Saturday Open Thread

Today is June 6th – which means that 71 years ago, we invaded Normandy. Take a moment to remember those brave troops. As an aside, though, upon looking at it in the hindest of hind sight, I think we should have invaded at the Pas de Calais. Sure, the Germans had more there, but not that much more and if we had got ashore there – and we would have, given our absolute command of the air and sea – then Germany might have been defeated by October of 1944. Oh well – just keep it in mind if Putin decides to conquer Western Europe and we have to go back, again.

The New York Times is breathlessly reporting that Marco Rubio has four traffic tickets since 1997 – and Mrs. Rubio 13. They are swearing up and down that they dug this up by themselves – but there is strong evidence that it was spoon fed to them by one of Hillary’s political smear groups. This is an entirely irrelevant fact which is not worthy of being reported. It would only be an issue if, say, the Rubios’ tried to use their influence to squash the tickets. That didn’t happen, and so there’s nothing here for people to care about…but the MSM reported it, and we can only assume they did so because they were ordered to by Team Hillary. Think about it – you’re wasting a lot of time and effort reporting something like this – why do it? It’ll be like this all through the 2016 cycle. Hopefully we’ll win – if for no other reason than it’ll finally get the nauseating Team Clinton political machine out of our lives.

Murderous sniper on the loose in Colorado? We don’t know, yet – but it is possible.

Crime is rising in New York City – its almost as if having a soft-on-crime Progressive as Mayor isn’t such a good idea.

Black Chicago pastor not entirely happy with the Democrat Party. Hopefully this entirely correct sentiment will continue to grow in the African-American community.

Democrats don’t like the idea of over the counter sales of birth control. The bottom line is that if women are empowered to make their own choices without a government program, then there is zero need for government. Being in favor of choice is all well and good, but if it doesn’t mean a large, expensive government bureaucracy, then maybe its better we do without it, huh?

The Greeks are still financially screwed – and I have little sympathy for them. From what I can tell, the Greeks don’t want to pay their bills, which is something I agree with. If stupid bankers want to loan people more money than they can possibly repay, then the bankers are just going to have to take it in the shorts. But the Greeks don’t want to repay while still getting buckets of new money to keep their Welfare State going – in other words, they don’t want to go the route of poverty plus hard work to get themselves out of the jam they got themselves into. Pick one thing or the other, Greeks: either pay back what you borrowed or default and be poor for a while as you work yourself back to wealth.

State says they are preparing to investigate the Hillary e mail scam – and I believe them. And I believe their preparations will be complete no later than December, 2016.

ISIS fighter goes on social media to brag about how great their command center is. 22 hours later, the US Air Force blows the place to smithereens. Which is a good thing – but I doubt the wisdom in the Air Force telling us they used social media to find the target…now not only will ISIS have learned a lesson in security, but they might sucker us into blowing up a school or hospital via social media.

Advertisements

176 thoughts on “Saturday Open Thread

  1. Retired Spook June 6, 2015 / 7:23 am

    I doubt the wisdom in the Air Force telling us they used social media to find the target…now not only will ISIS have learned a lesson in security, but they might sucker us into blowing up a school or hospital via social media.

    My first thought when I heard that story.

  2. Amazona June 6, 2015 / 8:29 am

    Still not on board with your idea that it is OK to not pay bills because it is the fault of the lender in loaning the money. No, it always comes back to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. The old “the devil made me do it” was a joke then and it is sad to see it revived as an excuse to screw someone. Find a banker who went out and found someone who didn’t really want to borrow money, who held a gun to the poor guy’s head to FORCE him to incur debt, and I might go along with some argument of morality in refusing to pay that debt. But when someone goes out looking for a loan, gets a loan even if the lender is motivated by a desire to make money (as opposed to all those gajillions of lenders who loan money with no intent to profit by the deal) and then has the use of that money to buy stuff he wants, he is responsible for paying back that loan.

    Period. Not paying back money that has been borrowed is immoral. If you want to attach some lack of morality to the lender, fine, but that does not change the moral imperative to honor contracts.

    • Retired Spook June 6, 2015 / 9:07 am

      Still not on board with your idea that it is OK to not pay bills because it is the fault of the lender in loaning the money. No, it always comes back to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

      That logic has never resonated with me either. I’m sure there are lots of people out there who have borrowed money with the intention of never paying it back, but someone who is in the business of loaning money doing so with the upfront expectation of never BEING paid back is something I can’t wrap my head around. That said, the attempts to keep Greece afloat do seem to be driven by stupidity more than anything else, and I’m not going to shed a lot of tears when it all falls apart. It’s akin to the parents of a drug addicted child who just can’t seem to bring themselves to use a little tough love, and just keep enabling bad behavior over and over. Eventually there’s got to be a day of reckoning, and the longer it’s postponed, the uglier it’s likely to be.

    • Cluster June 6, 2015 / 11:54 am

      I agree but there is another component to that equation. Having done many, many short sales over the last 7 years I have seen many good, responsible, well intended borrowers have the value of their home drop by more than 50% due to banks and the governments irresponsibly handing out mortgages to any one who walked in the door. Irresponsible lending practices negatively impacted home values and well intended borrowers were caught up in that as well. Were they just to keep paying on a home that lost half it’s value through no fault of their own?

      • Retired Spook June 6, 2015 / 1:02 pm

        There’s a big difference between someone who borrows money with the initial intention of not ever paying it back, and someone who is a victim of circumstances or illegal/unethical conduct on the part of others. The initial comment was made WRT Greece, and in socio-economic terms, Greece in one of the most irresponsible countries on the planet, a combination of entitlementarians and tax cheats — not a good mix.

      • Cluster June 6, 2015 / 8:42 pm

        Understand. I saw both sides and felt bad for the more responsible owners who were caught in the crosshairs of a really destructive “economic justice” policy.

    • M. Noonan June 6, 2015 / 6:19 pm

      Due diligence! A bank is required to assess a prospective borrower’s ability to pay – Greece owed $357 billion. Greece’s GDP is $238 billion. At some point on the route to $357 billion in debt, someone at the banks was supposed to stop and say, “can Greece realistically repay this money I’m about to loan then by my act of buying a Greek bond?”. No one ever did. Now, they didn’t because it was assumed that the European Union would bail them out – but that means, really, that the Germans have to bail them out. It certainly isn’t fair to hit the frugal and careful Germans with Greece’s irresponsible debt. And, so, the banks are – in a proper moral universe – would have to take it in the shorts at some point…and hopefully learn the lesson that while lending money is a grand way to make money, you should only lend to a certain point and then call it off until some of the debt is paid down.

      The Greeks also have to take it in the shorts – they borrowed bags of money so they could pretend they were a First World economic powerhouse and provide lavish pay, pensions and vacations for Greeks who were sitting around not working. Greece is actually very poor – they don’t make much that people want. They don’t have much that people want – other and some swell beaches. Greece can get rich, but that would take hard work (if Singapore can get rich on nothing but hard work, then anyone can, after all). But the bottom line is that they simply cannot pay their debt – they just don’t have enough money and as long as they have that debt hanging over them (with interest building up every day) they never will have enough money.

      So, I don’t like the banks for stupidly lending money to people who can’t pay, and I’m not at all pleased with the Greeks who are demanding they get more money after not repaying the money they already borrowed. Default is the way to go – give about a 50% haircut to the bankers and the Greeks get to go down to a per-capita GDP of about $10,000 per year…and then if they’ll just cut their taxes and regulations and get back to work, they’ll be fine…in 20 years.

  3. Amazona June 6, 2015 / 8:37 am

    As far as the Rubio non-scandal goes, we can expect more of this silliness in the months ahead, as the Complicit Agenda Media gears up to try to win an election not on the merits of their chosen candidates but by smearing their opponents. We may even see Hedgegate, where a candidate has failed to keep his shrubbery properly trimmed, or Nailgate, where a closeup photo suitably enlarged shows that the wife of a candidate needs a manicure. Mitt Romney was excoriated because his wife rode an expensive horse as part of her physical therapy regime—–and she wore an expensive blouse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Not as expensive as the tennie-runners Michelle wore to a homeless shelter, but we need to remember who had been anointed by the CAM and who had been targeted.)

    • Retired Spook June 6, 2015 / 9:13 am

      I am liking Rubio more and more. I could see a Walker/Rubio ticket — or a Rubio/Walker ticket. They both bring interesting life stories as well as fresh ideas and a strong degree of likability to the table. And 4 moving violations in 18 years? Seriously? That’s even a bigger joke than W’s 24 year-old DUI sprung on the eve of the 2000 election or Romney’s tying his dog carrier to the top of his car. I think the strategy of character assassination is wearing really thin on more and more voters.

      • Cluster June 6, 2015 / 11:58 am

        Glad to see you on the Rubio wagon. I have always liked this kid. He has a ton of common sense, a compelling background, great sense of humor, tremendous people skills and a unique ability to articulate the conservative message that resonates with the masses. Much like Reagan.

      • Amazona June 6, 2015 / 4:44 pm

        Cluster, what’s your opinion on the Natural Born Citizen thing? (No, NOT “native born citizen”—two different things.) Do you think that this could come back and bite conservatives in the butt after the years of arguing that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen because his father was not a citizen? Or should we just whistle past the graveyard and pretend the issue doesn’t exist?

