Equanimity

e·qua·nim·i·ty

Noun

Mental calmness, composure, and evenness of temper, esp. in a difficult situation

These are difficult times for a lot of people to be sure, and this is an excellent article that I recommend highly. Suicides are up, stress is up, rancor is up, unemployment is up, etc., etc., – these are trying times, but then again, “fundamental transformation” of anything can be difficult. The sad thing is, we didn’t need any fundamental transformation, and the current unsettled societal environment is exactly what Obama needs to continue the decline. This is not by accident. Obama plays on the emotions of every one at every opportunity, and that is by design. But that being said, I want to make an appeal to the common sense on both sides, those on the right and the left, to dial down the rhetoric and just stop and think for a moment.

For those on the left – Obama is playing you. He wants you to think that corporations are evil, that the rich are evil, that America is a misogynistic, racist, imperialistic society, and that white Christian men are paranoid about the changing ethnic landscape. His fundamental transformation of America into a European style socialist country with a more powerful central authority requires that you reject capitalism, that you reject Faith, and that you question the traditional family role. And this distorted belief he needs you to embrace started with your schooling via the ultra liberal educational system in our country, led by 1960’s style radicals that largely failed in that very capitalist system they need you to reject. But I believe you are better than that. I believe that most of you understand that our capitalist system is responsible for creating the most powerful economic engine in the world, for providing the highest average standard of living, and for lifting more people out of poverty than any other economic platform hands down. That our Constitutional model of government is responsible for providing more civil and human rights to more people, and for giving more autonomy to more people than any other country, and there really isn’t even a close second. So my question is, why would you, as part of the “proletariat” want to change that dynamic, and restrict not only your freedoms, but your voice as well?

For those on the right – Obama wants you to become irrational. He wants you to “hate”, to shout, and to become visibly angry. He also wants to divide conservatives, to have the social conservatives battle the fiscal conservatives, and to polarize. That plays right into his hand. He can then better play on everyone’s emotions if we are all at each other’s throats. So why do this? Are we not able to oppose his agenda from an intelligent perspective? Are we incapable of convincing people that the Constitutional model of governance on a capitalist economic platform is best for everyone? Because if we are, and all we can do is shout and call people names, then we have truly lost. We are better than this, and America is stronger than this. We need to begin to appeal to a broad spectrum of people on our terms, and not on just opposition to what Obama is doing. We need to appeal to their common sense, to their intelligence, and to their core belief that America is the beacon of liberty, justice and opportunity. If we stop playing into the hands of the left, dial down the rancor, and show people what we stand for, and not just what we stand against – then we can begin to turn the tide. And that will require a conviction of Faith and composure of the heart and the mind. Equanimity, if you will.

Advertisements

175 thoughts on “Equanimity

  1. GMB April 22, 2013 / 1:48 pm

    “He also wants to divide conservatives, to have the social conservatives battle the fiscal conservatives, and to polarize.”

    This is true. Very true. However it needs to be stated that vast majority of social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives. They go hand in hand. The same can not be said of those who’s concerns revolve around money alone.

    Us social conservatives will give you everything you want. Money people will give us nothing but lip service. It is no longer enough.

    • Cluster April 22, 2013 / 2:24 pm

      Well that’s quite magnanimous of you, but I am not sure I agree. Fiscal conservatives are conservatives first and foremost, therefore oppose gay marriage but support civil unions, oppose abortion but support the rape/incest/physical harm exception, oppose gun control efforts, and support the freedom of Faith. So I am not sure where we differ. Maybe you can enlighten me.

      • neocon01 April 22, 2013 / 3:16 pm

        Christianity is/was the glue that kept the US together. As we move away from a Christian based country we fell into the evils of abortion, sodomy, greed, sloth, envy, rape, murder and lawlessness. Marxism is the vehicle in which all those sins are sold.
        Lightness and dark can not co-exist, nor can evil, sin, and goodness.
        There is a great divide in our country and it has nothing to do with civility but has ALL to do with evil (darkness) and Christian faith or the lack there of.

        ————————————————————————————-

        2 Timothy 3

        1 Remember this! In the last days there will be many troubles, 2 because people will love themselves, love money, brag, and be proud. They will say evil things against others and will not obey their parents or be thankful or be the kind of people God wants.

        3 They will not love others, will refuse to forgive, will gossip, and will not control themselves. They will be cruel, will hate what is good, 4 will turn against their friends, and will do foolish things without thinking. They will be conceited, will love pleasure instead of God, 5 and will act as if they serve God but will not have his power. Stay away from those people. 6 Some of them go into homes and get control of silly women who are full of sin and are led by many evil desires. 7 These women are always learning new teachings, but they are never able to understand the truth fully. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres were against Moses, these people are against the truth. Their thinking has been ruined, and they have failed in trying to follow the faith. 9 But they will not be successful in what they do, because as with Jannes and Jambres, everyone will see that they are foolish.

        10 But you have followed what I teach, the way I live, my goal, faith, patience, and love. You know I never give up. 11 You know how I have been hurt and have suffered, as in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. I have suffered, but the Lord saved me from all those troubles. 12 Everyone who wants to live as God desires, in Christ Jesus, will be hurt. 13 But people who are evil and cheat others will go from bad to worse. They will fool others, but they will also be fooling themselves. 14 But you should continue following the teachings you learned. You know they are true, because you trust those who taught you. 15 Since you were a child you have known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise. And that wisdom leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by God and is useful for teaching, for showing people what is wrong in their lives, for correcting faults, and for teaching how to live right. 17 Using the Scriptures, the person who serves God will be capable, having all that is needed to do every good work.

      • GMB April 22, 2013 / 3:18 pm

        Well lets go here.first. “oppose abortion but support the rape/incest/physical harm exception,”

        Please explain why a life is not a life under these circumstances. Please explain why it is okay to commit a murder, as people like I see it, under these circumstances.

      • neocon01 April 22, 2013 / 3:22 pm

        therefore oppose gay marriage but support civil unions,

        I support NEITHER, and oppose BOTH!!
        I go with our founding fathers and 200+ years of medical understanding, and legal jurisprudence.

      • GMB April 22, 2013 / 3:30 pm

        We are a dying breed Neo. We will not compromise. Compromise is the life blood of the lazy. It is easier to compromise, to moderate, to adjust positions, than it is to keep your own word.

        Standing and letting it be know where you stand is not a popular position to take. That is why the mccains, kirks, collins, grahams, and now rubeos have all the power in the repub party. They stand with the prog or you have no idea where they stand at all..

      • neocon01 April 22, 2013 / 3:33 pm

        GMB

        yup

        says it all here……

      • GMB April 22, 2013 / 4:09 pm

        “If you feel that high and mighty then by all means, rule with authority. ”

        This is where you go wrong. It is not that I feel all high and mighty, this is biblical scripture. Either you do not know your scripture or you do not handle disagreement very well.

        According to the Bible there is only one exception to the abortion rule. That is to save the life of the mother. That is when the mother will die if the child is born. God does not demand the end of the old life to bring in the new.

        Don’t take my word for it. Look it up.

        If I miss my guess you could use some time with The Scriptures anyway.

        “High and mighty” Indeed.

      • Cluster April 22, 2013 / 4:25 pm

        I am personally very comfortable with my Faith, and will leave that decision to the woman, her conscience and her Faith, and I would hope that she makes a decision that heals her soul. You may not want to cast the first stone unless you consider yourself to be above the rest of us. Which wouldn’t surprise me.

    • neocon01 April 22, 2013 / 3:19 pm

      2 Peter 3:3

      Most importantly, I want to remind you that in the last days scoffers will come, mocking the truth and following their own desires.

      • neocon01 April 22, 2013 / 3:26 pm

        we damned well be ready for what is coming…….and it aint rhetoric….

        Thursday, February 14, 2013
        Obama Mentor BILL AYERS and Future “GULAG AMERIKA”
        By Pamela Rae Schuffert presenting investigative journalism from a Biblical Christian perspective-

        “SEND 25 MILLION AMERICANS TO
        THE DETENTION CAMPS…

        Because it’s the price you have to pay for a successful revolution!!!”-Bill Ayers
        *****************************************
        (A Marxist NWO revolution, that is…)

        How very revealing of SDS/Weather Underground
        “former” terrorist Bill Ayers to say so!
        How can this man live with his conscience?
        25 million or more DEAD AMERICANS…???
        But this is the COMMUNIST MENTALITY.

        Ayers actually envisions a future “Amerika” wherein at LEAST 25 MILLION Americans who disagree with him and his fellow NEW WORLD ORDER globalists should ALL be rounded up and SENT TO DETENTION CAMPS for EITHER “re-education”…or termination!
        Interestingly, Ayers and Barack Obama are good friends. In fact, Ayers is actually considered a mentor for Obama.

        http://americanholocaustcoming.blogspot.com/2013/02/obama-mentor-bill-ayers-and-future.html

      • neocon01 April 22, 2013 / 5:09 pm

        You may not want to cast the first stone

        Christ cast the first stone, = his words. “GO and SIN NO MORE” repeating those words are not casting stones it is soul saving advice. If a person is never told what they do is harmful to themselves, society, and a sin against God and humanity you become complicit by your silence. If they chose to ignore you then it is 100% on them.
        The driver of a get away car is just as guilty as the nut who pulled the trigger in the store.

      • neocon01 April 23, 2013 / 10:20 am

        ama

        What I see is a tendency for some on the Right to be all about exactly what they decry on the Left—that is, the use of political power to impose personal morality.

        not at all, our country was founded on these principals. if we are to return to our constitutional roots then we must include all not just fiscal.

        To say that we are imposing our morality on larry flynt is silly. The first amendment has nothing to do with pornography nor does titty dancing. Our fore fathers would have hung the POS flynt.

        the 10 commandments are inscribed on the wall in the supreme court. Kinda hard to miss that “imposed morality”

    • Amazona April 22, 2013 / 6:19 pm

      I haven’t seen any “fiscal conservatives” who are also not “social conservatives”. But what is this “FISCAL conservative” nonsense, anyway?

      What I see is a tendency for some on the Right to be all about exactly what they decry on the Left—that is, the use of political power to impose personal morality.

      As I define “conservative” as one who believes that the Constitution of the United States is not only the best way but the only legal way to govern the nation, I find the quibbling about issues to be mere distractions. And I find the attachment of the word “conservative” to fiscal or social matters an example of being led astray by the Left and its determination to muddy the waters and turn what should be a purely political decision into a mud wrestling free for all about personal religious beliefs, highly individual definitions of morality, etc.

      And that is all wonderful—for the Left, which then stands back and watches us savage each other on ISSUES that have nothing to do with government.

      In a nation which is governed according to the Constitution, the people will be able to live as they wish, and will have the power to outlaw what they find offensive, without being overridden by a massively powerful central government or a bloated and out of control Supreme Court which has grossly expanded its original intent.

      This means that sometimes we will have to live with things we don’t like—but so will the opposition. Wanting an autocratic government which has the power to impose religious beliefs on everyone is no better than wanting an autocratic government which has the power to impose secular agendas on everyone. And those who want this have no business calling themselves “conservatives”—–any kind of conservatives—because this kind of powerful central government is antithetical to true Constitutional conservative political philosophy.

      The chances of getting back to a Constitutional form of government are dramatically lessened by internal squabbling over things that are not even in the purview of the federal government, under Constitutional governance, anyway.

      It is the height, or depth, of foolishness to choose a presidential candidate based on his feelings about something that is not properly, Constitutionally, within the purview of the federal government anyway.

      But it is increasingly clear that the real goal of some is not to reform our government, and bring it back to a Constitutional model, but more to proclaim moral purity and superiority, even if it means losing the political numbers necessary to have a Constitutional government..

      • Cluster April 22, 2013 / 8:02 pm

        Excellent example of the argument we should be having, and convincing others of it. I will tell you that a “fiscal conservative” is someone who s focused on the costs associated with executing the enumerated duties of the federal government. And a belief that those costs should be annually evaluated and reviewed, which is just the opposite from our current “baseline budgeting” insanity.

      • neocon01 April 23, 2013 / 10:27 am

        cluster

        we cant have just fiscal responsibility while ignoring everything else or we will have anarchy.

  2. Cluster April 22, 2013 / 3:49 pm

    GMB,

    I don’t disagree that life is life, and I don’t advocate that the women take the exception, but I also don’t pretend too be some authority and dictate what a woman must do under those very difficult circumstances that as a male, I can not even begin to comprehend. If you feel that high and mighty then by all means, rule with authority.

