of one on the Right, but nothing would delight me more than to have Progressives and the useful idiots who support them abort themselves out of existence.

  7. tiredoflibbs March 10, 2013 / 9:50 am

    flaky forker: “The right to vote isn’t in the Constitution either tiredoflibbs”.

    Duhh. If you have been paying attention, I and several others here have stated that on several occasions.

    Also, your dumbed down talking point (I paraphrase but accurate) “old white conservatives want to take away the right to vote from [insert your favorite minority here]” when we propose verifying voter identity to secure elections is you and your felly proggy forkers just LYING!

    I love it! A “progressive” (more like regressive) is going to lecture me on “buffet style of democracy”. Oh please forker, your deluded group of “dead” people from the land of make believe cherry pick through the Constitution on a daily basis!

    And as I have shown, you and your fellow proggies claim rights that do not exist anywhere in the Constitution (abortion), while trying to infringe and deprive us of rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution (the right of the people to keep and bear arms)!

    I know this will fall on deaf ears to mindless drones such as yourself.

  8. valeridubov March 10, 2013 / 10:02 am

    Dahlings, I feel that much of this discussion is a dance around the large elephant in the middle of the room. Many women have abortions simply because they cannot bear the economic cost of having a child. And lets not be so Victorian as to say that they shouldn’t have been having sex that is unless all you conservatives only have sex to breed. I’m sure that’s right! Conservatives are always on and on about welfare this being the case isn’t it a win win if no more unwanted and unaffordable mouths to feed are brought into your world?

    • Cluster March 10, 2013 / 10:22 am

      Val,

      Think about that just for a second. Are there any other choices to prevent pregnancy? Or is killing the child the only option?

      • valeridubov March 10, 2013 / 10:26 am

        Of course, dear, there are many birth control choices; all of them don’t have a 100% effectiveness rate. Poor married couples don’t generally use birth control as often as single professional women and married professional men do. There’s no way to put the sex djinn back in the bottle. People are going to have unprotected sex and they did back in the heyday of “high morals” in the last century. People just didn’t talk as much about their sexuality and the media nearly refused to discuss it until the feminist revolution of the 1970s.

      • Cluster March 10, 2013 / 10:54 am

        Since public health clinics offer free contraception, why do you think “poor married couples” don’t use it? And have you ever thought about adoption? My sister works for a Lutheran adoption service and there are many, many couples who can’t conceive who desperately want a child. Just another option.

    • tiredoflibbs March 10, 2013 / 10:29 am

      well, valerie forker dubov – if we follow the logic at the land of make believe know as the pitchfork, we conservatives would want abortion to remain. It is 2-5 times more likely that minority women will get an abortion as compared to white women (higher if you only count conservative women).

      So to keep up with your logic and dumbed down beliefs, we conservatives would want to keep abortion and reduce the population of the poor minorities? Sadly for you that is not the case.

      Logic is so much more desirable than the raw racist emotion so prevalent at the pitchfork.

      • valeridubov March 10, 2013 / 10:31 am

        Since abortion is a settled matter we should be civil about this and end this debate then?

      • tiredoflibbs March 10, 2013 / 11:00 am

        “Since abortion is a settled matter we should be civil about this and end this debate then?”

        Oh, that’s classic……

        So, we keep abortion, which is a proggy desire, and the ones that suffer are the poor minorities since they are the ones more likely to get an abortion?

        Also let’s look at other matters that are “settled” but far from being civil and are no longer under debate by proggies…..

        Oh wait, there are none!

        For a couple of examples, The Right:

        “to keep and bear arms” – while a guaranteed right in the Constitution is far from civil and settled as far as any “progressive” is concerned.

        to practice religion with infringement – proggies are ever vigilant against any sort of religious display outside the home or any religious establishment.

        “free speech” – as long as it is socially acceptable speech and of course, non-conservative where leftist PACs (a collection of citizens) can contribute as much money to proggy candidates as possible but “corporations” (another collection of citizens) cannot.

        Don’t even begin to lecture us on civility forker. I have been to your so-called blog. The disdain for non-proggies is far from civil. If one falls into lock-step and echoes the proggy propaganda then you are “civil” but disagree once and all bets are off.

        Try again, forker.

      • Amazona March 10, 2013 / 12:19 pm

        The issue of abortion was “settled” by the determination of five unelected political appointees, irrespective of the will of the people, and then only by discovering a previously unknown “right” and then tracing an “emanation” of the “penumbra” of this unstated “right”.

        I can see why this appeals to those so passionate about dragging our own nation into a new version of the always-failed single-ruler nations they admire so. And, of course, it is brutal and dehumanizing, which is also consistent with their chosen political system.

        Anything which shifts the focus of someone from ideas, ideals, responsibility, and commitment to self-indulgence, irresponsible pursuit of pleasure, and the rule of genitalia will only make the job of moving to the Left easier for the minders at the top.

        Ideas must be overwhelmed by feelings for the Left to succeed. Feelings of fear, paranoia, dependence, entitlement, anger, distrust, confusion—-all necessary to create and nurture in the populace, to keep them from thinking and operating in the arena of ideas.

        I’m in the middle of a book about ancient Rome, and while the focus is the politics of the era, and those involved in those politics, the background and the underlayment upon which those politics are founded is the moral decay of the citizenry—the pursuit of pleasure above all else and the discarding of old concepts of integrity and morality in favor of licentious behavior and dependence on the government—-and the development of the power of the Cult of Personality, in which heroes are created by the mob and then given vast power.

  9. tiredoflibbs March 10, 2013 / 10:14 am

    The flaky forker over at the pitchfork seems to think that we (white conservatives) fear abortion because it will decrease the birth rate of whites (non-minorities) where the “brown people” will overtake this country.

    Never mind that Margaret Singer started a movement that became Planned Parenthood was an avowed believer in Eugenics and the genocide of the “minority” or “unfit people” which in her view would be the “salvation of America”. So to be accurate with her dumbed downed beliefs and mindless regurgitation of proggy lies, that all conservatives are “old white people”, wouldn’t the old white conservatives want abortion to remain legal since minority women have more abortions, 2-5 – 5.0 times more likely, than white women in the first place?

    This hyper-emotional racist screed from these forkers is beyond logic! Everything reverts back to race with these losers.

    Pathetic.

Comments are closed.