      • Cluster June 6, 2015 / 5:56 pm

        I really don’t have an opinion. I am assuming that Rubio’s parents were not born here since you raised the issue, and if that is the case then I will only say that I consider Rubio to be more of an American than many people I know despite the birth country of his parents. I did respect peoples concerns over Obama in this regard, but I was never that overly concerned with that issue either.

      • M. Noonan June 6, 2015 / 6:26 pm

        I’m not at all sold on Rubio – though, of course, faced off against Hillary he gets my enthusiastic support. I’m still hoping for a major break out by Jindal or Walker to wrap it up quick, and then pick either Governor Martinez of New Mexico or Governor Sandoval of Nevada as VP (though, really, I’d rather have Sandoval run for Reid’s seat…he’s so popular in Nevada across partisan lines right now that it would be an easy, blow-out win for him).

      • Amazona June 7, 2015 / 11:07 am

        Cluster, the problem is that the Constitution limits the presidency to “Natural Born” citizens. I always found that terminology awkward and wondered why it was phrased that way, but never gave it much thought. Then, at the beginning of and well into the Obama debacle, some posters here kept referring to a belief that Obama was not eligible for the presidency because his father was not a citizen. I thought that sounded silly, and finally challenged them to explain what that had to do with anything. (Remember, most of the discussion at that time was based on his place of birth, and whether his mother was old enough and had met enough other criteria to pass on US citizenship if he was born outside the country.)

        These posters were kind enough to send some links, and when I followed up on them I learned that the phrase I had found awkward and clumsy was, in fact, a very common distinction back when the Constitution was written, with a clear meaning. The links provided a lot of contemporaneous information to explain the thought processes of the Founders and the reasons they phrased this particular qualification in this specific way.

        The accepted meaning of the word at the time was that a Natural Born citizen was the child of a citizen. Native Born meant, and means, born IN the country. The Constitution acknowledged that for a period of many years no one could be born in this country or born to citizens of this country, given the newness of the nation, but specified that after enough time had passed any president had to be born to citizens, or at the very least to a father who was a citizen at the time of his birth.

        The reason behind it was the belief that a president of this nation had to GROW UP as a citizen, and not have divided national loyalties—that is, to the United States and to the nation of his father.

        For more than 200 years this may have seemed like an unnecessary requirement, but we have endured more than six years of a presidency in which the president’s father was not only not a citizen of the United States but who hated this country. We have had a president with no historical or familial loyalty to the country, and we have had the chance to experience what the Founders feared, and tried to head off with their requirement that a president be Natural Born.

        So there are two problems associated with promoting Rubio (or Jindal or Cruz) for the presidency. One is that pesky old Constitution—the one true conservatives agree must be followed even when it is not convenient. And one is the very real specter of having the Right called out for hypocrisy for nominating someone who is not a Natural Born Citizen after making such a fuss about Obama. On that score, I would have to agree with them. It WOULD be hypocritical. And it could cost us the election.

        I really like Rubio. He lost me a little with his stance on illegal immigration, but overall I think he is an amazing man, a patriot, and would make a fine president. But according to the wording of the Constitution, backed up by extensive writings on the subject and research into the terminology, I don’t think he is eligible, and I think his candidacy would be a disaster for the Right.

        (There was a very long and detailed discussion about this on the blog a few years ago—the ONLY discussion with a Lefty that qualified as actual intellectual discourse—–and it would be worth looking at for a quick overview of the topic. I’ll bet Spook has a link to it.)

      • Cluster June 7, 2015 / 11:48 am

        I understand the Constitutional issue and I know that’s important to you but honestly that’s less important to me then the opportunity to elect a natural, common sense, conservative leader. However I now think I am less inclined to vote for Rubio now that I know he had some traffic tickets. 🙂

        Rubio is probably at the top of my list now but Walker is a close second and I am keeping an eye on Fiorina, Kasich and Perry. Rick Perry could surprise some people.

      • Amazona June 7, 2015 / 7:23 pm

        Cluster, just stop and think for a moment about what you just said. You just said that you have no problem with ignoring a part of the Constitution if it gets in the way of something you want.

        I have an objective commitment to following the Constitution, to see it as the law of the land, and this is my core political belief. I am very surprised, and very disappointed, to see you say that you find the Constitution “….less important …… than the opportunity to elect a natural, common sense, conservative leader…” First of all, Rubio can’t qualify as a “conservative leader” if he also decides to skip over any inconvenient part of the Constitution. Without a firm and objective belief in the Constitution he would not be a political conservative at all, just someone playing identity politics and paying lip service to conservatism. And wanting to elect a SECOND president with highly questionable eligibility for the office doesn’t seem like a very good strategy for fixing what the first one has broken.

        One of my goals for the next election is to elect someone who can bring the country together as a nation of Americans, and I just fail to see the benefit of wanting to elect someone who will be divisive from the second he is nominated because of the question of his eligibility.

        I have been making the same suggestion for many years now—-that Rubio and Cruz and Jindal file whatever would be the appropriate filing with whatever would be the appropriate legal authority to get a final ruling on whether or not one has to be born to a father who was a citizen at the time of his birth to qualify as a Natural Born Citizen. Get it adjudicated. Get it finalized. Get the questions out of the way The Dems should have done this in 2006 0r 2007, but they didn’t. Why didn’t they? Because they had the philosophy of the Constitution being “…less important ……than the opportunity to elect a hard-core radical Liberal president.” And the result was that for his entire term there has been a cloud over the head of the Leader of the Free World, a doubt that he was ever even eligible to run for the office. Why would you want to repeat that, with an R after the president’s name instead of a D?

      • Cluster June 8, 2015 / 7:27 am

        The need for this issue to be adjudicated clearly means that this is an area of disagreement and should be settled by smarter people than myself. In the meantime I think Rubio is a top tier candidate and I look forward to see how he performs in the debates.

      • dbschmidt June 8, 2015 / 8:24 pm

        In my heart of hearts, I still believe that Rubio, Jindal or Cruz should not be eligible for the position of PoTUS, due to the same reasons Pres. Obama should have never been—father not being a US Citizen at the time of birth and location of birth.

        On the other side of the coin is case law via the SCoTUS & John McCain that secured American Territories as acceptable plus other issues. President Obama has also now set president.

        I do not want to turn my back on the U.S. Constitution for expedient means whether or not it could drop the US into an internal conflict but as long as the “misunderstanding” has been ratified. I could live with it as long it this issue is answered once and for all time by legal scholars and not case law with 9 folks in black robes.

        Among the many things we need to trash as a nation is “case law”. Another President Wilson law of intended consequences.

      • Amazona June 8, 2015 / 9:10 pm

        I don’t have a problem with the McCain ruling because his father was serving his nation and I don’t think anyone should be penalized for being part of a patriotic commitment to protecting the nation. If McCain had been born on base there would not have been a question but as I remember he was born off the official military base though in the country where his father was stationed. Both of his parents were citizens and I think that also conveys Natural Born citizenship no matter where the birth takes place.

        I hate losing top talent like Jindal and Rubio and especially Ted Cruz. But the rule of law has to take precedent over expediency.

        I’ve often commented on how many who claim to be on the Right are saying so only because of preference for certain issues but who would be quite happy ignoring inconvenient parts of the Constitution, and/or limiting the liberty of others, etc. Same coin, different sides.

        This is the thought process that led me to the conclusion that no one can be a true conservative without a solid and unwavering commitment to a POLITICAL system that is defined as a federal government restricted as to size, scope and power, with most authority left to the states or the people.

        With that mindset and conviction, I think you are a conservative even if you are a Wiccan lesbian married to her girlfriend—-the definition does not lie in the issues but in the political philosophy, which is that the issues must be fought out and decided at the state and/or local level. With that definition of “conservative” the GOP would once again be the party of the Big Tent, and state and local governments would be where the power lies. With that approach to government, corruption would still exist but it would be diffuse, spread out—–power brokers would have to choose among Albany and Sacramento and Austin and Denver, instead of having all the power concentrated in D.C.

      • M. Noonan June 8, 2015 / 11:29 pm

        A natural born citizen is someone born a citizen of the United States – per the 14th Amendment, that means anyone born on the territory of the United States. That covers Obama and Jindal. Cruz is covered by the fact that he’s born to an American citizen. Now, my view is that the 14th amendment should be modified to specifically state that a citizen of the United States is anyone born to at least one American citizen…that way we don’t have people just crossing the border to give birth willy-nilly to an American (when the 14th was adopted, such an event was rare and not really all that possible in most instances…modern travel, though, makes it very possible for someone to spend nine months pregnant outside the United States and come here the day before due and give birth to an American).

        As for making sure that the person is not only a citizen but someone connected to the United States, that is where the requirement of being 14 years a resident of the United States prior to be elected comes in…if I were to move to Australia and then seek the White House in 2032, I wouldn’t be eligible…even though I’m so natural born that I’ve got ancestors in this country going back at least to the 1640’s.

      • Cluster June 9, 2015 / 7:50 am

        I hate losing top talent like Jindal and Rubio and especially Ted Cruz. But the rule of law has to take precedent over expediency.