    Neocon,

    Our country’s brand of liberalism is not the dark side. It’s not the reincarnation of Satan. My daughter is currently a flaming liberal, but with age and imposed common sense on behalf of her father, she is slowly moving towards conservatism. It can happen. I am not denying that what Stalin did under communism was evil, but we are light years from that, so I would implore you to ramp down the hyperventilating. Most liberals are simply poorly educated, and actually believe that socialism/progressivism is beneficial, and that it is humanitarian to support a large central authority that “levels the playing field” but that is again only because they are ignorant of what the left can, and does devolve into.

    • neocon01 April 22, 2013 / 4:59 pm

      No hyperventilation at all, just the facts maam (in my best Joe Friday voice).
      I have seen marxist communism up close and personal, so have the Cubans, Germans, Chinese, Vietnamese, and on and on.
      Make no mistake about my thoughts I do not blame the useful idiot bubble head kids who blindly follow this murderous idiology it is clearly the leaders who are the targets of my derision.
      However many a dipsy student has been radicalized into a killing machine. There is hope for your daughter just pray the wrong people dont fill her head with murder and social justice.
      I take the POS, ayers, dohrn, hoffa, OWS, NBBP, NOI at their word and that word is radical, hatred which always if unchecked leads to genocide and enslavement!

    • Amazona April 22, 2013 / 8:22 pm

      Cluster, I fear that you have bought into the Leftist canard that women, being so weak and flighty and all, are simply incapable of strength or nobility or courage.

      Talk to women who have had to face unwanted pregnancy, and you will find them falling for the most part into one of two camps—the Easy Way Out, Get Rid of It, camp, and those who have had time to get over the original panic and come to the realization that this is not a problem but a baby.

      Millions upon millions of women, over centuries, have borne children conceived in rape or out of wedlock or in situations that seemed quite dire, yet remarkably few of them have been overwhelmed by hatred of the unborn child, or spent the entire pregnancy in a state of despair and misery and resentment.

      The usual reaction, when there has been time for it to occur, has been acceptance followed by strong maternal feelings toward the child, even when its conception was due to horrible circumstances.

      It is an example of the success of Leftist brainwashing that even good people have fallen prey to the lie that women will be burdened by unbearable misery and despair if forced to carry children conceived in rape, consumed by a constant reminder of a horror too terrible to comprehend. Yet history does not bear this out. Perhaps modern women have been told often enough to believe it, but loathing of an unborn child because of the circumstance of its conception is not the norm, and certainly if a decent woman panics and takes what seems, at the moment, to be the easy way out, this merely adds guilt to her emotional burden.

      I don’t understand the idea that we should not be expected to endure difficulty, much less that when it happens we should not be expected to meet it with strength and honor. Which would be harder to live with—–spending nine months carrying an innocent human being and giving it life even if it was conceived in rape, or standing in a crowd and watching your beloved’s legs ripped off by a bomb? People are faced with challenges, serious and demanding challenges, all the time, but for some reason this particular challenge has become one in which the taking of an innocent human life is supposed to somehow mitigate it.

      It just doesn’t make sense.

      And I think the husband or lover or father or brother of a raped woman would have a harder time dealing with a subsequent pregnancy than the woman involved, which is why I think so many men get sucked into this idea that it’s OK to kill off the kid just to make it all go away.

      • Cluster April 22, 2013 / 8:30 pm

        We have had this conversation before. I am just not going to impose a decision on a woman who has had a traumatic experience that as a guy I just couldn’t understand. That’s all.

      • Amazona April 22, 2013 / 8:44 pm

        Oh, it’s not just a matter of “imposing” something on someone. It’s a matter of such total immersion in the concept that a woman can only recover from the otherwise permanent damage of a rape by killing off an innocent child that everyone now accepts it.

        Don’t get me wrong—rape is brutal,and traumatizing. But it is not the end of the world, it is not impossible to get over, and it is only in the past few years that political agendas have started to portray it as the most horrible thing that can happen to a woman, something that will scar her for life.

        Bull. Many women of all ages experience things worse than rape, and get past it all. As I once said, a niece fell asleep at the wheel and the wreck killed her best friend, who was found by my niece nearly decapitated on the side of the road. She was found by a passing motorist holding the mutilated body of her friend, alone in the desert for who knows how long. Anyone think it was easier to get over that than being raped would have been?

        I’m just sick and tired of the politicization of rape for the purpose of emotional manipulation, and the trivialization of the female spirit to make it possible. If you track the politicization of rape back, you will find it concurrent with the promotion of abortion as the solution to what has been promoted as a problem of such massive size and power that the only solution is the death of someone else. Until then, it was just an ugly, dehumanizing, act of brutality that women feared, found horrible and traumatizing, and then got over and went on with their lives.

      • rustybrown2012 April 22, 2013 / 10:50 pm

        Oh, the horror, the HORROR! Thank god we have ama to instruct every raped women how to feel about their sudden pregnancy.

      • Amazona April 23, 2013 / 11:46 am

        Well, you death-mongers don’t hesitate to tell raped women how to deal with their pregnancies. Or unmarried pregnant women. Or pregnant girls.

        The difference is, I am suggesting that pregnant women not be pushed into abortions by claims that abortion is not only the most rational decision to make but that if a pregnancy is the result of rape there is absolutely nothing wrong with killing the baby.

        You seem to find it offensive to suggest providing a pregnant rape victim with emotional support, time to evaluate her first panicked reaction of “Just make it all go away”, and rational alternatives to the temporary problem of pregnancy other than the permanent one of death.

        This is not surprising, but it is an interesting admission that to some people, death is always preferable to decency and courage.

      • rustybrown2012 April 23, 2013 / 2:18 pm

        Ama,

        “Well, you death-mongers don’t hesitate to tell raped women how to deal with their pregnancies. Or unmarried pregnant women. Or pregnant girls.”

        I think women should have access to as much counseling as they need and choose for themselves what to do with their pregnancy, that’s the exact OPPOSITE of telling them what to do. I wouldn’t think of telling a woman, raped or otherwise, how to deal with their pregnancies – that appears to be your job.

      • rustybrown2012 April 23, 2013 / 2:22 pm

        And by the way, as I’ve pointed out before, if you oppose sex education and condoms for our kids, you’re a hypocrite with blood on your hands.

      • M. Noonan April 23, 2013 / 3:45 pm

        Amazona,

        That is because those who are ideologically “pro-choice” (to differentiate between those who are merely pro-choice because they either haven’t fully thought about it or are just unwilling to ban something they think bad, but possibly necessary at times) only want one choice – the choice to kill. Nothing infuriates such people as a woman choosing to carry the child to term and then either keeping her or adopting out.

      • M. Noonan April 23, 2013 / 3:48 pm

        Rusty,

        It is after decades of us providing ever more sex education and ever more access to birth control that we have ever more abortion and out-of-wedlock sexual activity – leading not just to pregnancy, but disease and death. This is unsurprising for me because, after all, the very concept of “birth control” springs from the evil, anti-human notion of eugenics – plans by early 20th century nitwits to breed a Master Race by controlling whom gives birth. When your initial idea is something that stupid and wicked, it is bound to have nothing but bad effects, even if you later change the alleged rationale behind doing it.

      • Amazona April 23, 2013 / 4:08 pm

        Point out anything you want to, that doesn’t make your points anything but strident hysterical hyperbole.

        Too funny that the people who are all for dismembering live human beings and dragging their bloody bodies out of the womb can squeal that anyone else has “blood on her hands” !!!!!!!!!

        And just think, all it takes for rusty to flip out like this is to oppose teaching children how to screw.

      • rustybrown2012 April 23, 2013 / 4:43 pm

        Ama,

        Wow, you sure have trouble keeping track of your own words. My original post was about your statement (I’ll post it again since your memory is failing):

        “We now have a president who voted to allow babies, babies outside the womb and breathing, to be killed if the female gestational creature who gave birth to it doesn’t want it to live—and this is accepted.”

        You then helpfully provided a link which said this claim, that Obama allows babies to be killed, is false. Factcheck.org finds it false as well. Are you sure you’re not having a stroke or something? I really don’t know how much more simple I can make it for you…

      • rustybrown2012 April 23, 2013 / 4:51 pm

        Mark,

        Do you have any evidence that there are more abortions than ever before? Do you have any evidence that contraceptives and sex ed leads to more abortions?

      • rustybrown2012 April 23, 2013 / 4:56 pm

        Mark,

        ” the very concept of “birth control” springs from the evil, anti-human notion of eugenics – plans by early 20th century nitwits to breed a Master Race by controlling whom gives birth.”

        You’re wrong again. Look up “history of contraceptives”. Birth control is well documented in Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt.

      • rustybrown2012 April 23, 2013 / 4:59 pm

        Ama,

        Sex education and access to contraceptives = fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortions. My policy choices lead to fewer abortions. Your policy choices lead to more of them.

      • tiredoflibbs April 23, 2013 / 9:12 pm

        Wow, there goes crusty again with that word “access”. To him, “access” is the same as “having” or “using”.

        As he said, the Bostonians having “access” to “a dizzying array of firepower”, he tried to equate that Bostonians had easy access therefore, they were armed with a “dizzying array of firepower”. The same goes with contraception. Since teens and single women have “access” to contraceptives and sex education, they will always use them responsibly.

        One thing is for sure he is so simple minded and easily fooled just like any other mindless, leftist drone.

        Oh and let’s see what crusty posts as “serious debate”:

        “Are you sure you’re not having a stroke or something?”

        “Ama, baby, a half-bright second grader can prove you wrong”

        “Idiot”

        “You appear to me to be severely retarded.”

        “…should just give all of us a break and be dead.”

        “…buzz-off, mouth-breather.”

        “Well take your time, ol’ timer.”

        “You’re an idiot”

        As you can see, it does not take much to get crusty’s panties in a twist, especially after being outwitted after his dumbed down talking points fail.

      • tiredoflibbs April 23, 2013 / 9:31 pm

        crusty claims that: “Sex education and access to contraceptives = fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortions.”

        And questions: “Do you have any evidence that there are more abortions than ever before? Do you have any evidence that contraceptives and sex ed leads to more abortions?”

        Let’s see, again the information is out there if one is willing to look. Crusty is one suffering from willful blindness.

        According to Planned Parenthood: “Planned Parenthood’s 2005-2006 annual report states that they committed 264,943 abortions in the USA in 2005. More recent PP annual reports show they committed 289,750 in 2006, 305,310 in 2007, 324,008 in 2008, 331,796 in 2009, and 329,445 in 2010, and 333,924 in 2011.”

        Hmmm…. with easy access to contraceptives and sex education – the data refutes crusty’s claim – not surprising. Crusty can’t see that “easy access to abortion” also increases the number of abortions, especially when government funding is introduced.

        So now, crusty will revert to his “serious debate mode” but as we have seen that is a complete joke.

      • rustybrown2012 April 23, 2013 / 10:22 pm

        Sorry, I’ll repost this with only one link so it won’t get moderated out:

        Tired,

        Even if those are the correct number of abortions for PP, they are statistics for only one group. A variety of factors can influence those results – PP may be expanding, PP may be improving their exposure and outreach, etc.

        To get a more accurate picture you need to look at overall national statistics, and they show that abortion rates have substantially declined from a peak of twenty years ago; proving you and Mark, once again, wrong.

        http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042

      • Amazona April 23, 2013 / 11:16 pm

        “Do you have any evidence that contraceptives and sex ed leads to more abortions?”

        Just when I think rusty can’t possibly sound more stupid, he lurches in with proof that I was wrong.

        Of course, no one ever said that contraceptives and sex ed lead to more abortions. Only someone with the seriously deficient thought processes we have seen rusty exhibit, post after post, could come up with something like this.

        You know what causes more abortions? More people killing more babies.

        It is a popular falsehood that schools are merely teaching about sex and the need for contraceptives. Oh, if only………… But no, schools are teaching that sex is just fine,no matter how young a child may be. Boulder, Colorado, actually hires people to come to speak at a mandatory assembly every year, which includes children as young as 15, in which they are told, while their teachers sit by smiling and nodding, that they really ought to experiment with drugs, that any kind of sex should be tried —“boy on boy, girl on girl, boy on girl, it’s all good”—-and that sex feels better without condoms.

        Children are taught that sex is merely for fun, that there are no consequences and there should not be consequences, and that if casual sex results in pregnancy then the appropriate action is abortion. They are taught that they should not even go to their parents if they become pregnant, that parents will be hostile and hateful and judgmental, and that the only ones who can be trusted to “help” are school officials, who will arrange for secret abortions to be kept from the parents.

        When children were taught, by their parents, that sex is important and not just recreational, that it should be reserved for very important relationships if not just for marriage, that sex can have very serious consequences and lead to serious responsibilities, fewer young people engaged in sexual activity. When there were clear social, familial,and religious boundaries, there was less illicit sexual activity.

        And when abortion was still shameful, still rightfully considered a vile and depraved act, there were fewer abortions.

        I’ve known women who got pregnant out of wedlock and gave their babies up for adoption, and none of them ever had more than one illegitimate pregnancy. And I’ve known females who have had multiple abortions.

        Do the math.

      • rustybrown2012 April 23, 2013 / 11:38 pm

        Ama,

        Do you have any references or links to support your outlandish claims, or do they all come from your fevered imaginings? In absence of the former, I’ll stick with the latter.

      • M. Noonan April 23, 2013 / 11:54 pm

        Rusty,

        I presume you’re using the same source which refers to birth control in the USSR in 1872…as such, much doubt about the veracity of all the allegations. But, that said, humanity has long known of methods of preventing pregnancy. But “birth control” as we know it today was a product of the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century. Not wanting to get pregnant at a certain time is one thing – and people have been able to do that, as far as we can tell, ever since human beings arrived on the planet. In fact, so widespread has knowledge of how to prevent birth been – even among people who are illiterate – that there is clearly no need for State-sanctioned sex education: people pretty much have the whole concept nailed down to a nicety (if you think that illiterate hicks don’t know about these things, then I refer you to what happened in France starting in the early 19th century – without an iota of State education on the matter – French families began to limit their births for a variety of reasons; so much so that France, once the most populous of European countries, found itself at a population disadvantage with rival Germany). Birth Control, however, posits that certain people shouldn’t breed, at all. As racism became (temporarily) unfashionable on the left, the alleged reasons for birth control were adjusted, but the basic thrust of the idea was and remains that it isn’t good for certain people who are “unready” for whatever reason to have children (as if anyone is actually ever ready for the awesome responsibility of children).

        Sex education is, of course, a completely asinine thing – the alleged reason for it is that people will have sex without realizing the consequences. I refer you to the Bible – where a 14 year old Jewish girl (probably illiterate) advised that she couldn’t be pregnant with a child as she had not known a man…and her fiance, finding her pregnant, initially decided to break it off because he knew full well that the only possible way a woman could be pregnant was by knowing a man. People aren’t stupid – they know how babies are made, and always have. They have also always known that sexual promiscuity can lead to disease. What we do with sex education these days is not so much tell people about sex, but tell them that any sort of sex is ok – and then provide them condoms and birth control pills as if that covers all contingencies. Of course, it doesn’t – there is only one 100% certain way of avoiding pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, but when you tell people that any sort of sex is ok and that birth control will take care of all things, you just encourage them to have ever more sex. While its true that “protected” sex might be safer than”unprotected” per sexual act, its a matter of playing Russian roulette with a 12 shooter instead of a 6 shooter…play it long enough, and the result will be the same…and as you’re going to play more often than before, you’re jeopardy is probably just as bad as before.

      • tiredoflibbs April 24, 2013 / 4:54 am

        Wow crusty, your source admits that it’s full of holes, states are not counted and estimates are not current or states have not given an accurate count.

        You don’t even realize that the leftist group, PP, who pushes the same sex Ed and contraceptive nonsense that you do, have performed more abortions each year. Apparently, they are not being effective and that job either. Again, “access” is not the same as “utilizing”.

      • tiredoflibbs April 24, 2013 / 5:27 am

        “they show that abortion rates have substantially declined from a peak of twenty years ago”

        But crusty, you ASSume that is tied to contraceptive and sex education. You have provided no proof for that ASSertion. Plus, as I said the group PP who claims that the provide sex ed and contraceptives (that is what they claim they get federal funding for) are not performing fewer abortions each year.

        Your claims are full of holes and are not accurately sourced, as usual.

      • rustybrown2012 April 24, 2013 / 1:29 pm

        Tired, don’t you ever get “tired” of being wrong? The source I provided that shows abortion has declined over the past twenty years is a Christian pro-life website and actually references TWO separate measures that show the decline. Here’s a third source agreeing with the decline:

        http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html

        …be sure to click on the sources footnote for an extremely detailed breakdown and exhaustive list of sources.

        To be continued…

      • rustybrown2012 April 24, 2013 / 1:44 pm

        …and here’s a quote from that leftist rag, “National Right To Life”:

        “While the number of abortions in the U.S. has dropped nearly every year since the 1990 peak of 1.6 million, they have consistently been on the increase at PPFA.”

        http://www.nrlc.org/news/2009/NRL05/PPAnnualReport.html

        So if you’re keeping score, that’s FOUR sources showing the national decline. Still waiting for ONE from you (or anybody).

        Oh, and no need to bring up the increase in PP’s abortions again. As I’ve said, PP is growing, their budget is growing, their outreach has improved, yes they are doing more abortions. But they are a single group, and we’re discussing abortion rates for the entire country.

        It’s like if you wanted to calculate how much ketchup the country consumes, it would be myopic to just quote statistics for Heinz. Much better to take Hunt’s, Del Monte, and the rest of the ketchup industry into account for an accurate picture. There, I’ve explained it in a way that a child could understand – maybe it will sink in with you this time!

      • rustybrown2012 April 24, 2013 / 2:15 pm

        Tired,

        You want proof of the coorelation between fewer unwanted pregnancies/abortions and contraceptive use/sex ed? Just ask! Unlike you guys, I’m delighted to back up my claims!

        https://www.life360.com/blog/this-just-in-sexual-education-helps-lower-teen-pregnancy/

        …be sure to click on some of the links, especially the CDC one which agrees with my assertion. The New Hampshire/ sex Ed one is quite interesting as well.

        I believe this answers mark and ama’s misconceptions tool. “Teaching kids to screw” – what a hoot!

      • tiredoflibbs April 24, 2013 / 5:33 pm

        Wow crusty, your failure at reading comprehension reveals you to be a fool, again.

        Don’t you think that an organization that provides sex education and contraceptives would perform fewer abortions, than more each year? That would reinforce your so-called correlation and not contradict it! But that would require you to think outside of the box, wouldn’t it?

        It is interesting to note that your “source” revealed that New Hampshire taught abstinence. The proggy play book frowns upon that word and ridicules conservatives who use it as well. Interesting and contradicting all at the same time.

      • tiredoflibbs April 24, 2013 / 5:55 pm

        crusty: “You want proof of the coorelation between fewer unwanted pregnancies/abortions and contraceptive use/sex ed?”

        From a blog? That claims “according to the CDC…” and looks at New Hampshire abortion statistics. Your previous source reveals that the CDC admits that its counts are wrong and grossly underestimated since it does not count California and … WAIT FOR IT … NEW HAMPSHIRE, since 1998!!!

        WOW! Your severe lack in reading comprehension and inability to connect the dots has you a even bigger fool than before! Your own “sources” contradict each and every dumb ASSertion you have made.

        BTW, most statistics (that you have provided) have shown a leveling off of abortions to 1.2 million per year, hardly a consistent reduction that you also claim.

      • rustybrown2012 April 24, 2013 / 6:35 pm

        Tired,

        “Don’t you think that an organization that provides sex education and contraceptives would perform fewer abortions, than more each year?”

        This has got to be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. America is a big place, population north of 300,000. Did it ever occur to you that the women getting abortions at PP are not the same ones who get preventive counseling and contraceptives?! Here’s a clue – the women getting abortions had a LACK of counseling and birth control. You make it sound like a women goes to PP, gets some sex ed and contraceptives, and then comes back a few months later for her abortion! Thank you for that, I’m gonna share this one with my friends!

        And us Proggies do not frown upon the word “abstinence”, we frown upon the phrase “abstinence only”. We encourage abstinence taught alongside progressive and thorough sex education. That’s what brought New Hampshire the LOWEST teen pregnancy rate in the US. On the other hand Mississippi, big on abstinence only, has the HIGHEST teen pregnancy rate in the US.

        I’m getting “tired” of schooling you!

      • rustybrown2012 April 24, 2013 / 7:20 pm

        Tired,

        The blog does not merely say “according to the CDC” it links directly to it. Direct links – you should try them sometime.

        “Your previous source reveals that the CDC admits that its counts are wrong and grossly underestimated since it does not count California and … WAIT FOR IT … NEW HAMPSHIRE, since 1998!!!”

        …so? What’s your point? The CDC doesn’t say it’s counts are “wrong”, it reveals the factors which account for the discrepancies between the two studies. Regardless, this Christian website rightly concludes: “Nevertheless, because increases and decreases in CDC and GI numbers have usually roughly tracked each other, both sources are thought to provide useful information on abortion trends and statistics.” The decline is also supported by the other thorough source I provided which you’ve ignored. Hey, like I said, I’ve provided multiple sources for the fact that abortions have declined, it’s a fact; if you think otherwise, provide ONE source supporting you. You can’t because you’re wrong.

        By the way, my claim was that abortions have “declined over the past twenty years”, a claim that the facts, and my sources confirm.

      • tiredoflibbs April 24, 2013 / 7:36 pm

        Wow, unbelievable! Crusty fails at connecting the dots again. He asked before when he looked foolish.

        Fewer unwanted pregnancies because of sex ed and contraceptives in teens does not correlate to fewer abortions. Are you saying that only teens are the ones getting the abortions?

        Wow, that is like saying “eating ice cream causes more drownings in the summer months”.

        You need to show proof that fewer abortions are the result. You haven’t.

        And you wonder why you look so foolish.

      • tiredoflibbs April 24, 2013 / 8:10 pm

        Oh crusty, brace yourself you are going to hate this factoid too!

        New Hampshire abortion rate according to the Guttmacher institute is 12.3 per thousand women aged 15-44.

        Missisippis abortion rate, according to the Guttmacher Institute is 4.6 per thousand women aged 15-44.

        Uh, that does not jive with your sources that sex ed and contraception (New Hampshire best and Mississippi worst) leads to fewer abortions.

        Again, it may be true in crusty’s land of make believe, but then again, reality rears its ugly head.

      • rustybrown2012 April 24, 2013 / 8:11 pm

        “Fewer unwanted pregnancies because of sex ed and contraceptives in teens does not correlate to fewer abortions. Are you saying that only teens are the ones getting the abortions?”

        No, I’m not saying that. But only a moron would think that fewer unwanted pregnancies wouldn’t result in fewer abortions.

        “Wow, that is like saying “eating ice cream causes more drownings in the summer months”.”

        Yeah, unwanted pregnancy is to abortion as ice cream is to drowning. You didn’t do so well on your SATs, huh?

      • tiredoflibbs April 24, 2013 / 8:19 pm

        crusty, you are still trying to equate that a reduction in unwanted teen pregnancies results is fewer abortions, while not saying that teens are the ones getting abortions?

        You tried to equate sex ed and contraceptive statistics of New Hampshire and Mississippi resulting in fewer unwanted TEEN pregnancies to prove that sex ed and contraceptives reduce abortions. Of course, you do not take into account that states are making it harder to get abortions.

        Huh? There is no correlation between the two. Not when abortion statistics include women to the age of 44. Again it is a bogus comparison like my ice cream comparison.

        Sheesh, you are dense. just keep diggin’, eventually you will reach China.

      • tiredoflibbs April 24, 2013 / 9:20 pm

        Uh oh, this is really going to send crusty over the edge:

        According to the Guttmacher Institute increased use of contraception actually increases the number of abortions. GASP!

        “The reason for the confusion stems from the observation that, within particular populations, contraceptive prevalence and the incidence of induced abortion can and, indeed, often do rise in parallel, contrary to what one would expect. The explanation for these counterintuitive trends is clear.2 In societies that have not yet entered the fertility transition, both actual fertility and desired family sizes are high (or, to put it another way, childbearing is not yet considered to be “within the calculus of conscious choice”3). In such societies, couples are at little (or no) risk of unwanted pregnancies. The advent of modern contraception is associated with a destabilization of high (or “fatalistic”) fertility preferences. Thus, as contraceptive prevalence rises and fertility starts to fall, an increasing proportion of couples want no more children (or want an appreciable delay before the next child), and exposure to the risk of unintended pregnancy also increases as a result. In the early and middle phases of fertility transition, adoption and sustained use of effective methods of contraception by couples who wish to postpone or limit childbearing is still far from universal. Hence, the growing need for contraception may outstrip use itself;4 thus, the incidence of unintended and unwanted pregnancies rises, fueling increases in unwanted live births and induced abortion. In this scenario, contraceptive use and induced abortion may rise simultaneously.”

        “In many populations, rising levels of contraceptive prevalence are not associated over time with falling levels of abortion.”

        I think crusty has suffered enough.