        So this is where we make our stand on the Constitution? We have seen both political parties of our Federal Govt. usurp the Constitution on major issues like healthcare, education, and state border sovereignty (The Feds are still suing my State of AZ for enforcing Federal immigration laws), yet this is where we show our backbone and stand up for the Constitution ?? I suppose we have to start somewhere but this seems like an odd issue to make the stand on.

      • Amazona June 9, 2015 / 9:09 am

        “A natural born citizen is someone born a citizen of the United States – per the 14th Amendment, that means anyone born on the territory of the United States”

        Actually, this is the definition of a NATIVE born citizen. This is the nub of the confusion. It took me a while to understand this. I had to do a lot of research into this to see the difference, and it has eluded many, who use the term interchangeably. But you can be a Native Born Citizen (Rubio is an example) and not be a Natural Born Citizen (Rubio again). For most aspects of citizenry, the two are equal. But when you come to the qualification for the presidency of the United States, the difference becomes critical. This is to do as much as can be done to assure that any president grows up with undivided loyalty to this country, not with a sense of allegiance to another country (his father’s) in addition to this.

        There was a time when this was an academic theory. But we have spent nearly a decade experiencing, firsthand, what can happen when we elect a president with emotional ties to a father who was not a citizen of the United States and had no loyalty to this nation.

      • Amazona June 9, 2015 / 9:35 am

        “So this is where we make our stand on the Constitution?”

        Well, yeah. Here and everyplace else.

        “We have seen both political parties of our Federal Govt. usurp the Constitution on major issues like healthcare, education, and state border sovereignty (The Feds are still suing my State of AZ for enforcing Federal immigration laws)……..”

        ……and this justifies continuing the subversion of our foundational law?

        “……yet this is where we show our backbone and stand up for the Constitution ??”

        Got a better idea? It’s not as if anyone voting for a candidate who is not Constitutionally eligible for the presidency has much standing when it comes to wanting to enforce any other aspect of the law. It’s not as if a president who does not even meet the most basic qualification for the office has much authority regarding the need for following the Constitution.

        “I suppose we have to start somewhere but this seems like an odd issue to make the stand on.

        An “odd issue”? Making sure that our president is legally qualified to hold the office is an “odd issue”? It seems to me this is not only the most obvious it is the most critical line in the sand, the point where true conservatives stand up and say the Constitution matters even when it is not convenient for us, where we say principle matters more than getting something else we want.

        How can the conservative movement even CLAIM to stand for Constitutional government if we carve out a piece of the Constitution and set it aside because we don’t like it? How can we claim to be any different from those who do the same regarding the issues you pointed out?

        When you have an issue such as government payments for health care, or legalizing same sex marriage, this issue does not disappear under Constitutional government. It just goes to the states, where it belongs. There is no real reason to make these issues national and put them in the control of the federal government, other than a core belief that all power should be centralized and as distant as possible from the people. This is an argument that can be made, and made convincingly—but not by people who chose to ignore a different aspect of the Constitution and voted for someone who was not Constitutionally eligible for the presidency, or by someone who holds the title only because the Constitution had to be subverted for him to be elected. The eligibility of the president is not something that can be shifted to the states. This is something that has to be addressed at the national level.

        This is not only NOT an “odd issue”, it is the most obvious starting point for a return to Constitutional government. And it has the added benefit of being the most visible, in a presidential election year, and the one with the most bang for the buck. It is a chance for conservatives to stand up, publicly and vocally and in unison, for the essential need to put Constitutional law above personal agendas. It’s a chance to say this should have been done, as a matter of principle and as a matter of law and as a matter of avoiding internal conflict in this country, the first time there was a potential candidate whose citizenship raised the question. The other party didn’t care about how divisive their candidate was on this issue alone, they didn’t care about the rule of law, BUT WE DO.

        Kind of hard to respect a president declaiming on the need to follow Constitutional law if he is only the president because he ignored it.

      • Cluster June 9, 2015 / 10:25 am

        Nothing precludes a “natural born” President from ignoring the Constitution, nor does it ensure their allegiance.

      • Amazona June 9, 2015 / 11:38 am

        “Nothing precludes a “natural born” President from ignoring the Constitution, nor does it ensure their (sic) allegiance.”

        Cluster, Cluster, Cluster—you have spent too much time canoodling with the Left and have acquired one of their tactics. That is, to stop talking about the subject when you run out of arguments and just toss in something else, as if it is germane to the discussion. Distract, divert, whatever.

        No, there is nothing but the law, which should be upheld and enforced by Congress, to preclude a president from ignoring the Constitution, whether he was ever legally eligible for the office or not. We see that daily, these days.

        There is no way to “ensure” the allegiance of anyone to anything.

        But it is essential to START with allegiance to the Constitution in selecting a candidate and electing a president. Period. If we elect the wrong person, we elect the wrong person—-but at least our mistake did not begin with choosing someone who was not Constitutionally eligible in the first place. The first sin, that of ignoring the Constitution, is on the head of the one who commits it—the scofflaw president. The latter sin, that of electing someone who was never even eligible for the office, is on those who ignored the Constitution to get him (or her) into office in the first place.

        You can’t dictate someone else’s morality, but you do control your own.

      • Cluster June 9, 2015 / 12:39 pm

        Oh please. You have admitted that this issue needs to be adjudicated, so there is a gray area indeed. I just happen to fall on the other side of the issue than you do and evidently that puts me in the camp of the left. If Rubio is the nominee, I will vote for him with great confidence.

      • M. Noonan June 9, 2015 / 1:01 pm

        My view is simply that “Natural Born” doesn’t preclude Rubio, Cruz or Jindal from being eligible – nor Obama, of course…even if he had been born in Kenya.

        I hold that the Founders mostly feared wasn’t really so much even that someone born in another country would become President (suppose, for instance, someone was born in France and at age of six months came to America and live his whole life here as an American…would it really be a huge risk if that person at, say, 50 became President?) – no, my view is that they really feared that the Presidential Electors would be bribed to award the Presidency to foreigner…especially a foreign prince. Madison’s whole scheme was a program to prevent corruption from destroying our Republic. Foreign princes had managed to get themselves set up in various ruling positions in other nations pretty much by bribery. Heck, the United Kingdom came about because the English government essentially bribed the Scottish government to unity. Keep in mind that the popular will had nothing to do with electing a President in 1788 – and, indeed, didn’t really become operative until Jackson was elected President 40 years later. Electors had great power and the States decided who would be an elector…to get a Prince as President only required spreading a bit of cash around in the right places…except that you had to be a Natural Born citizen and live in the United States for 14 years, which pretty much precluded the Electors from awarding our highest office to a foreigner.

  4. rustybrown2012 June 6, 2015 / 3:58 pm

    It’s clear that Cory Gardner’s scheme for over the counter birth control is a ruse and that’s why Dems and certain family planning groups oppose it, not because they favor less empowerment and bigger government as you and that disingenuous NR article surmise. A more objective analysis:

    “In theory, it would be great if you could get OTC birth control pills and even have insurance cover it. But Gardner’s bill won’t do anything to make that happen—it’s just a feint. Even on the slim chance it passes, it doesn’t actually do anything. Drug companies that make the pill have never applied for OTC status, and there’s zero reason to think they will start now just for a minor fee waiver and a promise that their applications will be read promptly. And insurance companies likely wouldn’t pay for OTC pills if they don’t have to. This bill is a lot of posturing to create the illusion of a pro-contraception stance.

    If Gardner actually wanted women to have contraception, he has plenty of better options. In his home state of Colorado, Republicans have waged war on a program that actually got contraception into women’s hands, a program so effective that it lowered the teen birthrate in the state by 40 percent over five years and saved the state $42.5 million in health care expenditures. The program offered free IUDs to low-income teenagers and women who wanted them, but Republicans in the state killed it, at least partly over concerns that girls would see this as permission to have sex. “I hear the stories of young girls who are engaged, very prematurely, in sexual activity, and I see firsthand the devastation that happens to them,” state Rep. Kathleen Conti argued. There is no evidence, by the way, that IUD access increases sexual activity in teenagers.”

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/05/22/republican_cory_gardner_finds_a_birth_control_bill_he_likes_one_that_won.html

    • Amazona June 6, 2015 / 5:05 pm

      Oh, no!! Not more WAR!!! Not just WAR ON WOMEN!!!!!! but war on contraception !!! Oh, the horror!

      This whole post is so typical of the rabid Left. They shriek to the heavens that those eeeevil Republicans are waging WARS !!!!! WARS I tell you!!! on women, contraception, whatever the new buzzword is.

      So a dynamic young Republican says let’s just make contraception available over the counter, so it’s really REALLY available, and what does a rabid Lib like Rusty do? Why, he scurries over to Slate to see what he thinks about this, and sure enough, he learns that he thinks it is a head fake by Gardner.

      What is the real problem with this idea? It is that over the counter drugs are not paid by insurance. That is, by OPM. And if women can get contraception without Big Brother involved, Big Brother loses a little bit of influence in their lives, a little bit of control over them. Yeah, ain’t nothin’ more offensive to a hard-core Lib than an uppity, independent woman who doesn’t need a male authority figure to take care of her.

      What does Slate do? Why, Slate does what Libs always do, and deflects the discussion to something else entirely. Suddenly Slate is not talking about how Gardner is not being honest about his intention or motive or whatever in advocating over the counter contraception available to anyone. They can’t, because this is nothing but a silly and unsupported opinion. Suddenly Slate is talking about Colorado state legislation (hint: Gardner has been in the UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and is now a SENATOR—-state politics are not in his scope of authority, duh) and goes off on IUDs. The foolish, the gullible, the easily manipulated and misled, follow right along as if this makes complete sense.