      • rustybrown2012 April 24, 2013 / 9:55 pm

        Tired,

        I’ve said this before, if you want your points considered by me, provide links when asked. I’ll disregard claims to fact and quotes as pure fabrication if not accompanied with direct links. I routinely provide links with my arguments, so should you.

      • tiredoflibbs April 24, 2013 / 10:20 pm

        wow crusty, are you incapable of searching “abortions in the state of New Hampshire”? or “abortions in the state of Mississippi”? Or even “contraceptives reduce abortion”.

        Apparently so.

        All can be found here: http://www.guttmacher.org/

        take the first step into the world of independent thought, crusty. It will be an eye opener for you.

      • tiredoflibbs April 24, 2013 / 10:27 pm

        crusty: “That’s what brought New Hampshire the LOWEST teen pregnancy rate in the US. On the other hand Mississippi, big on abstinence only, has the HIGHEST teen pregnancy rate in the US.

        I’m getting “tired” of schooling you!”

        Schooling me? Too bad I easily debunked this notion and dumbed down talking point from several directions.

        But, thanks for playing.

      • rustybrown2012 April 24, 2013 / 10:42 pm

        Nope, sorry tired. Of course I can look up the raw statistics but after extensively quoting a source, you link to a splash page with no such quote in site. If you use a quote and are asked for the source, link to the page with the quote as any honest person would do. You wouldn’t be selectively quote mining, would you? You wouldn’t be leaving out information on that page which supports my argument, would you? Your “sources” are duly ignored.

      • tiredoflibbs April 24, 2013 / 10:46 pm

        Crusty: “Did it ever occur to you that the women getting abortions at PP are not the same ones who get preventive counseling and contraceptives?! Here’s a clue – the women getting abortions had a LACK of counseling and birth control.”

        But you said: “access to contraceptives and sex education = fewer abortions”

        So you are trying to tell us that these women who had ACCESS to PP for abortions did not have ACCESS to PP’s sex education and contraceptives services?

        “You make it sound like a women goes to PP, gets some sex ed and contraceptives, and then comes back a few months later for her abortion!”

        I said no such thing. Of course, you again have to lie to even come close to make your point.

      • tiredoflibbs April 24, 2013 / 10:52 pm

        Crusty: “Nope, sorry tired. Of course I can look up the raw statistics but after extensively quoting a source, you link to a splash page with no such quote in site.”

        Uh no. You are too scared to find the quote I stated. Either a google search of with a piece of the quote I gave will bring up the linked page. Or at the source site you can also search with a piece of the quote I gave and get it there too.

        You are just dodging and avoiding the truth…. A coward till the end.

      • rustybrown2012 April 24, 2013 / 11:04 pm

        “So you are trying to tell us that these women who had ACCESS to PP for abortions did not have ACCESS to PP’s sex education and contraceptives services?”

        No you idiot, I’m telling you these can be two separate groups of women. You seem to have trouble with the word “access”. Everybody has access to all of PP’s services. Some go there for contraceptives, some go there for abortions – not necessarily the same people.

      • tiredoflibbs April 25, 2013 / 5:36 am

        crusty: “I told you and others I’m not doing you’re homework for you.”

        You just don’t want to face the cold hard truth that your simple arguments are falling apart. BTW, I don’t need you to. With the abortion statistics, that I provided, alone for New Hampshire (by you, the best at sex ed and contraceptives) and Mississippi (again, by you, the worst) proves your little mindless, dumbed down talking point is wrong.

        Plus, your admission that having ACCESS to sex ed and contraceptives doesn’t reduce abortions BECAUSE THERE WILL ALWAYS be another group of women out there who will not USE them and will rely on abortion to stop pregnancies, which I believe was one of the original arguments presented to you.

        Here is your quote in case you have any short term memory loses (emphasis mine):
        “EVERYBODY has ACCESS to all of PP’s services. Some go there for contraceptives, some go there for abortions – not necessarily the same people.”

        PLUS with the fact that states are making it harder for women to get abortions (you wouldn’t even touch this little fact – since it goes against you), that alone will help reduce the number of abortions nationwide. And if more states make it harder to get an abortion then they will continue to decline.

        Oh and let me remind you what you said before:

        “No you idiot….”

        and what you said before that:
        “There’s a universal rule in debate: when you invite your opponent to specifically refute any of your claims and they respond with nothing more than insults, you’ve won.”

        I think you suffered long enough. Ignore the points I made that you refuse to acknowledge, I don’t care. You will continue to be as ignorant as before and continue to look foolish.

      • rustybrown2012 April 25, 2013 / 10:40 am

        You know what, child, I did your homework for you, tracked down the page and, lawdy, what do you think I found? A lengthy article about how contraceptives lower abortion abortion rates from which you deceptively quote mined. Uh, oh.

        This is exactly why I require (and provide) direct sources: you and others at bfv cannot be trusted to engage in honest debate and resort to all manner of prevarication. I would be ashamed to engage in such tactics, but I know that’s not an option for you.

        Below are the quotes (in bold) you provided in full context. The link is provided at the bottom.

        “Common sense and an elementary understanding of the biological determinants of human reproduction indicate that contraception and induced abortion represent alternative means of achieving the same aggregate level of fertility in a population. If fertility and its other determinants (sexual exposure, lactation and pathological infertility, for example) remain constant, a rise in contraceptive use or in effectiveness of use must lead to a decline in induced abortion and vice versa.
        Why, then, does the relationship between levels of contraceptive use and the incidence of induced abortion continue to provoke heated discussion?* And why do some observers claim that increased contraceptive use leads to higher abortion rates?1
        The reason for the confusion stems from the observation that, within particular populations, contraceptive prevalence and the incidence of induced abortion can and, indeed, often do rise in parallel, contrary to what one would expect. The explanation for these counterintuitive trends is clear.2 In societies that have not yet entered the fertility transition, both actual fertility and desired family sizes are high (or, to put it another way, childbearing is not yet considered to be “within the calculus of conscious choice”3). In such societies, couples are at little (or no) risk of unwanted pregnancies. The advent of modern contraception is associated with a destabilization of high (or “fatalistic”) fertility preferences. Thus, as contraceptive prevalence rises and fertility starts to fall, an increasing proportion of couples want no more children (or want an appreciable delay before the next child), and exposure to the risk of unintended pregnancy also increases as a result. In the early and middle phases of fertility transition, adoption and sustained use of effective methods of contraception by couples who wish to postpone or limit childbearing is still far from universal. Hence, the growing need for contraception may outstrip use itself;4 thus, the incidence of unintended and unwanted pregnancies rises, fueling increases in unwanted live births and induced abortion. In this scenario, contraceptive use and induced abortion may rise simultaneously.
        As fertility decreases toward replacement level (two births per woman), or even lower, the length of potential exposure to unwanted pregnancies increases further. For instance, in a society in which the average woman is sexually active from ages 20 to 45 and wants two children, approximately 20 of those 25 years will be spent trying to avoid pregnancy. Once use of highly effective contraceptive methods rises to 80%, the potential demand for abortion, and its incidence, will fall. Demand for abortion falls to zero only in the “perfect contraceptive” population, in which women are protected by absolutely effective contraceptive use at all times, except for the relatively short periods when they want to conceive, are pregnant or are protected by lactational amenorrhea.5 Because such a state of perfect protection is never actually achieved, a residual demand for abortion always exists, although its magnitude varies considerably among low-fertility societies, according to levels of contraceptive use and choice of methods.”

        And…

        “In many populations, rising levels of contraceptive prevalence are not associated over time with falling levels of abortion. It is likely that much of this divergence from the predicted inverse relationship can be explained by simultaneous changes in the TFR, which may mean that the proportion of couples practicing contraception is not keeping pace with the proportion desiring smaller families.
        In Cuba, both contraceptive prevalence and abortion incidence increased between 1970 and 1985, with no decline evident in abortion levels in the period for which data are available (1967-1995).19 This simultaneous rise in both means of fertility regulation, however, coincides with a dramatic drop in fertility from more than four births per woman in 1965 to fewer than two births per woman in the 1990s. The increase in modern contraceptive use alone was probably not sufficient to reach this low level of fertility; therefore, women likely still resorted to induced abortion. Eventually, abortion should be replaced by contraception if levels of contraceptive prevalence continue to rise and fertility stabilizes.
        This pattern also seems to have occurred in Denmark (1970-1990), the Netherlands (1970-1995) and the United States (1965-1995).20 In these countries, as in Cuba, abortion incidence rose noticeably as contraceptive prevalence increased, while fertility levels dropped. Unlike the case in Cuba, however, this initial simultaneous rise in levels of abortion and contraceptive use was followed in these countries by a decline in abortion. This occurred in the early 1970s in the Netherlands, in the mid-1970s in Denmark and in the early 1980s in the United States. In each country, the decline was accompanied by a continued rise in levels of contraceptive use, and the stabilization of fertility at a lower level than before.”

        …talk about your own sources working against you! No wonder you wouldn’t provide the link. Don’t you ever get “tired” at having to quote mine to make your point?

      • rustybrown2012 April 25, 2013 / 11:14 am

        I know you’re a bit slow, so here’s another example of how to properly provide a quote with its source:

        “Providing free, reliable birth control to women could prevent between 41 percent and 71 percent of abortions in the United States, new research finds.

        In a study published today (Oct. 4) in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, researchers provided free methods of reversible, reliable contraception to more than 9,000 teens and women in the St. Louis area. They found that the program reduced the abortion rate among these women by 62 percent to 78 percent.”

        http://www.livescience.com/23726-birth-control-abortion-rate.html

      • tiredoflibbs April 25, 2013 / 5:15 pm

        crusty sure is giddy. But, sadly it will be short lived.

        He finally got up the gonads to search for the quote I provided after holding his hand and instructing him on how to do it after childishly refusing to do so. Then, as usual, he has to lie and claim that I quote mined.

        Secondly, his piss poor reading comprehension was his downfall. The quote he posted (actually reposted the one I did earlier) did nothing to disprove what I stated but disproved what he stated again.

        crusty needs his hand held again and walked through the written word because his narrow minded understanding is incapable of going outside of his close-minded dumbed down talking points. He stumbled exactly where I knew he would because processing the written word is his huge shortcoming.

        ” If fertility and its other determinants (sexual exposure, lactation and pathological infertility, for example) remain constant, a rise in contraceptive use or in effectiveness of use must lead to a decline in induced abortion and vice versa.
        Why, then, does the relationship between levels of contraceptive use and the incidence of induced abortion continue to provoke heated discussion?* And why do some observers claim that increased contraceptive use leads to higher abortion rates?1″

        It is simple there are two camps of thought : 1) increased contraceptive use reduces abortions and 2) increased contraceptive use increases abortions. Notice the last question, “why do some observers claim that increased contraceptive use leads to higher abortion rates?”

        The answer is in the next paragraph: “The reason for the confusion stems from the OBSERVATION that, within particular populations, contraceptive prevalence and the incidence of induced abortion CAN INDEED AND OFTEN DO RISE IN PARALLEL, CONTRARY TO WHAT ONE WOULD EXPECT.”

        THIS IS DOCUMENTED FACT THROUGH OBSERVATION.

        Notice that crusty ignored the other facts I presented. He linked to a blog article that showed New Hampshire had reduced teen pregnancy through increased used of contraceptives and abstinence sex education. Mississippi had the worst record of teen pregnancy with abstinence taught to teens. So we have New Hampshire with high contraceptive use and Mississippi with low contraceptive use. The conclusion crusty wants you to draw is that New Hampshire had fewer unwanted pregnancies than Mississippi. I showed (through the same source as the quotes above) that New Hampshire had a much higher abortion rate (over 12% per capita) than Mississippi (< 5% per capita).

        As I said crusty ignored this little factoid while lying about quote mining when in fact his own little scenario actually proved him wrong again and not surprising he had to throw some lies in there to make himself feel better after losing so badly.

        Crusty, I am "tired" of dealing with dumbed down drones such as yourself regurgitating mindless talking points.

        Thanks for playing.

      • rustybrown2012 April 25, 2013 / 6:00 pm

        Presenting your “evidence” in my post is not ignoring it blockhead. The article clearly states that when fertility rates remain stable the contraception use rises and the abortion rate drops. You’re the one who cherry-picked quotes of anomalous observations while ignoring (not posting) the rest, all the while childishly refusing to post a link. Textbook definition of quote mining, a tactic of the intellectually feeble.

        Any comment on my other link showing a recent study where free, ubiquitous contraceptives dramatically reduced the abortion rate? Click on the link, maybe you can mine some more quotes.

        Oh, and here’s another current (2012) article linking contraceptive use to less abortions. This article also notes the decline in the abortion rate, a fact you had a hard time accepting, but with about a half a dozen sources I’ve provided it must have made it through your thick scull by now.

        http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/12/12/what’s-behind-latest-significant-decline-in-abortion-rates/

      • tiredoflibbs April 25, 2013 / 6:11 pm

        crusty fails at reading comprehension again and again and again and again. It’s so sad it’s pathetic: “Presenting your “evidence” in my post is not ignoring it blockhead. ”

        You IGNORED my post concerning the abortion statistics of New Hampshire and Mississippi in response to your pitiful attempt at equating reductions in teen pregnancies with reductions in abortion.

        Now if you had the gonads to read the post and the intelligence to comprehend the written word (sadly you lack both), you would have seen that it too disproves your silly little talking point regurgitations.

        I grow TIRED of dealing with you and your pathetic attempts at picking fly sh!t out of pepper mentality. You lose at every turn and desperately attempt to grasp at anything.

        Again, your sources are full of holes and deficient and are noted to be so. No matter how many time you repeat the same cherry-picked crap it will not become as accurate as you wish it to be.

      • rustybrown2012 April 25, 2013 / 6:38 pm

        Oh, it HASN’T gotten through your thick scull yet. I’m sorry – your deficiencies are clearly more severe than I thought.

        But go ahead and ignore the evidence, or insist it’s wrong, or whatever. Don’t let it bother you that it comes from multiple sources, several of which are religious right to life groups! If you think too hard, it hurts.

        I’m just glad that I’ve documented in black and white what a dishonest quote miner you are, and what shameful tactics you’ll resort to when losing an argument. That tickles me with delight!

      • tiredoflibbs April 25, 2013 / 7:48 pm

        So again crusty, your studies do not prove that these women would get abortions had they gotten pregnant. There are plenty of assumptions in these studies, especially when these so-called sources are out their presenting these “studies” or the “research” groups themselves presenting what you want to see while asking for “donations”.

        I have presented REAL LIFE statistics as well as studies which disprove your highly regurgitated dumbed down talking points.

        You still have not acknowledged that your so-called study by the CDC that compared New Hampshire and Mississippi. The best example of sex education and contraceptives vs the worst and “the best” had higher abortion rates than the worst. One of your so called “sources” that did a study in St. Louis, where they tried to show that providing contraceptives reduces abortions WAS ONE OF THOSE STATES THAT HAVE TOUGHENED LAWS AGAINST ABORTION. That could not have had an affect now would it? Of course you will deny it since it goes against your indoctrination.

        Just keep digging there crusty, you have yet to solidly refute anything I have presented.

        Oh and here is the source for the tougher actions in Missouri, so you won’t whine and get your panties in a twist because you are too lazy and don’t have the gonads to search beyond your narrow minded leftist talking points. This was fun at first but beating you senseless in a debate has lost all its luster and fun.

      • rustybrown2012 April 25, 2013 / 8:44 pm

        Oh my, tired has found ONE anomalous example of inverse rates of teen pregnancy to OVERALL abortions (two different metrics) and thinks he’s made a case. Well I bet you’re used to a pretty low bar.

        Meanwhile, I’ve provided a plethora of links showing the national abortion rate declining and contraceptive/sex ed linked to less abortions. What should be more convincing, a single apples to oranges comparison between two states, or national studies conducted by the likes of the CDC, the WHO, and the National Institute of Health? And remember: only one of us has resorted to underhanded tactics to make his case, and it ain’t me! I don’t quote mine and I also supply direct links for my quotes because I have nothing to hide!

        Ho, hum, here’s another link. This one highlights Obama as a pro-life hero because, you guessed it, his plan to make contraceptives widely available is going to prevent a lot of abortions. I guess that brings us nicely back to my original point, full circle:

        http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/6501/barack_obama,_pro-life_hero_/

      • rustybrown2012 April 25, 2013 / 8:48 pm

        One more funny thing. Tired says:

        “Oh and here is the source for the tougher actions in Missouri, so you won’t whine and get your panties in a twist because you are too lazy and don’t have the gonads to search beyond your narrow minded leftist talking points.”

        …and then there’s no link! This seems to be pathological with you! I guess you really DO have trouble with tasks as easy as pasting a link; I’m sorry for your disabilities.

      • tiredoflibbs April 25, 2013 / 9:00 pm

        crusty’s land of make believe: “only one of us has resorted to underhanded tactics to make his case, and it ain’t me! I don’t quote mine”

        Uh, crusty you have lied repeatedly in response to me, amazona, spook making claims that were not true. Plus, you lied about what I posted. You posted the relevant paragraph along with a “look at what I found” and then proved NOTHING.

        I have presented empirical evidence with data. You have posted “studies” with mined data, where I have answered that data showing flaws and false conclusions, the one most recently about a study in St. Louis. You have yet to answer to my posts that debunk all your common themed “studies”. You haven’t answered because you can’t.

        Keep dreaming and lying there crusty, that is the only way you can “win” an argument.

        Thanks for playing – to you its a game that is what trolls do.

      • tiredoflibbs April 25, 2013 / 9:12 pm

        crusty, what an illiterate little liar you are:
        Your
        April 25, 2013 at 8:48 pm

        One more funny thing. Tired says:

        “Oh and here is the source for the tougher actions in Missouri, so you won’t whine and get your panties in a twist because you are too lazy and don’t have the gonads to search beyond your narrow minded leftist talking points.”

        …and then there’s no link! This seems to be pathological with you! I guess you really DO have trouble with tasks as easy as pasting a link; I’m sorry for your disabilities.

        Notice the timestamp on my response:

        April 25, 2013 at 8:16 pm
        Crusty, before you whine here is the source, the embedded link did not work:

        St. Louis (in your source’s study) get tougher on abortion.

        http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/are-missouri-lawmakers-at-war-with-women/article_77b8f050-2fd6-5790-b087-944f4a60585a.html

        you have to lie in order to protect your dainty little ego or are you a complete illiterate? There have been several posts where you do not include the link only to either post them later or not at all. You have been caught too many times.

        I grow bored debating mental midgets like you.

      • rustybrown2012 April 25, 2013 / 9:22 pm

        Great, not only are you a quote miner who makes believe he’s refuted every one of my claims(!), but now you’re a time-stamp forger too!

      • rustybrown2012 April 27, 2013 / 2:16 pm

        Amazing! Tired has posted a link! And in it’s proper place! That’s two treats for you tired, plus an extra one for not being a forger. Sadly, you’re still a quote miner.

      • tiredoflibbs April 27, 2013 / 2:54 pm

        crusty: “Amazing! Tired has posted a link! And in it’s proper place! That’s two treats for you tired, plus an extra one for not being a forger. Sadly, you’re still a quote miner.”

        Sadly, you were wrong about me being a “forger” and you are still wrong about me being a quote miner. I demonstrated the quote that you posted said just what I said. You just simply denied it with no argument whatsoever. You just did your typical “no it doesn’t” denial.

        Nice try drone, you failed and lost again.

    • Amazona April 22, 2013 / 8:36 pm

      “I am not denying that what Stalin did under communism was evil, but we are light years from that,..”

      Sorry, but I don’t agree. I now think it could be closer than any of us could have imagined even a decade ago.

      We now have people openly defending socialism, under that name, when not too long ago the very term was a pejorative to be soundly denied. We now have ritualized, government-sponsored, attacks on religion and religious freedom in this country. We now have a close confidant of the President, one of his appointed advisers, who is a supporter of NAMBLA and whose position involves working with young people, who once advised a troubled young gay boy to engage in sex with an older homosexual man—and no one cares. We now have a president who voted to allow babies, babies outside the womb and breathing, to be killed if the female gestational creature who gave birth to it doesn’t want it to live—-and this is accepted. We now have officials in this nation openly arguing, and voting to enable, school officials to take girls as young as 12 to abortionists without the knowledge, much less permission, of their parents, after we have allowed schools to subject those same young girls to lectures from paid consultants which tell them to engage in drug use and sexual experimentation, “boy on girl, boy on boy, girl on girl, it’s all good”. We now have bland acceptance of top government officials openly identifying average American citizens as “domestic terrorists” and close on the heels of this outrage we have bland acceptance of the President assuming the authority to unilaterally decide which American citizens can be legally killed without benefit of apprehension, prosecution, and conviction of a crime. We now have top government officials arguing, and trying to legislate, laws that would effectively remove our national borders and thereby effectively destroy our identity as a sovereign nation.

      Stalin butchered tens of millions because he had to, to ensure his power. Today’s Leftists have it handed to them by compliant sheeple so stupid they can actually buy into, en masse, idiotic lies like the invented WAR ON WOMEN!!!!!!

      While we may not yet be at the point of killing off opposition we are hardly “light years” away from total oppression, and we need to remember that if Russians had been as weak and compliant and submissive as so many Americans are now, Stalin would not have had to kill so many of them off.

      • Cluster April 22, 2013 / 9:02 pm

        I don’t disagree that that is where the leftist model ends up, but I do think that we are quite aways from that place. There is still a very strong community of Faith within America, and there are still a lot of armed, freedom loving, independent minded people, and both of those communities will be a huge road block to any potential ultimate decline.

      • rustybrown2012 April 22, 2013 / 11:01 pm

        Wow, powerful. If you could provide a few links to back up your bat-crazy assertions, it would help your cause. Start with:

        “We now have a president who voted to allow babies, babies outside the womb and breathing, to be killed if the female gestational creature who gave birth to it doesn’t want it to live—and this is accepted.”

      • rustybrown2012 April 23, 2013 / 12:22 am

        Ama,

        Can’t back that one up? I’m not surprised.

      • Cluster April 23, 2013 / 8:57 am

        Rusty, here is Obama’s speech from the Illinois senate floor in 2001:

        “Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”

        In other words, he not only supports live birth abortion prior to the full nine month term, he also supports partial birth abortion, and essentially any abortion that is prior to a full nine month term.

      • Amazona April 23, 2013 / 11:40 am

        “……Obama voted against three bills stating that anyone “born alive at any stage of development” is considered a “person” under Illinois state law including those born as a result of “abortion.” He did this in the face of sworn testimony from Illinois nurses who witnessed aborted newborns living and being neglected for up to eight hours after birth. These are the straightforward and unadorned facts of the matter.”

        http://www.justfactsdaily.com/newt-and-the-associated-press-distort-obamas-born-alive-abortion-record

      • rustybrown2012 April 23, 2013 / 2:53 pm

        Thanks for the source ama, here’s a quote from it:

        “Newt’s (and ama’s) statement is inaccurate. Obama did not vote to “protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.” The preexisting law did not allow doctors to kill babies after they were born”

        …so looks like ama was using the same lying slander that has been repeatedly debunked, even by her own source. And this was my original point. Thanks again for the link!

        Also, from Factcheck.org:

        “What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of “infanticide” as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion.” Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony.”

      • Amazona April 23, 2013 / 3:43 pm

        My goodness, what a frantic little drama queen our rusty is proving to be!

        Too bad he can’t read.

        My link does provide the quote where rusty stopped reading, and then debunks it, proving its deception.

        These assertions miss the truth in three key respects, which are covered in Just Facts’ research on abortion in the sections dealing with live births and terminology.

        First, although Obama has said that he would have voted for the bill that Bush signed in 2002, Obama’s claim is at odds with the fact that he later voted to kill legislation with the same operative language. This vote took place on March 12, 2003 in an Illinois Senate committee that Obama was chairing. The bill was practically a word-for-word replica of the federal bill that Bush had signed, except that it applied on a state level.

        Second, Woodward and Raum parrot Obama’s stance that existing Illinois law already offered protection for infants who were born alive after an abortion. However, the law did not require care for such infants if there wasn’t a “reasonable likelihood of sustained survival” in the judgment of the abortion provider. Consequently, aborted infants in Illinois sometimes lived for hours after birth while being abandoned to die without any care or comfort provided to them.

        Finally, Woodward and Raum label live-born humans as “fetuses,” when in fact, the term “fetus” refers to “humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.” All of the legislation in question was applicable to humans who are “born alive” after “complete expulsion or extraction” from their mothers. Hence, these are not fetuses but newborns.”

        “Lying slander” !!!!!!! Ooooh!!!!! Wipe that spittle off your monitor, rusty, and take a breath, take a pill, and calm yourself.

        Aside from your lack of understanding of redundancy—-a “slander” is by definition a lie—-you are just overwrought at having Dear Leader’s lies exposed.

        Too bad. But don’t worry—-his Complicit Agenda Media will help you drooling minions hide them from view.

      • Amazona April 23, 2013 / 4:04 pm

        Poor silly rusty, so caught up in his knee-jerk spasm of outrage at having his idol’s infanticide vote discussed again that he couldn’t even keep track of what he was yammering on about.