      As for IUDs. this is an invasive process that involves placing a foreign object into the uterus, with possible life threatening side effects such as piercing of the uterine wall and/or ectopic pregnancies, and infections. Any of these can lead to scarring and permanent damage to the reproductive system. Gee, why NOT make all these available to young girls! And BTW, who cares that the agonizing pain often associated with an IUD tends to be worse in younger women who have not given birth. (Hint: a uterus trying to expel a foreign object acts exactly like it does when trying to expel a baby. It hurts.) But this is not about caring for young women, it is about promoting a political agenda.

      Another factor is that while an IUD is referred to as “contraception” it really does nothing to interfere with conception, or the fertilization of an egg. It is, rather, an abortificant, designed to interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg in the wall of the uterus.

      Sorry about introducing some facts into the discussion, Rusty. I know that stings. Maybe Slate is a better home for you——they are far less stringent about things like facts and reality.

      • rustybrown2012 June 6, 2015 / 6:29 pm

        Ama,

        There’s a smorgasbord of wrong in your post, a few quick ones:

        “This whole post is so typical of the rabid Left. They shriek to the heavens that those eeeevil Republicans are waging WARS !!!!! WARS I tell you!!!”

        …only one of us appears to be shrieking. Isn’t that what the grammatically incorrect multiple exclamation points are meant to indicate?

        “over the counter drugs are not paid by insurance. That is, by OPM.”

        …insurance is not paid by OPM. Have you ever received an insurance settlement? Yes? Did you consider that OPM, or did you consider it…insurance?

        As for the rest of it, your characterization of the left as a controlling Big Brother on this issue is absurd and goes against the rich history of the left fighting for women’s autonomy while the right tries to restrict it. The Slate article committed no misdirection and clearly referred to Gardner’s “home state of Colorado” when discussing IUDs. But it’s interesting that you think Gardner is so impotent he has absolutely no sway as a Representative or Senator over his own state’s legislature. Gardner has been rock-ribbed against women’s reproductive rights all along and your inability or unwillingness to see his bill as a cynical political ploy speaks volumes about your perceptiveness or character, respectively.

        Your scare tactics concerning IUDs are hysterical. Every medical procedure or drug carries a risk of side effects. The risk with IUDs is small and in any event, individual adults should be the ones weighing the costs and benefits of using a procedure like this for for themselves (Hmmmm, who’s advocating Big Brother now?).

        Finally, since medical experts agree that pregnancy occurs at implantation, your claim that the IUD is an abortificant is false–a religious right wing belief shared by neither obstetricians nor the general public.

      • Amazona June 6, 2015 / 10:51 pm

        Let me guess—you have never had an IUD. And probably never spoken with someone who had one and suffered until it could be removed. It appears you don’t even have a very clear idea of what it is. Women have a much better idea of the relative dangers of, say, headaches or irregular periods vs something tearing through the wall of the uterus, though you seem to think there is no difference in the degrees of danger. Infection is also not very likely with pills, but you seem to dismiss that as well. In other words, you are ignorant of the female reproductive system and the various dangers posed by different means of birth control.

        You have also flipped away from the “low income teenagers” in your original post to “adults”.

        You are also quite ignorant of the divisions of authority in government. You simply declare that a Senator ought to be not only able but willing to “have sway” over state government, I do have to admit that this attitude that the feds ought to be able to engage in legislation that is supposed to be in the purview of the states IS quite consistent with general Leftist attitudes regarding their preference for unlimited federal authority, but that just means you are consistently wrong. It’s this cluelessness about the basic structure of our government that marks so many of you RRL types.

        “Gardner has been rock-ribbed against women’s reproductive rights all along …” What utter nonsense. I live in Colorado, follow Colorado politics and politicians, know people who know Cory Gardner, and I know you are simply wrong. Unless, of course, you are playing the RRL game of rephrasing the killing of unborn children as a “reproductive right”. Yes, Cory Gardner is strongly against the discrimination shown by basing a human being’s right to live on its age. Only someone totally and mindlessly committed to chugging down any swill fed to you if it smears someone on the Right could claim that someone advocating open access to contraception is really against the ability of women to have open access to contraception, if that person is not a Lib. “A cynical political ploy”? You sure do love that Kool Aid.

        BTW, you are also wrong when you claim that “medical experts agree that pregnancy occurs at implantation”. Some do, some don’t. Like AGW, you have to reserve the right to pick and choose which “experts” you want to believe in, and the ability to ignore those you don’t. You also fall back on the silly fallacy that “right wing” is related to religious belief. Right Wing refers to the POLITICAL belief that the federal government should be severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with most authority left to the states or the people, just as Left Wing refers to those who believe the federal government should be infinitely expandable in size, scope and power and that state sovereignty should be limited. Once you understand the actual political difference between the terms, you are more able to understand that it is possible to be a Left Wing person politically and still believe that unborn children have the right to be born. The insistence on misstating terms like “right wing” is one of the most obvious examples of ignorance, and the repetition of falsehoods like this is a staple of demagoguery.

        I have an insurance license, and I am sure I understand it better than you. And clearly, if one’s insurance policy pays for contraception, that money does not come out of a woman’s pocket but out of an insurance company bank account. You seem to have a very odd understanding of the meaning of Other Peoples’ Money. If it’s not yours, it’s somebody else’s—–an insurance company, the government, etc. I am sensing some Magical Thinking here—-money from an insurance company is not OPM, it is just……insurance money. You really ought to think things through before you type them and post them. It might save you from sounding so silly.

        “the rich history of the left fighting for women’s autonomy” Really? The kind of “autonomy” that comes with dependence on Big Brother for income, insurance, contraception? The kind of “rich history” of “autonomy” as illustrated by Obama’s story of Julia, the Leftist ideal never escaping from the paternalistic cocoon of having government take care of her, cradle to grave? You can only make your argument by defining “autonomy” as “sanctioned infanticide”.

      • M. Noonan June 6, 2015 / 11:47 pm

        And for, say, Catholics like me, it is irrelevant when pregnancy actually occurs…we can’t do anything to artificially prevent a pregnancy from happening (or, of course, artificially terminate a pregnancy, either). This is our view – anyone who wishes can call it stupid all they want, but it is our view…and we do have the right to the free exercise of our religion. Its in that Constitution thingy that our liberals aren’t terribly interested in.

      • rustybrown2012 June 7, 2015 / 4:44 am

        Ama, You plainly prefer the bombardment of crap on the wall to see what sticks style of debate. You seem committed to expanding my original straightforward post into a whirlwind of aspersions. I’ll oblige a bit, but lets see if we can stick to a subject, shall we? I’ll address the first two paragraphs of you’re latest rant:

        “Let me guess—you have never had an IUD. And probably never spoken with someone who had one and suffered until it could be removed. It appears you don’t even have a very clear idea of what it is. Women have a much better idea of the relative dangers of, say, headaches or irregular periods vs something tearing through the wall of the uterus, though you seem to think there is no difference in the degrees of danger. Infection is also not very likely with pills, but you seem to dismiss that as well. In other words, you are ignorant of the female reproductive system and the various dangers posed by different means of birth control.”

        You’re right, I’ve never had an IUD. But you’re wrong in assuming I’ve never known someone who’s used one. On the contrary, I’ve known many women whom have used the device with complete satisfaction and efficacy. So, since it seems important to you, I’m speaking from the actual experience of women that I know and have known as well as the overwhelming consensus of medical opinion that IUDs are a safe and extremely effective form of birth control. Furthermore, I have no illusions that an IUD is indistinguishable from the pill in regards to their benefits and risks; your assumption that I do is based on your fantasia. I do not dismiss the risks of an IUD vs. the pill on any regard, but firmly believe that these risks should be assessed between an adult woman and her physician, with the choice of contraceptive remaining with the adult woman–would you have it otherwise? Again, who’s being the Big Brother here?

        Your second paragraph:

        “You have also flipped away from the “low income teenagers” in your original post to “adults”.

        I’m not sure where you gleaned the phrase “low income teenagers” from my original post, but I’m quite sure I didn’t type it. Is that phrase perhaps buried in the article I linked to? Perhaps, but I don’t think so. In any event what I’m talking about, and have always been talking about, are women, adults, not minors. That should have been apparent all along to any clear thinking reader.

        I’ll get to the rest of the crap you’ve left on the wall in due time. In the meantime, do you have any response to this, preferably without diverging into other unrelated liberal Orwellian fever dreams?

      • rustybrown2012 June 7, 2015 / 12:53 pm

        Ama

        “BTW, you are also wrong when you claim that “medical experts agree that pregnancy occurs at implantation”. Some do, some don’t.”

        Sorry, I consider the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to be the experts in this field and they say I’m not wrong:

        “Although widespread, definitions that seek to establish fertilization as the beginning of pregnancy go against the long-standing view of the medical profession and decades of federal policy, articulated as recently as during the Bush administration. In fact, medical experts—notably the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)—agree that the establishment of a pregnancy takes several days and is not completed until a fertilized egg is implanted in the lining of the woman’s uterus. (In fact, according to ACOG, the term “conception” properly means implantation.) A pregnancy is considered to be established only when the process of implantation is complete “

        https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html

        You’re right though, this is a bit like the AGW debate–to support my opinions I provide sources from the top experts from the field of science we’re discussing, while you rely on fringe dissenters. Are you going to link to “watts up with that” now?

        BTW, I’m not conflating ‘religious’ with ‘right wing’ (although the two often snuggle together like peas in a pod), when I said “religious right wing belief” I was using “religious” as a modifier for right wing, just as I might say “rabid right wing” or “sanctimonious right wing”. Perhaps you should brush up on the finer points of descriptive grammar before before you go off half cocked next time. No misstatement on my part; the confusion is solely your own.

      • rustybrown2012 June 7, 2015 / 1:12 pm

        Ama,

        If you’ve been paying premiums into an insurance policy and receive a benefit, you’d have to be obtuse to consider that OPM. Sure, technically there’s OPM involved, but that’s the very ESSENCE of insurance, not some kind of odious side effect you seem to imply. So I take it you consider all the benefits you’ve personally enjoyed from your various insurance policies over the years to mean you dipping into pockets and swiping OPM. Mooching. I think that’s an extremely weird and self-flagellating way to view the concept of insurance, but whatever rocks your boat.

      • Amazona June 7, 2015 / 1:33 pm

        There you go, Rusty. Now you’re rockin’. You have managed to pull off a beloved Lefty trick, which is to make a bunch of silly snotty bigoted statements, try to weasel out of responsibility for making them, and then lurch into your preferred arena of personal attacks and insults.

        You stay tucked into that little bubble of yours, in which the beliefs of others just don’t matter if they conflict with your ideology, etc. You have laid out the boundaries of your comfort zone, you have shown that you will fight to protect them no matter how stupid you have to look to do it, and you have made it clear that no idea will penetrate its barriers unless spoon fed to you by one of your chosen sources of hate.

        Now you want to wrestle around in your muck. Not interested. Come back if you ever actually have an IDEA, not a parroted mantra of the RRL, and we’ll see if I have time for you then.

      • Cluster June 7, 2015 / 3:58 pm

        You stay tucked into that little bubble of yours, in which the beliefs of others just don’t matter if they conflict with your ideology, etc.

        That’s exactly what he does, what Mersault does, and what every other rabid leftist does. Then they construct some imaginary pedestal and proclaim victory in the debate of their completely manufactured issues of contraception, global warming, etc. Rusty is a loser as most rabid leftists are. Intolerant of anything he doesn’t like with an unhealthy self superiority complex.

      • Amazona June 7, 2015 / 2:07 pm

        Insurance is a contract by which participants agree to share risk. To do this, they all contribute to a pool of funds, which is then distributed according to who has had a loss.

        This pool consists of OPM—Other Peoples’ Money. It is not found money, it is not free money, it is not magical money that just appeared out of nowhere. It is a pool of money funded by OPM. You are entitled to share in this pool if you have a loss, or if your contract allows you to draw from this pool of funds for certain other uses, such as preventative care.

        But no matter why you are drawing from this pool, it is funded by everyone who has entered into the mutual contract to share risk and spread it among all the participants. I have been fortunate in that I have seldom had to draw from this pool of funds, so at this point I am behind the curve, having put more into the pool than I have taken out. I know that others have had the opposite experience—-they have received more than they put in. This is the concept of shared risk.

        A woman can pay out of her own pocket for contraception, or she can belong to a shared risk pool that charges more in premiums so it can cover this cost, and pass part of that cost on to people who do not use or need contraceptives. In other words, men and older women bear some of the cost of a benefit applicable to only a few. The original concept of shared risk was that there would be different pools, based on different kinds of risks. So younger women would be in the pool of risks that included pregnancy and childbirth, oilfield roughnecks would be a pool of dangerous occupations, and so on. This system allowed an even and fair allocation of insurance costs. In a mandatory system, in the name of “fairness” as defined by a few, all have to pay the same to cover the same risk factors even if they are not actually exposed to the risks covered. But even this distortion of the original concept of insurance, and risk pools, would be mitigated by reducing the scope and number of approved benefits, so a 60-year-old man does not have to pay for birth control.

        One philosophy is that it is better for people to assume costs of health care that are normal, predictable, and part of daily health care maintenance. That is, birth control and toothpaste and Advil and bandaids and Neosporin and vitamins, as some examples. This approach puts all the decisions (control/autonomy/independence) in the hands of the consumer, who is then in charge of his or her decisions and choices. It also keeps insurance costs down.

        Keep in mind that “insurance costs” are not just funds advanced to cover specific products or procedures. “Insurance costs” include the costs of billing, making payments, determining risk factors and costs associated with areas of coverage, administration at all levels, and so on. To make this easier to understand, try to grasp the concept that an insurance company that only covers surgery, for example, will have a much less complex and expensive administration system than one that covers birth control pills, aspirin, bandaids, etc. The more claims made, the higher the costs of administration go.

        There is another philosophy that wants some agency or bureaucracy to take over all of these expenses. This belief system likes the concept of large bureaucracies with huge budgets making decisions for other people. The big picture, of the costs associated with establishing and staffing big agencies and bureaucracies, of the costs associated with having to subsidize a few dollars here and a few dollars there, of the costs of administering such massive and complex systems, is ignored, in favor of being giddy over the idea of a woman showing an insurance card to pay for a $12.00 birth control bill instead of putting down cash.

        And you have brilliantly illustrated the emotional basis for preferring the second philosophy—because somehow once that money is paid into an insurance plan you have a right to it, it becomes an entitlement, and even when much of it comes from people who have no need for benefits collected by others for some reason this money is NOT OPM. It’s a right, and as far as thinking about the source of the money, you’d rather not—it’s just there.

        It’s “insurance”.

      • rustybrown2012 June 7, 2015 / 2:28 pm

        Wow, I actually have no idea what you’re talking about since your rant has conveniently sidestepped any substance or specifics of our discussion. Seems like a convoluted way of saying I’ve won the debate, so thanks!

        But if it’s “personal attacks and insults” that concern you, I suggest you reread our discussion and tally yours against mine; I think your powers of projection will be an eye opener.

      • rustybrown2012 June 7, 2015 / 2:46 pm

        Ama, seems like we basically agree on the concept of insurance. The major difference appears to be how it’s implemented and what’s covered. I generally favor larger pools because they tend to be more efficient, cost saving and less bureaucratic than multiple competing interests, like single payer vs. various private insurers.

        Another difference is whether birth control should be covered. I believe it should. Reproductive health and controlling pregnancy is in everybodies interest. It’s cost effective, humane, and cuts down on unwanted pregnancies and abortions. So what if a 60 year old man is contributing? Does he have daughters? Did he have a mother? In any case, an 18 year old girl somewhere is contributing to his prostate issues. How far are you going to slice up and micromanage who has to pay for what? It’s stupid. Talk about your unnecessary bureaucracy!

      • rustybrown2012 June 7, 2015 / 2:54 pm

        everybody’s

      • rustybrown2012 June 7, 2015 / 3:02 pm

        Keep in mind that “insurance costs” are not just funds advanced to cover specific products or procedures. “Insurance costs” include the costs of billing, making payments, determining risk factors and costs associated with areas of coverage, administration at all levels, and so on. To make this easier to understand, try to grasp the concept that an insurance company that only covers surgery, for example, will have a much less complex and expensive administration system than one that covers birth control pills, aspirin, bandaids, etc. The more claims made, the higher the costs of administration go.

        Your missing a lot here. Maybe that particular insurance company for surgery will have a less complex and expensive administration system, by specializing but that doesn’t make the costs for covering other things disappear. They will simply be covered by a different insurance agency with their own bureaucracy, much of it duplicated. Sheesh!

    • M. Noonan June 6, 2015 / 6:21 pm

      “Scheme”. “Ruse”. How about – why don’t we just stop belaboring this silly point and allow women to buy these drugs, which are no more harmful than Tylenol?

      It is true we just want this issue to go away – because it is a stupid issue which is used by Democrats to convince LIV that we Republicans are EVIL!!!!1!!. And that is why your side is calling this a “scheme”…because we’re about to take away a huge component of your nonsensical “war on women” garbage.

      • rustybrown2012 June 6, 2015 / 6:38 pm

        I’m all for women having the easiest access to all FDA approved contraceptives available, and at the moment the ACA properly implemented achieves that. But I disagree with you that this is a stupid issue. We’re talking about individual freedom, women’s health and reducing abortions. But good luck running against those things.

      • M. Noonan June 6, 2015 / 11:43 pm

        No, you’re not – you’re talking about WAR ON WOMEN!!!!1!!! The left brought this nonsense up in 2012 in an effort to (a) make GOPers look bad and (b) gin up female LIV with a story which would get out there – thanks to MSM deliberate and malicious obfuscation – as the GOP being against women getting birth control. Making most forms of birth control available OTC takes that issue away from your side…and it will be especially excruciating for the left if the GOP leads the way.