        I said “…Obama voted against three bills stating that anyone “born alive at any stage of development” is considered a “person” under Illinois state law including those born as a result of “abortion.” ”

        This is true. This is a fact. This is what he voted against.

        What was contradicted in your quote was the claim that Obama voted “…… to “protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.”

        Hmmmmmm. I said he voted against three bills that would have identified anyone born alive as a person, and you are claiming that I said he voted to defend doctors who kill live babies.

        Not an unusual segue from fact to fiction, but one nevertheless.

        His vote is a matter of record, no matter how hard the apologists try to spin the facts.

      • rustybrown2012 April 23, 2013 / 4:44 pm

        I’m reposting this because I put it in the wrong place:

        Ama,

        Wow, you sure have trouble keeping track of your own words. My original post was about your statement (I’ll post it again since your memory is failing):

        “We now have a president who voted to allow babies, babies outside the womb and breathing, to be killed if the female gestational creature who gave birth to it doesn’t want it to live—and this is accepted.”

        You then helpfully provided a link which said this claim, that Obama allows babies to be killed, is false. Factcheck.org finds it false as well. Are you sure you’re not having a stroke or something? I really don’t know how much more simple I can make it for you…

      • Amazona April 23, 2013 / 10:53 pm

        rusty, I am so sorry, though not surprised, that you are having so much trouble understanding the content of the link I provided.

        It is pretty pathetic that you keep referring to it while misstating it, but then you have never been a paragon of intellect, honesty or interest in truth. Again, your prattling is no surprise.

        Maybe you can find someone to explain the content of the link to you, as it is so clearly far above your limited ability of reading comprehension.

        Till then you can stop your buzzing around. You started off as annoying, and now that seems pretty flattering by comparison.

        You’ve made your point, which is that your only interest is in sniping, insulting, attacking, and trying ever so hard to be relevant via being a blog vandal. But your impotent squeaking does not rise even to that level.

      • rustybrown2012 April 23, 2013 / 11:26 pm

        Ama,

        It’s really very simple. To recap: you claimed Obama signed a bill which would allow viable babies to be killed outside of the womb, and I pointed out how every sane and honest assessment finds this to be slanderous nonsense. End of story.

      • rustybrown2012 April 24, 2013 / 9:53 am

        And yes, I’ve made my point. I’ve questioned you on a ridiculous statement you’ve made and proved it to be malicious bull.

      • Amazona April 24, 2013 / 10:23 am

        Oh, rusty rusty rusty……The Rule of Holes.

        As distasteful a human being as you are, it is still sad to see you spinning so far outside the gravitational pull of sanity.

        Yes, we know how dependent you are on lies, but you need to remember that when you tell a lie here, about what was actually posted, we can look back to see what I really wrote.

        Gee, doncha hate it when that happens?

        Of course, given the desperate need of your kind to simply redefine terms as necessary to fit whatever hateful narrative you are spewing, you may have simply redefined “voted” to mean “signed”. Hey, on Planet Rusty, maybe Senators DO sign bills.

        But here, not so much.

        So, I said, quite truthfully, that Obama voted for something. Which he did by voting against something that would have banned it. I know, I know, this is a complicated sequence for you, but do try to keep up. Maybe that Darwin coloring book you find so fascinating has a section on connect-the-dots, to give you some practice.

        I left it at that, as my point had been made, and I know it is backed up by the record. I didn’t go on to say that his was the only vote against this bill, and that even the most ardent pro-abortion advocates in the Senate voted for it. I just stated the one fact.

        So now we know it bothers you, this fact, and we know you will gladly lie to support your delusion that it simply never happened, and we know that when you get yourself all wound up in one of your hysterical spasms you forget yourself and claim things that are disproved by the words right here on the thread. (Hmmm—I wonder if your strident reaction means you are actually against infanticide. Who knew?)

        What we also know, and have known for some time, is that you are irrelevant, nothing but noise, nothing but a petty wannabe blog vandal who is capable of doing nothing but lurking, waiting for one of your betters to say something so you can lurch out and yip and yap and do your annoying ankle-biting thing.

      • rustybrown2012 April 24, 2013 / 2:38 pm

        Ama,

        I guess you missed this quote I posted from factcheck.org:

        “there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion.” Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony.”

        So if viable babies born alive are already protected by law with threat of felony charges for non-compliance, seems like the bill he voted against was redundant, and Obama was not voting to “allow babies to be killed” since they were already protected. And you say you hate bureaucracy! Could it be the bill was just a back-door attack on Roe v. Wade, hmmm? Of course it was, as Obama so eloquently explained. But you failed, just like you do in your lame attempts to shoehorn creationism into schools.

      • Amazona April 24, 2013 / 7:49 pm

        Yeah, except a baby is not a fetus, and yeah, except for the disclaimer that the “doctor” (ignoring the oath to “do no harm”) gets to make the decision about who would be treated and who would not, and you are wrong.

        “Newly discovered documents from the Illinois state archives prove Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has lied about his opposition as an Illinois state senator to legislation requiring health officials to provide care to babies who survived abortion.

        Obama has repeatedly claimed he would have voted for Illinois’ version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) had it included language to protect abortion rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, as the federal version of the bill did, which sailed through the U.S. Senate 98-0. Contrary to what Obama has said, forgotten records from the Illinois Senate archives show Obama did vote against a BAIPA bill that included such a neutrality clause virtually identical to the federal bill.

        Muskett’s “smoking gun” is a 2003 Health and Human Services Committee report recorded by Republican committee staff. It documents a unanimous 10-0 vote by the 2003 Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired at the time, to amend BAIPA to include the exact same language that was added to the federal version to protect Roe v. Wade. The committee report also shows a subsequent “final action” vote to determine if the bill should advance out of committee or be killed. The bill was defeated 6-4. Chairman Obama voted in the majority.

        This means that, in essence, Obama voted to successfully amend the bill in a way that Obama has said would have enabled him to support it—before he voted against it. It also puts Obama further to the left of NARAL Pro-Choice America. According to a statement released by the abortion-rights lobby in the run-up to the U.S. Senate’s BAIPA vote in 2002, “NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act … floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

        For those who may doubt partisan records, the Republican committee report is backed by an Associated Press article that documented the 6-4 vote on the amended version of the bill.

        “The Senate Health and Human Services Committee rejected a bill that declares any fetus with a beating heart or muscle movement outside the womb as ‘born alive,’” reporter Kristy Hessman’s AP story said. Her article was filed from Springfield, Ill., and dated the same day as the Republican committee report, removing any doubt she may have been reporting on any other measure. “The measure is in response to a rare abortion procedure in which labor is induced and the fetus sometimes survives, possibly for hours,” Hessman wrote. “The sponsor, Sen. Rick Winkel, R-Champaign, said the bill is modeled after a recent federal policy that defines a ‘born-alive’ infant. But critics said defining when a fetus is ‘alive’ could require doctors to provide care and might expose them to legal action if they don’t, even if there was no way the fetus could survive outside the womb. Winkel’s bill got four ‘yes’ votes and six ‘no’ votes.”

        Conservative journalist David Freddoso said these documents are “absolute proof ” Obama has distorted his position on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

        “Obama said he would have voted for that bill if it had been like the federal bill when, in fact, he voted against it when it was like the federal bill,” Freddoso said. “So he’s been lying about it the whole time.”

        Go find someone else to pester.

      • rustybrown2012 April 24, 2013 / 10:48 pm

        You’re the one who said he was killing babies dearie, not me. And if a doctor shouldn’t be making the decision about viability outside the womb, who should – a rancher?

  3. bardolf2 April 22, 2013 / 6:57 pm

    “I don’t disagree that life is life, and I don’t advocate that the women take the exception, but I also don’t pretend too be some authority and dictate what a woman must do under those very difficult circumstances that as a male, I can not even begin to comprehend.” Cluster

    I don’t disagree that freedom is freedom, and I don’t advocate that that Southerners in the 1850’s take the exception, but I also don’t pretend to be some authority and dictate what a businessman must do under very difficulty economic circumstances that as a Northerner without a large farm, I can not even began to comprehend.

    Besides it is constitutional, so being a conservative I’ll have to reserve judgement.

    Abe Lincoln

    • Cluster April 22, 2013 / 8:08 pm

      Stool,

      You’re equating life of the unborn to slavery? You’re really bad attempt at a gotcha, is as bad as it gets. Every single living human being knows in their heart that slavery is, and was wrong, and the practice of slavery affects everyone. As a male, there is no way possible that I can understand the emotional turmoil incest and or rape inflicts on the mind and body, and as a male, there is no way that I would personally dictate to a woman to carry that child to term. I would hope that she chooses life and would encourage her to do so, but in those instances, I wouldn’t condemn her if she didn’t.

      • Amazona April 22, 2013 / 8:52 pm

        No, dolf is saying that right is right and wrong is wrong, and that they are not relative.

        And emotional turmoil is not permanent—-at least not unless the victim is hammered with the message that it IS, until she accepts the idea that she is now permanently damaged, so traumatized, so emotionally maimed, that she is beyond the normal boundaries of morality and not expected to think of anything past the emotions of the moment.

        Well, the trauma of rape is transient. Pregnancy is finite in duration. But dead is dead, and the official statement that killing a baby is not wrong if the woman is distressed can nudge her into a permanent solution to a temporary problem, with guilt that lasts a lot longer than the term of a pregnancy, and without the satisfaction of having done something noble even though it was hard.

      • bardolf2 April 22, 2013 / 8:53 pm

        Clueless

        I am equating the taking of life with the taking of freedom. You are saying that a slave has more rights to life than an unborn child. You assume that the unborn, out of sight, is really not a full human with the right to life. You don’t believe that a woman getting an abortion is participating in a murder. You said yourself you wouldn’t “condemn her”.

        I might not ‘condemn her’ either, BUT that’s because we are cowards, not because she doesn’t deserve such condemnation.
        Your arguments are empty. What you offer is false outrage at my comparison.

        Let’s deconstruct your grave misunderstandings.

        Every single living human ‘knows in their hearts’ means 0 without a religious context. It means nothing. In a secular setting it can only mean that the law and majority opinion hold X to be wrong and it should be obvious that X is wrong. If your claim is based on the secular notion, it is equivalent to a leftwing claim that “everyone knows in their hearts that universal health care is a right”.

        “Knows in their hearts” is a religious phrase connected to the idea that God has written HIs commandments on the hearts of people. This law written on people’s hearts is the basis for the universal judgement. By the same token the commandment against taken the life of the innocent i.e. abortion is ‘known to everyone in their heart’.

        Again, the slave-holders really argued that freeing the slaves would destroy the lives of both the slaves and the slaveholders. They really believed they were doing better by the slaves than the ‘wage-slavery’ in the North. You might not believe that they believed it, but then again I can say I don’t believe your ’emotional turmoil’ schtick either.

        Your family has never depended on the work of a slave to be able to sustain itself. Nevertheless you can judge those kept slaves because a person is not entitled to steal the work of another so they can live. It is wrong for a starving person to steal from a grocery store. Saying I ‘undersand’ the stealing just talks about human nature, not right and wrong.

        Lincoln’s main appeal against slavery was that it was stealing. That is was against the 10 commandments and written on our hearts. He didn’t appeal to the constitution or the Enlightenment.

        I do wonder if the supreme court had forced slavery on every state in the 1860’s and if slavery was hidden from public view and if slavery was easy to justify to oneself economically among the middle class across all states, and if the majority of churches said it was no big deal, and the majority of churches were more focused on important financial issues, would there have been a great civil war.

      • Cluster April 22, 2013 / 9:06 pm

        I don’t think you or Amazona really get where I am coming from. I have never said that the woman is incapable of carrying the baby to term. I am not saying that the woman should have an abortion because she is too weak. I am simply saying that I as an individual would leave that decision to her. Period.

        What is so hard to understand about that?

      • Amazona April 23, 2013 / 11:21 am

        Cluster, I do understand your position.

        I am merely pointing out two things.

        One is my belief that your position is influenced by the societal shift to identifying rape as the most horrific, permanently traumatic, impossible-to-recover-from, defining event of a woman’s life.

        And one is at lack of support from society that focuses on getting past the event, and instead supports the official position that a serious wrong is made OK, somehow, if it is a response to another serious wrong.

        I am not saying that a woman who is totally freaked out by a rape-caused pregnancy should be abused for thinking that killing the child will make her feel better.

        I am talking about a formal, societal, legal position that killing the child is not an evil in and of itself, if the child is conceived in rape.

        It is not about you. It is not about the very very very few women who do get pregnant due to rape. It is you who do not follow the argument.