        It is a non-issue – no one is against women legally obtaining birth control. The only issue we on the right have is that some of us, for religious reasons, object to paying for it, even indirectly; in fact, for some of us, it would be to participate in a mortal sin to help someone get birth control. But our desire to not participate doesn’t mean we want to interfere with what any particular woman does – we just don’t want to be involved. Making birth control OTC gets those of us with religious objections entirely out of the loop – we don’t want to use it, and so we won’t…those who do want to use it, can use it whenever they want, and at very low cost. Heck, even Ms. Fluke could probably find the cash for it (and she was part of it – making her a celebrity over her laughingly false claims of the cost of birth control was part and parcel with the whole, “let’s make LIV think the GOP wants to ban birth control” effort).

      • Amazona June 6, 2015 / 11:09 pm

        Yeah, advocating open access to contraception is now redefined in the Lefty Dictionary as “running against individual freedom“. And promoting the insertion of a foreign object into the uterus of a woman, in spite of the danger of perforation of the uterine wall and subsequent infection, and the heightened danger of ectopic pregnancy, is now redefined as “women’s health”.

        If only they would publish a glossary of terms so we could keep up. But that would really interfere with the free-form redefinition of terms on the fly so essential for Leftist discourse. They really don’t like to be pinned down to specific meanings…..it is so limiting.

        You are right, Mark. They invented this silly WAR ON WOMEN !!!!!! (multiple exclamation points to convey the shrill hysteria of the term) and it is very upsetting to have it taken away from them. That is why we are seeing nonsense such as “for really means against” and “freedom to just walk in and buy something” is really “taking away freedom” (to just walk in and buy something) and so on.

      • rustybrown2012 June 7, 2015 / 11:53 am

        Mark,

        “The only issue we on the right have is that some of us, for religious reasons, object to paying for it, even indirectly; in fact, for some of us, it would be to participate in a mortal sin to help someone get birth control.”

        Well if that’s the only issue then this is quite easy: you’re wrong. You see, we don’t get to earmark how our tax dollars are spent. There are plenty of things our government spends money on that I vehemently object to but I’m an adult and understand how the system works. Religion obviously should get no special exemption. Where would it stop? We shut down federal money to the FDA because Jews don’t want their money spent subsidizing and inspecting pork?

        I guarantee without a doubt your tax and insurance dollars are currently being used for things that are anathema to your religion. Your choice is to be an adult and suck it up, or move to a different country that better caters to your religion (good luck with that).

      • M. Noonan June 7, 2015 / 11:17 pm

        And no one would ask to – I’m not morally culpable in how the government spends tax money as long as my own vote is against morally illicit actions. I must render unto Caesar – and if Caesar then does wrong with what I am morally obligated to render to him, that is Caesar’s sin, not mine. But here’s the thing – in the ObamaCare mandate for birth control, business owners are required to purchase health insurance plans which provide for birth control…that is the government forcing someone to do something directly which contravenes a person’s free exercise of religion. That we cannot allow – and thus the move to make birth control an OTC thing, because then the issue simply does not come up…which is why your side doesn’t want birth control OTC because then you won’t have an issue to belabor us with.

        Your side wants power and control – our side just wants to be left alone. I’m not in any way, shape or form asking you to conform in the least to my religious views…and all I’m asking is that you accord me the same respect I’m giving you.

      • rustybrown2012 June 7, 2015 / 1:18 pm

        “If only they would publish a glossary of terms so we could keep up.”

        I’m sure that wouldn’t help; you’d just misconstrue those too.

      • Amazona June 7, 2015 / 2:19 pm

        Your very complaint depends on a manipulation and distortion of the word “misconstrue”. It means you have defined the word to mean the opposite of its actual meaning: You think applying a consistent and rational definition to a word or term, and not redefining it to support an argument or belief, is the meaning of “misconstrue”. Because that’s what I have been doing, and you can’t keep up without inventing new meanings for words.

        You are so funny. So transparent, so predictable, and so funny.

      • rustybrown2012 June 7, 2015 / 2:52 pm

        You think applying a consistent and rational definition to a word or term, and not redefining it to support an argument or belief, is the meaning of “misconstrue”. Because that’s what I have been doing

        That is not what you’ve been doing. You’ve been misconstruing terms, concepts and arguments all along. It’s what you always do. Fine with me if you disagree; it’s apparent to any sane person reading this.

      • rustybrown2012 June 8, 2015 / 3:28 pm

        Mark, I’m all for OTC contraceptives as long as they are still insured and the move does not marginalize other forms of birth control like the IUD–a far cry from what Gardner has proposed hence the pushback from the left. The resistance from the left has nothing to do with a quest for power, control over women’s bodies, or any of the other paranoid fantasies put forth on this thread.

        As far as your religious convictions are concerned, you’ve certainly won this round with the Hobby Lobby decision, congrats. I’m quite sure you’ll be losing this war though. Scientific research is clear that the more a wide range of birth control is made available, particularly highly effective methods like the IUD, the better the health and welfare for women and society at large–including less abortions, which I thought was a very important issue to you. So what will happen is that the tangible benefits of widespread contraceptive availability will become increasingly apparent to an increasingly secular public, while your side will have no argument against save for superstitious concerns. Science will triumph over religion, as it always has in the past.

      • M. Noonan June 8, 2015 / 11:23 pm

        ROFL – science triumphing over religion! Geesh – the further we go along towards the future, the more backwards-looking and old-fashioned you on the left become. Your vaunted science was created by my Catholic Church – and the further you go away from the rationalism of Catholicism, the more un-scientific you on the left become…

        At all events, all we on my side want is to be left out of it – and if birth control is available OTC, it simply doesn’t have to be part of insurance, which is why your side doesn’t want it to be OTC, because then it is part of insurance and you feel that belaboring us to provide it works well electorally in your incessant quest for more power to bother people.

      • Amazona June 8, 2015 / 8:39 pm

        rustybrown2012
        June 8, 2015 / 3:31 pm

        Hey, you’re the one who brought it up! Excuse me for weighing in on a topic you posted about.

        Yet we can see that this is not true.

        rustybrown2012
        June 6, 2015 / 3:58 pm

        It’s clear that Cory Gardner’s scheme for over the counter birth control is a ruse

        Rusty whines that those who find him silly are really just engaging in paranoid fantasies—yet he insists that ‘…..Cory Gardner’s scheme for over the counter birth control is a ruse…

        What is Rusty’s response to the idea that no one should be forced to engage in activities that go against their religious beliefs? “Your choice is to be an adult and suck it up, or move to a different country that better caters to your religion………”

        NOW we are getting to the heart of the true rabid Liberal—-it will always come down to “my way or the highway”.

        Let’s peel off another layer of that onion, shall we? In this statement he is also stating that the First Amendment is meaningless, and the real choice for people of faith is to roll over and submit to the secular Left or leave the country—yet another example of the disdain the Left has for the Constitution.

        How many times have we commented that the Left does not respect the Constitution, has no use for it, does not believe it is the law of the land, etc? Many many times. And every time, Lefties whine that this is just not FAAIIRRRRRR—They do too believe in the Constitution.

        But………… There is always the BUT…………………….

        If you have the stomach to go through a litany of Lefty foolishness, you will almost always end up with an inadvertent admission of the underlying belief that the Constitution is worthless, and also that people who do not agree with Leftists are worthless. And human beings less than nine months past conception are worthless. And so on.

        All of this, mind you, while prattling on about tolerance and diversity. This is why I commented on the need for a Lefty dictionary, because when they speak it becomes clear that to the Left “tolerance” means a complete lack of respect for anyone with a different world view, and “diversity” means acceptance only of people just like them.

        Imagine poor Rusty’s indignation—nay, OUTRAGE—-at being told that he can either “suck it up” and become religious or move to another country. That’s one of the unexplainable oddities of the blindly rabid Left—-they are incapable of seeing past their own bigotry and realizing that if it were reversed and turned upon them they would freak out. Another is their conviction that Leftism is about “autonomy” and “freedom” and “equality” when every argument made by a Lefty boils down to the Left controlling what other people do and limiting individual freedom in the name of the collective.

      • rustybrown2012 June 9, 2015 / 1:38 am

        rustybrown2012
        June 8, 2015 / 3:31 pm

        Hey, you’re the one who brought it up! Excuse me for weighing in on a topic you posted about.

        Yet we can see that this is not true.

        What in the blazes are you talking about Ama? Did you not read the original post? You know, the thread that we’re commenting on? Here, let me remind you, since you seem incapable of scrolling to the top:

        Noonan, June 6, 2015 (the original post we’re all commenting on):

        “Democrats don’t like the idea of over the counter sales of birth control. The bottom line is that if women are empowered to make their own choices without a government program, then there is zero need for government. Being in favor of choice is all well and good, but if it doesn’t mean a large, expensive government bureaucracy, then maybe its better we do without it, huh?”

        Ring a bell? Now who brought up this topic?

      • M. Noonan June 9, 2015 / 1:46 am

        Rusty,

        You’re arguing about the argument…why not get back on topic?

      • rustybrown2012 June 9, 2015 / 2:03 am

        Mark, I’m glad you can have a good belly laugh at the concept of science supplanting religion, but if you can point me to a single instance where the reverse is true I would be truly interested. What “rationalism of Catholicism” am I missing? Really, lay it out on the table now, what quantifiable truths has your religion provided that couldn’t been discovered by common sense?

      • rustybrown2012 June 9, 2015 / 2:09 am

        I’m arguing about the argument because an insane woman wants me to argue about the argument. I know, I shouldn’t follow the bait.