        It is about the idea that we should condone abortion in the case of rape, which is a statement that the evil of abortion is relative, just as other evils are relative to the Left.

        It is about a formal governmental, societal, statement, that abortion is awful—-EXCEPT when…….

        And one of my objections to this is that it can so easily lead a traumatized, panicked, woman to make an irreversible decision based on the message given to her by society, by legislatures, by friends and family, that what she instinctively wants to do (to make it all somehow Go Away) because of her situation is not really as awful as it would be for any other reason.

        A woman who is convinced that her life will be ruined if she has to spend a few months carrying an unwanted child is going to kill it no matter what. But an emotionally vulnerable woman already going through the trauma of rape and its aftermath should not be encouraged to make a permanent decision because a politically motivated agenda has created a false narrative of permanent damage due to rape, and an exemption from personal responsibility because of it.

      • neocon01 April 23, 2013 / 3:05 pm

        Christianity and the American Constitution

        Until well into my life-time, the overwhelming majority of Americans believed that the United States was a Christian nation. In believing that, they did not desire the persecution of other religions, nor did they want to see people forced to become Christians, nor did they believe that one Christian denomination should be favored at the expense of others. They rejected the concept of one Christian denomination functioning as an established national Church, as the Churches of England and Scotland still do today in Great Britain.

        But Americans overwhelmingly believed that Christian ideas and principles should receive favorable treatment and that its understanding of Moral Law should undergird the laws of the United States and the individual states. When other people’s religious practices came into conflict with Moral Law, Moral Law, not the practices of other religions, was always supreme. People were free to believe as they saw fit, but they could not practice their beliefs when those practices ran contrary to morality; they had to live by the Christian based laws of the United States. This can readily be seen through the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. As one example of how this has been worked out, one may note Davis v. Beason cited below, where Mormons were forbidden to practice polygamy, an early tenet of their faith, because it was contrary to Moral Law as understood by historic Christianity.

        http://www.rbvincent.com/usconstitution.htm

  4. rustybrown2012 April 22, 2013 / 7:50 pm

    Wow, this is like a ship of fools. Equanimity indeed. This blog is the antithesis of the word.

    • bardolf2 April 22, 2013 / 8:03 pm

      Welcome aboard!

      • rustybrown2012 April 22, 2013 / 8:09 pm

        Ahoy, matey!

    • Amazona April 22, 2013 / 8:07 pm

      yip yap yip yap,the ankle-biter darts in for yet another bold attack!

      • rustybrown2012 April 22, 2013 / 8:38 pm

        Hey ama, great to here from you! How’s your study of speciation going?

      • Amazona April 22, 2013 / 8:47 pm

        yip yip yip

      • rustybrown2012 April 22, 2013 / 9:41 pm

        Not so well, huh? Keep at it, and maybe your vocabulary will progress beyond a single syllable!

      • neocon01 April 23, 2013 / 10:30 am

        crustybrownshorts

        didnt take long for ole TROLL breath, crusty brown shorts to revert to his old ways…

      • Amazona April 23, 2013 / 11:08 am

        Yeah, crusty rusty, you feel that you have some sort of argument you can make regarding the claim that one species can turn into another, so you try to shift discourse on other subjects onto this one so you can carry on, again, interminably, just regurgitating the same old same old.

        Been there, done that, proved you wrong, don’t feel like indulging your pathetic pathology by going back. This seems to be a comfort zone for you, so you need to scurry back to it when you get called out in other areas.

        Your problem, not mine.

      • rustybrown2012 April 23, 2013 / 3:01 pm

        Ama,

        “Proved me wrong” – that’s rich! This coming from a woman who provided a link about the evolution of the horse, yet thinks the modern horse and its ancient ancestor are the SAME SPECIES! Cause they kinda, sorta look alike, or something. Ama, baby, a half-bright second grader can prove you wrong.

      • rustybrown2012 April 23, 2013 / 3:03 pm

        But you’re correct about one thing ama, being right is a comfort zone for me.

      • Amazona April 23, 2013 / 3:36 pm

        Just keep telling yourself your delusional stories, rusty, and in the meantime we will keep noticing that all you can do is lurk in the weeds to dart out and snipe at your betters who actually engage in reasoned discourse.

        You have found a very small area in which you feel your arguments are conclusive, and this is the comfort zone to which you retreat every time you are slapped around anywhere else. You nag, whine, squeal, yammer and otherwise harangue on this topic, because it makes you feel intellectually superior, though your arguments do not have that effect on anyone else.

        You smirk that being right is your comfort zone, yet you are really just hiding out in a tiny area where you feel secure. And all you do is repeat speculations, based on observations of fragmented information.

        It is so funny that you Lefties, while squealing about “science”, are so dependent on conclusions based on speculation, and on extrapolation from observations of isolated pieces of data. We note that while you simper about your self-proclaimed proofs of evolution, you are still restricted to examples which do not prove your claims.

        As for your bleating about the modern horse and eopippus being different species, in general a specie is grouped according to the sameness of their predecessor.

        Eohippus evolved into the modern horse, but not into a hummingbird or granite or algae. Evolution is proven within a genus, or lineage of specie. Therefore, eohippus and the other species of equine which developed in the interim were never in danger of “evolving” into anything that laid eggs, or could fly, or even into any of the bovine genus.

        You think you are being clever by focusing on your own perception of “cross speciation” yet you ignore the fact that you never have been able to prove your claim of all species originating from the same life form.

        You are basically just a pissy little ankle-biter who can only react to what his better say. But I’ll say this for you—you are very very good at being pissy. Your self-satisfied little smirk comes right through every one of your posts.

        Too bad you can never post anything significant. For example, this is a politically oriented post, yet your political illiteracy prevents you from participating in a legitimate political discussion.

      • rustybrown2012 April 23, 2013 / 5:35 pm

        Aww, hit a little nerve there ama?

        Yeah, we “lefties” are always “squealing about science”. Always claiming there is proof for evolution. Us and, oh, I don’t know, all of the world’s SCIENTISTS! But I’m sure you know better – you’re a rancher!

        “Eohippus evolved into the modern horse, but not into a hummingbird or granite or algae.”

        …you’re right about that one (chalk one up for ama!), yet every biologist in the world would agree with me that Eohippus and the modern horse are completely distinct species, contrary to your claim that one species cannot evolve into another.

        “you ignore the fact that you never have been able to prove your claim of all species originating from the same life form.”

        …it’s not my claim darlin’, it’s the claim of every reputable biologist in the world, and the evidence in overwhelming. You should look into it sometime; perhaps start with a Darwin coloring book.

        Oh, and by the way, I think you mean “species”, not “specie”. The word “specie” means “coined money”.

        Yep, ama sure knows her way around some biology book-learnin’!

      • rustybrown2012 April 23, 2013 / 7:14 pm

        Ouch!

      • Amazona April 23, 2013 / 10:44 pm

        No, no, no, not “every biologist in the world”, much less “…all of the world’s SCIENTISTS!” buy into the speculation that all life started from a random collision of inert particles which then, somehow, became a form of life, which then, somehow, became all life on the planet.

        You are quibbling about semantics, trying to shift attention away from your patently ridiculous, stupid and uprovable assertion that all life stems from the same lifeless origin.

        And the only reason you are babbling on about this is because for some reason you seem convinced that your arguments on this topic are convincing, so you have to slither back to this, because it is the only area in which you feel confident.

        I believe you were one of the those who whimpered so when I have made corrections to spelling, syntax,etc. So I stopped, though a “word” like “siteing” (sic) did get my attention. Now you are doing what you fragile little flowers of hypersensitivity find swoon-making when it is directed toward you.

        But hey, if we were to cite hypocrisy from you guys whenever it rears its ugly (and semi-literate) head, that’s all we’d have time to do.

      • rustybrown2012 April 23, 2013 / 11:19 pm

        Ama,

        Nobody’s talking about abiogenesis; the discussion is about the evolution of life on this planet, and specifically your laughable misunderstanding of speciation. But I think you know this. Typical ama – lose the argument, shift the goalpost.

        And yes, yes, yes, every reputable biologist on the planet agrees with the theory of evolution, common ancestry, and speciation.

        And though I don’t usually resort to correcting your and others minor grammatical mistakes (I believe to routinely do so, as you do, is petty and a sure sign that you’re losing the substance of the debate), pointing out that someone attempting to lecture about speciation doesn’t even know the correct word for “species” is too delicious to pass up, and actually, relevant to the debate in that it betrays your ignorance on the subject.

        And no, this isn’t the only area of knowledge where I feel comfortable. In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m pasting you on abortion up thread!

      • Jeremiah April 24, 2013 / 12:39 am

        Amazona,

        Since you was having a discussion with rusty about evolution…I wanted to ask you something, and you probably know because you are familiar with Colorado….

        How many kinds of trout are there in Colorado streams? And of course, Wyoming and Montana waters if you can list them.

        Now keep in mind this unrelated to evolution…cause I’m not interested in Rusty’s “evolution” pap.

        Thanks.

      • Jeremiah April 24, 2013 / 12:44 am

        Too, I wanted to ask you about a creek that runs the national forest out there, not sure which national forest, but one of them…I think it’s in Wyoming, I’m not sure…but this creek runs into a cave and comes out … Oh I don’t know, I forget how long it is, but it comes out, and there are supposed to be these huge Rainbow trout that are actually tame like….do you know where this is, and if you are permitted to fish there?

      • Jeremiah April 24, 2013 / 12:49 am

        There is something special about crystal clear water flowing over stones, and these beautiful fish that live in this ice cold water, the pureness of it, and the life that it gives. It’s amazing.

      • Amazona April 24, 2013 / 10:32 am

        So you are arguing for “common ancestry” but not “abiogenesis”.

        When I agree that evolution is proven within a certain species or genus, you flip out over semantics.

        In other words, though I have agreed with the premise that eohippus, for example, can become the modern horse, you still need to find an excuse to berate me, call me names, and try to insult me. (I say “try” because one cannot be insulted by one’s inferiors.)

        So you have added another layer to the existing awareness that you are driven by nothing but the desperate need to attack, by the pathology of dependence on conflict even if you have to create it.

        What a petty, nasty thing you are! I can’t even imagine what it must be like to be so defined by spite and malice that you are driven to go out and generate bogus arguments just so you can wallow in it.

      • Amazona April 24, 2013 / 10:51 am

        Jeremiah, your question is a pleasant change from the obsessive pathology of poor rusty.

        There are a lot of kinds of trout in Colorado and Wyoming. The most common are loosely grouped as brown trout, cutthroat trout (so-called because they have a brilliant red stripe under the jaw) rainbow trout and brook trout.

        But there are several species of each. I once caught a beautiful golden yellow trout, which may have been a golden trout or just a lighter color of the brown trout.

        I once saw a huge page of photos on google that had pictures of many kinds of trout—you might do a search for “kinds of trout in Colorado” as I think that is where I found it when I was trying to find out what kind of fish I had caught. There are some pictures that look like it but no captions, but if you can find it you will see some great fish photos

      • rustybrown2012 April 24, 2013 / 11:59 am

        Ama,

        First off, abiogenesis and common ancestry are two completely different things; I thought you knew that but it comes as no surprise to me that you don’t.

        Secondly, we certainly agree that evolution is proven within a species – that was never at issue (by the way, you don’t say “within a species or genus”. It’s redundant. Since species is a subcategory of genus, any claim you make about a species automatically applies to its genus. Give that booklearnin’ a try someday!). What is at issue is your failure to recognize evolution within a genus, or the ability of one species to change into another, which is well documented by your Eohippus/modern horse example and countless others.

        Also, if by “flip out over semantics” you mean me pointing out that you use a word that means “quarters, dimes and nickels” when you mean to say “species”, then yeah, that is kind of a biggie. It’s as if we were talking about dog breeds and you referred to one of them as a pineapple – sorta gets your attention.

        Lastly, I notice you cry some variation of “your inferior”, and “I’m your better!” multiple times in your last several posts. Hmmm, what do we call someone who feels compelled to repeatedly bleat “I’m better than you” in absence of a real argument? Answer: extremely insecure and losing the debate.

        Look up “psychological projection. It’s all over your face.

      • Retired Spook April 24, 2013 / 12:21 pm

        And no, this isn’t the only area of knowledge where I feel comfortable.

        Rusty, I’ve never seen anyone on this blog who is more comfortable than you at continually making a fool of himself. The most delicious part is that you don’t even seem to realize it.

      • rustybrown2012 April 24, 2013 / 1:16 pm

        Is that right, spook? Pray tell, exactly which of my contentions in this thread make me look foolish?

      • Retired Spook April 24, 2013 / 1:50 pm

        Pray tell, exactly which of my contentions in this thread make me look foolish?

        Exactly. LOL!

      • rustybrown2012 April 24, 2013 / 3:11 pm

        Spook,

        The depths of your ignorance are slowly revealed with every post you make. Seems endless…

      • Retired Spook April 24, 2013 / 4:13 pm

        The depths of your ignorance are slowly revealed with every post you make. Seems endless…

        ROTFLMAO, Rusty. You are completely in the dark, aren’t you? You just keep truckin’ on, little fella.

      • Jeremiah April 24, 2013 / 4:38 pm

        Amazona,

        Thank you for that information. 🙂

        I would like to go there sometime to fish…sometime in the future. Though it costs a lot of money to travel, lodge, and everything.

        Had you ever heard of the “apache” trout? I think I read somewhere about those one time…and of course, some high mountain lakes carry bull trout, if I’m not mistaken.

        Also what are some major hatches (mayfly, caddis, etc) in the area?

      • rustybrown2012 April 24, 2013 / 5:10 pm

        Spook,

        There’s a universal rule in debate: when you invite your opponent to specifically refute any of your claims and they respond with nothing more than insults, you’ve won. Thought you would have learned that by now…

      • Retired Spook April 24, 2013 / 5:29 pm

        Spook, There’s a universal rule in debate: when you invite your opponent to specifically refute any of your claims and they respond with nothing more than insults, you’ve won.

        Is that why you’re here, Rusty — to debate? That’s hysterical.

    • Cluster April 22, 2013 / 8:09 pm

      Au contraire Rusty – the antithesis of equanimity is the histrionics of the left over every single issue, and stools latest attempt at a gotcha.

      • bardolf2 April 22, 2013 / 8:57 pm

        Cluster

        It isn’t a gotcha, or maybe it is. But you should understand that people like myself, GMB and other social conservatives don’t dismiss the analogy between slavery and pro-choice.

      • Cluster April 22, 2013 / 9:11 pm

        Well then to use my contention on the rape/incest exception, I would say that I would support those free slaves to have the option to return to their former lives of servitude if they so choose. In fact, people in San Francisco pay good money to be treated like a slave. LOL.

      • neocon01 April 23, 2013 / 10:13 am

        Dr B

        if slavery is so bad why arent we condemning the blacks who rounded up their fellow tribesmen and SOLD them on the market?
        or
        the fellow blacks who OWNED slaves them selves?
        or
        the african muslims who own slaves in this very day?
        or
        American Indians who owned slaves themselves?

        talk about straw man arguments….

      • neocon01 April 23, 2013 / 10:43 am

        Dr B

        there is no analogy, slavery was 150 years ago and owned by the democrats, abortion is todays news. 55 MILLION DEAD – newsto be sure.

    • tiredoflibbs April 24, 2013 / 6:00 pm

      Spook, crusty like our pResident is too caught up is his own greatness to recognize anything negative or his own shortcomings.

      Also, like our pResident, when those shortcomings are revealed to him in any public forum, he will go on the attack with insults thus proving …”and they respond with nothing more than insults, you’ve won.”

  5. Jeremiah April 22, 2013 / 9:28 pm

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

    — Marcus Tullius Cicero
    106-43 B.C. Roman Statesman, Philosopher and Orator

    • neocon01 April 23, 2013 / 10:31 am

      Amen Jer!!

      • neocon01 April 23, 2013 / 1:46 pm

        Drudge

        OOPS! RICIN SUSPECT RELEASED
        WAS HE FRAMED?

      • neocon01 April 23, 2013 / 1:49 pm

        Obama to headline fundraiser for largest US abortion provider…

        Psalm 109:8

      • neocon01 April 23, 2013 / 1:54 pm

        Bloomberg: Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bombing…

        NEWS to bloomy……..%$&#@%$# YOU!!

      • Jeremiah April 23, 2013 / 2:17 pm

        Obama to headline fundraiser for largest US abortion provider…

        And he couldn’t even stop to visit West, Texas after that horrible explosion. No, he had to go for a DNC fundraiser, and Planned Parenthood expansion fundraiser.

      • neocon01 April 23, 2013 / 2:41 pm

        jer nothing to be gained for the cretin by visiting THOSE victims.

        He sure paraded the murdered kids parents around like trophies so he could destroy our constitution one more step.

  6. mitchethekid April 23, 2013 / 4:12 pm

    The President will be in West, Texas on Thursday.

    • neocon01 April 23, 2013 / 5:07 pm

      dallas?

    • Jeremiah April 23, 2013 / 8:53 pm

      Oh yeah, the DNC and Planned Parenthood come first!

  7. mitchethekid April 23, 2013 / 6:25 pm

    You are not much on being cryptic. Why don’t you just come out and say what you mean by mentioning Dallas, since the explosion took place in West. Not a post of your goes by without mentioning the inner city, a plantation, porch monkeys, calling the White House a “hut”, ebonics or siteing a prayer for the death of others. Be a man about it Neo. Say what you mean without attempting to be to cute by half. Since you are tolerated here, I am sure some will applaud your forthrightness.

    • neocon01 April 23, 2013 / 7:20 pm

      you on the meth pipe again bmitch? ROTFLMAO!!

      • mitchethekid April 23, 2013 / 8:33 pm

        Yep. I’m a meth addict from Wasilla Alaska.

      • neocon01 April 23, 2013 / 8:35 pm

        bmitch

        clearly you are mixed up (stoned)
        that is kenya/indonesia/hawaii/chi caago then the mainland USA @ 20yo….do try to keep up.

      • tiredoflibbs April 23, 2013 / 9:34 pm

        mitchie: “Yep. I’m a meth addict from Wasilla Alaska.”

        There is always one somewhere – explains a lot about you mitchie.

    • neocon01 April 23, 2013 / 7:37 pm

      you lie

      “siteing a prayer for the death of others”.

      • Jeremiah April 23, 2013 / 9:07 pm

        They just cleaned up a meth lab here at the end of my street, a week before this past Sunday, the Sunday before last…you should have seen it…the first responders were the fire department, ambulances, a swarm of state police, and sherriff’s…after that, there were animal control, a child custody service, and a regional response team with a huge trailer…I never seen anything to beat it in my life, if one didn’t know any better they would have thought there was a terrorist attack…they had these great big huge spotlights and man they flipped them things on and it looked like a football field, people buzzing around like bees with these blue chemical suits, carrying jugs in and out. They start at about 6:30 in the evening, and they didn’t finish up to almost 11:00 PM that night. But boy I’m glad to see them get that matter taken care of, cause if that had of blowed up, you know it woulda caused some major damage to other homes in our neighborhood…..were probably 150 yards away, n they said if that woulda blowed up it woulda blew our windows out. N you wouldn’t believe how many peoples been busted here lately, a bunch of ’em.

      • Jeremiah April 23, 2013 / 9:25 pm

        What I’d like to know is, is why do these people get out of jail after being busted for snitching on someone else? Why don’t the police keep them in there?

      • Majordomo Pain May 4, 2013 / 12:12 pm

        You have done this so many times that it has backfired and cost your own family dearly. You were warned.

    • neocon01 April 24, 2013 / 7:28 am

      jimmah

      OK, ALL together RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBE…….the mantra of the left. When ya cant answer, refute, debate….accuse the accuser alinsky 101.
      SASAN – james we know you to be a hate, rage filled iranian, muslim…..you show your true colors here before you get kicked off again.
      Glad to see you have hooked up with the bounced troll and new forker bmitch….this should be a fun ride…

      • mitchethekid April 24, 2013 / 10:28 am

        Well strap yourself in. I’d like for you to provide factual evidence that the President of the United States is foreign born and therefore not a citizen, that he is a Muslim, that he is gay and that he is in agreement with the philosophy of Karl Marx. Links to obscure and opinion based websites do not count as factual.

      • neocon01 April 24, 2013 / 11:55 am

        mitchethekid April 23, 2013 at 8:33 pm #

        Yep. I’m a meth addict from

    • neocon01 April 24, 2013 / 8:06 am

      But did the Brothers Tsarnaev really fail – as terrorists?

      On Sunday’s talk shows, a sub-theme was that this had been the “most successful terrorist attack since 9/11.”

      For consider what these brothers accomplished.

      By brazenly exploding two bombs right at the finish line of the marathon, with TV cameras all around, they killed three and injured, wounded and maimed 178 people for all the world to see.

      Within hours, their atrocity had riveted the attention of the nation. Cable channels went wall to wall, as did major networks. By the evening of the attack, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and President Obama had gone live to reassure us they would be apprehended and justice done.

      Day two, Obama appeared again as the greatest manhunt in U.S. history was under way. On day four, the FBI released photos, imploring citizens to come forward and identify the men in the white and black caps.

      That evening, the brothers murdered an MIT police officer, hijacked a Mercedes SUV and engaged in a gunfight with Watertown police that left Tamerlan Tsarnaev dead and his brother a fugitive.

      On Friday morning, Gov. Patrick went before the cameras to tell a stunned nation he was imposing a lockdown on all of Boston and half a dozen neighboring communities. Red Sox and Bruins games were canceled.

      Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/did-the-brothers-tsarnaev-fail/#HWk8O3i5SOUSwAoc.99

    • neocon01 April 24, 2013 / 8:08 am

      bmitch

      I post links to leftist donk sites all the hate and vitriol one could handle in a lifetime..LOVE IT!! LOL

      • neocon01 April 24, 2013 / 8:10 am

        GEE…..who’d a thought!!!!!

        TAXPAYER-FUNDED TERROR?

        BOMBERS, FAMILY ON WELFARE…

  8. tiredoflibbs April 24, 2013 / 5:36 pm

    Crusty: “There’s a universal rule in debate: when you invite your opponent to specifically refute any of your claims and they respond with nothing more than insults, you’ve won. Thought you would have learned that by now…”

    Obviously, you have not as I have shown from your posts.

    Pathetic – still pro ting as usual crusty.

  9. tiredoflibbs April 24, 2013 / 7:41 pm

    Crusty keeps up his meme that abortions are on the decline because of sex ed and contraception. He has not proven anything.

    He would not even like this little factoid that states are making it harder to get an abortion – Could that have anything to do with leveling off the abortion rate (most statistics have shown a leveling off and not a steady decrease as crusty keeps regurgitating)?

    …Not in crusty’s land of make believe.

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dozens-states-make-it-hard-get-abortions

    Naw, that has nothing to do with it.

  10. tiredoflibbs April 24, 2013 / 9:52 pm

    crusty, you sure are sheltered from statistics and how they are calculated and easily manipulated. Crusty needs his hand held and guided step by step.

    Let’s take the “eating ice cream causes more drownings in the summer months” example I stated before.

    Anyone can show statistically that with increased ice cream consumption there is an incidence of increased drownings. Now let’s look at the data for an entire year. One would see ice cream consumption be reduced during the winter months while increasing during the summer months – with me so far?

    One would also see that drowning increase during the same summer months. Even though one does not correlate to the other, the statistics can be so manipulated that one could show that with increased ice cream consumption there will be an increase in the number of drownings.

    I know you have trouble connecting the dots of any scenario but this had to be done.

  11. tiredoflibbs April 24, 2013 / 10:07 pm

    crusty: “I’ll disregard claims to fact and quotes as pure fabrication if not accompanied with direct links. I routinely provide links with my arguments, so should you.”

    crusty you have proven that you will not consider any facts that prove you wrong whether sourced or not. The evidence is in too many of your posts.

    It was foolish of me to think you would do your own research and seek the information yourself – either you are too intellectually dishonest or just plain lazy.

    Simple searches on your part would have given you the information easily. Evidently, you are too much of a coward to face the truth.

  12. Jeremiah April 24, 2013 / 11:20 pm

    Breaking: Fuel barges explode in Mobile, Alabama.

  13. Amazona April 25, 2013 / 12:12 pm

    I understand that rusty’s Junior Blog Police badge and cap are in the mail.

    Perhaps this will give him the acknowledgment he so desperately needs, of relevance to anybody anywhere at any time—something he clearly cannot get in his personal life, hence his obsession with squealing for attention here.

  14. americaforus April 26, 2013 / 11:35 am

    I am diagnosed with being bipolar one. I know that my illness has worried and even scared alot of good people in my life. I wasn’t diagnosed until I was 38 and when I was everyone around me was “walking on eggshells”. But for me I remained strong and did not let this illness affect me on my family. I take my meds and see my therapist on a weekly basis. I also told myself that life is not over and that I am my own worst enemy. I life life by living to the fullest and remembering that my illness not only affects me, bit my family as well.

Comments are closed.