      • rustybrown2012 June 9, 2015 / 2:24 am

        Ama says:

        ‘Imagine poor Rusty’s indignation—nay, OUTRAGE—-at being told that he can either “suck it up” and become religious or move to another country. That’s one of the unexplainable oddities of the blindly rabid Left—-they are incapable of seeing past their own bigotry and realizing that if it were reversed and turned upon them they would freak out.”

        Godamn right I would be outraged. I strive for a secular society where policy is decided upon reason, not superstition. Very simple, if you think about it.

      • rustybrown2012 June 9, 2015 / 2:49 am

        Mark:
        ” the further we go along towards the future, the more backwards-looking and old-fashioned you on the left become.

        What do you mean by that? Please opine…

      • M. Noonan June 9, 2015 / 11:45 am

        Rusty,

        Please take this in the right sense – I am genuinely not trying to be in any way disparaging here. Here’s the deal – it is we of the Christian community, and especially Catholics, who are the rationalists…the people of science. Not you on the left.

        People on the left have been saying for several centuries that science is destroying religion (and just to give you a little kick, Hitler believed this, too…). There is a concept on the left that religion has shrunk as science has expanded human knowledge. A Progressive might take as an example of science destroying religion the story of the Virgin Mary given birth – saying things along the lines of, “well, primitive people in 1st century Palestine might have believed that such a thing is possible, but we with our advanced, scientific knowledge know how babies are made and thus know that Mary could not have given birth if she was a virgin”. Something like that may be said but only by someone who doesn’t really know much of anything about people – who knew full well in first century Palestine that a virgin can’t give birth. Heck, its right there in the New Testament: Joseph, discovering that Mary was pregnant, was going to divorce her (quietly because he was a righteous man and didn’t want to cause scandal) because he knew full well how babies were made. True, he didn’t know all the particular biological aspects of how a baby comes to be, but he knew that babies only come when men and women get together and have sexual relations. The advance of scientific knowledge on human reproduction makes no difference to the story of Mary giving birth – science cannot prove or disprove the story. One is left to make up one’s own mind about it. And if we humans live 10,000 more years on this Earth, the story will still be there, neither provable nor disprovable by science.

        It is like that with all attempts to say that science disproves religion – the thing simply cannot be done. One can try to assert that miracles don’t happen – and Progressive people often do, claiming that science has proven that the universe is a closed system and cannot be interfered with from outside. Science has proven no such thing – it has only figured out what is likely to happen. If A, then B; that sort of thing. But if C shows up, science has no way to explain it, and no way to disprove it.

        A recent miracle was that a woman suffering from Parkinsons disease – a completely incurable disease – was suddenly cured…after praying for the intercession of now-St John Paul II. There is no doubt the woman had the disease and there is no doubt that she is now free of it. There is no scientific explanation for this – and there won’t ever be. Now, you are free to just call this an astonishing stroke of luck rather than divine intervention, but no matter how you slice it, science will have nothing to say about it…all science can say about Parkinsons disease is what science usually sees in Parkinsons disease – a progressively worse physical state eventually leading to early death.

        Absolutely nothing in science contradicts even the smallest bit of what is in Scripture – there is no contradiction. The only thing a person can do is just baldly assert the falsehood of Scripture – but that isn’t science, that is opinion. Go ahead and look around a bit – you’ll find a host of website which claim to find all the inconsistencies in Scripture…but each claim is working under a false presumption of knowledge. Like this: “we know that humanity evolved, and therefore the story of Adam and Eve is false”. No, sorry; whether or no a thing called an ape slowly changed over time into a thing called a human being is irrelevant to the story – the story isn’t about how the human physical form was made but about how humanity became attuned to doing wrong. The story of Adam and Even isn’t a history book in the sense that a book about the War of the Austrian succession is about what particularly happened in the War of the Austrian Succession…it is a story explaining to people why they are messed up. And the proof of the truth of the story is the fact that humanity is, indeed, messed up. I don’t need a scientific experiment to prove to you that Original Sin is real – I just need to take you on a tour of any city and show you Original Sin. You might stand firmly against the idea that you can be washed in the blood of the Lamb, but if you start trying to assert that humanity doesn’t need washing, then I’ve really have no more to say – you’d just be denying self-evident reality.

      • Amazona June 9, 2015 / 9:47 am

        Rusty’s “topic” is LOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATME !!!!!!!!!!!!

        There is no desire to engage in actual discourse, as seen by the tactics of first making outrageous and patently silly comments designed not to further discussion but just to get a reaction, and then reverting to personal attacks when confronted with the silliness and wrongness of his statements.

        All he wants is to be the center of attention, and like the three year old throwing a tantrum the only way he can accomplish this is to goad people into responding to his comments by being confrontational, obnoxious, and outrageous. He is here to push buttons, to get reactions, not to talk.

        The only question here is, is this a factor of his pathology, or is he a returning blog vandal with the goal of disrupting the discourse of rational people? I’m leaning toward the latter. Remember, we used to be plagued by such vermin, before we started to just remove their posts to thwart their strategy. It’s a common pattern, seen by all conservative blogs, and Rusty was always a foot soldier for the blog vandal brigade. It is a strategy of the Left, part of the overall goal of silencing opposition opinions and stifling the exchange of ideas and philosophies.

        We gave Rusty a chance to engage in actual discussions, but he showed his true colors and his true agenda quite quickly, and I think it is obvious that he has to be ignored, even when he tosses out one of his brain farts and begs someone to “opine”. He is not here to discuss, he is here to attack and he is here to disrupt.

      • rustybrown2012 June 9, 2015 / 12:42 pm

        Ama, If you consider responding directly to posts disruptive, I guess I don’t know what to say. Meanwhile, your latest diatribe doesn’t address a single issue being discussed. Not a singe one in five paragraphs. Strange idea of discourse you have there. Sorry you find yourself so incapable of holding your end in a dialog, but in the spirit of personal responsibility you have nobody to blame but yourself.

        And I’ll say again, for someone who feigns concern for civility, you sure do throw a lot of invectives around. Get a grip.

      • Cluster June 9, 2015 / 1:39 pm

        Rusty,

        There is no “real” issue being discussed here other than the completely fabricated issue of contraception, of which Amazona has very accurately summarized your position and intent. If you want to engage in a dialogue of substantive issues then we welcome that but that does not include the contrived issues of contraception, voters rights, global warming, etc.

      • rustybrown2012 June 9, 2015 / 1:58 pm

        Cluster, once again, Mark brought up this topic. He has also posted about global warming and voters rights in the past and will likely do so again. It seems to be your position is that we are not to comment on Mark’s posts.

      • Cluster June 9, 2015 / 5:16 pm

        We all bring up these contrived issues from time to time but we discuss them in the context that they are in fact contrived, and we certainly don’t give them the weight that other people like yourself do, who are more agenda driven than reality based.

      • M. Noonan June 9, 2015 / 6:53 pm

        Rusty – what I brought up was the fact that Democrats don’t like the idea of having birth control available OTC. You rejoined by quoting a bit of Progressive hackery which is making out that denying freedom of choice protects freedom of choice. It is no different than Klein the other day arguing that informed voters are worse than ill-informed voters. It is just complete and utter nonsense.

        If you’re for freedom, then you’re for freedom – there is no real half way house here. Freedom is people being able to do as they wish without let or hindrance from another. In the conservative proposal to make birth control OTC, we are proclaiming our desire to allow anyone who wishes to purchase birth control without let or hindrance from anyone. So, we’re for freedom. If you oppose this, then you must want someone to have some say in how and when a free born American citizen obtains birth control…and that means you want a let or hindrance in the process, and thus are opposed to freedom, at least in this area.

        Just admit it – you don’t want freedom of choice in birth control and be done with it. Don’t try to square a circle here.

      • rustybrown2014 June 9, 2015 / 7:32 pm

        That is completely false.

      • M. Noonan June 9, 2015 / 7:56 pm

        Then please explain to me how having to purchase insurance highly regulated by the State equates to freedom.

      • rustybrown2014 June 9, 2015 / 7:35 pm

        “Absolutely nothing in science contradicts even the smallest bit of what is in Scripture – there is no contradiction.

        Balderdash. There are countless scientific errors in the Bible. The Bible shows absolutely no evidence that it was inspired and written by anyone other than men from that time. You know what would have been impressive for God to include? Germ theory. “Hey Moses, Thou shalt wash your hands before eating!” Would’ve saved millions of innocent men, women and children from horrible death and suffering.

        I also see you seem to be resorting to allegory when dealing with the story of Adam and Eve. So Genesis is not a literal account of how God created the universe? That’s news to a whole lot of Catholics. The myth of Adam and Eve is quantifiably false as proven by science (not just evolution, genetics too). But if you’re going to play the game of crying “allegory!” for every ridiculously impossible event depicted in the Bible I cry “foul!”–either you stand by your sacred texts or you don’t, whereby they suddenly become much less sacred. What about the flood? Resurrection? Truth or allegory?

        I’m happy to end by agreeing with you on one thing: humanity is indeed messed up, but it’s not proof of anything. Lastly, I strongly support your right to the free exercise of your religion. I would fight for it. I used to be Catholic myself. But I’m adamant that religion should not interfere with the rights and welfare of others and I fear you often advocate crossing that line.

      • M. Noonan June 9, 2015 / 8:23 pm

        It won’t be news to any informed Catholic – it might be for some of our more literal-minded Evangelical brothers and sisters, of course. Genesis leaves out a lot of details – there is no explanation for how, exactly, God made sub-atomic particles. But the sequence in Genesis of the development of life is completely in accord with what we have learned by scientific observation: and that is pretty good considering it was written by an old Jew thousands of years ago. Of all the Creation stories, only that in the Bible makes any sense…the rest are clearly absurd, always with an “assume things exist” at the back of them…which is, of course, what our Progressives hold…”assuming something exists, then everything came to be via natural evolution”…with no explanation how the something came to be. I prefer to be rational about things – there cannot be an endless regression of causes and so there must be a First Cause, and there is God (and don’t get hung up on the “what made God?” argument…God is outside our universe: one must keep in mind that we’re inside, He’s outside…he’s not in time. There wasn’t a yesterday for God as there is for us, nor is there a tomorrow; God is a self-existent fact, not a creature, as we are).

        And I doubt your willingness to accord me free exercise of religion – because in freely exercising my religion there are certain things I cannot do but, also, as a free born citizen of the United States I have a perfect, unalienable right to the public square…so, in that public square I can justly refuse to do things which you think I should do.

      • rustybrown2014 June 9, 2015 / 7:36 pm

        Mark,

        Your virgin birth analogy is a straw man. I think it’s widely understood that the story of the virgin birth was meant to be seen as a miracle at the time it was written. At least I’ve always understood that. You’re correct–it’s right there in the text. Needless to say, I find this account of parthenogenesis highly unlikely.

        Regarding the miracle nun, there is PLENTY of doubt that she never had the disease in the first place and PLENTY of doubt that she hasn’t relapsed. And science most certainly can have a say in this case–in the event she agrees to an autopsy of her brain, the only sure way of diagnosing Parkinsons. Sadly, no miracle here.

        Actually, I find your belief in this miracle quite troubling. What kind of God cures one old woman from an illness while allowing the the unthinkable suffering going on in the rest of the world? If we are His children, why favor one while letting millions rot with disease? Is this the way you would treat your children?

      • M. Noonan June 9, 2015 / 8:09 pm

        Rusty,

        Of course it is unlikely – in fact, as far as we know, it has only happened once. Miracles are by definition unlikely. And the proper default position on any announced miracle is to believe there must be a natural explanation for it – that is how the Church approaches such claims from the get-go; but after all attempts to provide a natural explanation – even by stretching what is a natural explanation very far – there is no natural explanation, then we go with the obvious: it must have occurred due to super-natural intervention. But you can’t disprove them by the scientific method; can’t prove them, either, of course. And while I’m sure plenty of de-bunkers have called into question the miraculous cure of Parkinson’s, none of that amounts to proof…in fact, it just amounts to bald assertion by people unconnected with the event. Its like asking someone who was 30 miles away at the time for the details of a traffic accident.

        As for why one person is cured and another is allowed to continue suffering – the question stems from a misunderstanding of the way things work. Certainly God can set things up so that no evil ever happens – but if things were set up like that, we’d no longer be human. We’d be mere automatons with no ability to choose. Lewis put it like this: sure, God could make it so that the moment someone swung a wooden club at another head it turns into something harmless…but that means a person can’t choose. And, additionally, if the material world isn’t as it is, then we couldn’t even get to know each other – we need a medium which is neither you nor me for us to interact within. Wood, then, has to be like wood…which means it can be turned into a nice chair, or a club. The only answer we can make to that is that God wanted people who can choose – and that means people who can choose to do wrong as well as right. You can complain about this, but I’ll only give you the answer God gave Job: where were you when the foundations of the world were laid? It isn’t for you or me – mere creatures – to dispute with God as to whether or not this is the way things should be. All we can do is accept that they are as they are and do our best.

        A for how God treats his children – well, he decided to become one of us and suffer a rather horrific death in order to redeem us from the folly we voluntarily engage in. That seems a bit stupendous…not many are the human parents who will suffer the execution their children have merited. You have an out – and you are made for endless happiness. All you have to do is ask for it. And this life of 80 years – even if it a life of horrible suffering – is nothing. You will live forever. Ten billion years from now you’ll still be alive – what then the importance of even 80 years of suffering?

      • rustybrown2014 June 9, 2015 / 7:46 pm

        Cluster:

        “We all bring up these contrived issues from time to time but we discuss them in the context that they are in fact contrived, and we certainly don’t give them the weight that other people like yourself do, who are more agenda driven than reality based..

        So in other words, speak of these subjects only the way we want to speak of them. Well, at least you admit to preferring an unchallenging echo chamber to reasoned debate. Who is the one driving an agenda here?

      • Cluster June 9, 2015 / 8:26 pm

        Rusty,

        You think like a child, of course most progressives do hence my reluctance to speak with one politically. There is no basis in fact whatsoever to support the “contrived” concerns of global warming, contraception, etc.. Nearly every single progressive issue is built on lies – black lives matter, mass incarceration, global warming, denying contraception, voter suppression, income inequality, etc., etc. These are purely emotionally charged, poll tested, manufactured issues designed to appeal to, and distract the LIV’s from noticing the spectacularly failed Democrat policies that are playing out in real time in places like Baltimore, NY, Chicago, Detroit, etc, and making life miserable for them. Democrats should be apologizing, not demonizing.

      • rustybrown2014 June 9, 2015 / 11:41 pm

        “the sequence in Genesis of the development of life is completely in accord with what we have learned by scientific observation”

        No Mark, you are completely wrong about this. Please educate yourself:

        “a quick overview of the creation of life so far according to the bible. Plant life on the land (1) THEN sea life (2) and birds (3) THEN (as we’ll see on the next day) land animals(4) and mankind (5).

        Now the basic time-line of life on earth, with (very approximate) dates, looks something like:

        3.8 billion years ago: simple cells (prokaryotes)
        3 billion years ago: photosynthesis
        2 billion years ago: complex cells (eukaryotes)
        1 billion years ago: multicellular life
        600 million years ago: simple animals
        570 million years ago: arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans)
        550 million years ago: complex animals
        500 million years ago: fish and proto-amphibians
        475 million years ago: land plants
        400 million years ago: insects and seeds
        360 million years ago: amphibians
        300 million years ago: reptiles
        200 million years ago: mammals
        150 million years ago: birds
        130 million years ago: flowers
        65 million years ago: the non-avian dinosaurs died out
        2.5 million years ago: the appearance of the genus Homo
        200,000 years ago: humans started looking like they do today
        25,000 years ago: Neanderthals died out

        As we can see here the order (just looking at those 5 things listed above) would be more accurately: Sea life (2) THEN plant life on the land (1) THEN land animals (4) THEN birds (3) THEN mankind (5). It doesn’t take an expert to realize the problems with this story. Even those who want to accept evolution, and say that the story of genesis is an allegory (such as the catholic church) meant to be taken as not referencing seven literal days can not get around the order being wrong.”

        http://thinking-critically.com/2010/08/31/the-story-of-creation-according-to-genesis/

        As far as abiogenesis and the creation of the universe, there are scientific theories about these things which are infinitely more satisfying than superstitious creation myths. First Cause is a cop out. Sorry, but just declaring “God did it” and then insisting that questioning God’s origins is out of bounds doesn’t cut it, and certainly isn’t rational. You say:

        “there cannot be an endless regression of causes and so there must be a First Cause, and there is God (and don’t get hung up on the “what made God?” argument…God is outside our universe: one must keep in mind that we’re inside, He’s outside…he’s not in time. There wasn’t a yesterday for God as there is for us, nor is there a tomorrow; God is a self-existent fact, not a creature, as we are).”

        Yet I can substitute ‘Babe the Blue Ox’ for ‘God’ in the paragraph above and it would make just as much sense and have just as much evidence to support it. That is, zero.

      • M. Noonan June 10, 2015 / 1:34 am

        No, Babe the Blue Ox is not a self-existent fact, so putting him in there doesn’t make any sense, at all.

        I know that you can deny First Cause all you want – but then you’ve got something coming out of nothing, which is an impossibility of anything existing, let alone anything evolving from one thing into another.

        As for the sequence – plants came first, then animals; land plants or water plants is rather immaterial…the fact that a Jew lacking modern education figured it out thousands of years ago is staggering…something so unlikely as to be at least closely akin to a miracle.

      • rustybrown2014 June 10, 2015 / 12:52 am

        Mark,

        Concerning your miracles and the Parkinson’s cure in particular I’ll state again that there is plenty of room for doubt. The Nun herself is the one who claims she was diagnosed with Parkinson’s and has not provided any further details, including the doctor. It’s quite possible that she was suffering from a different neurological disorder that can suddenly go into remission, unlike Parkinson’s. In any event, Parkinson’s is difficult to detect with 100% accuracy, especially in the early stages. There are also reports that her symptoms have reoccured. Yet for you, all of this adds up to “no doubt”. I think it’s quite likely there are perfectly reasonable natural explanations for this event, you prefer magical thinking. But only one of us is being rational and scientific, and it aint you.

        “Certainly God can set things up so that no evil ever happens – but if things were set up like that, we’d no longer be human. We’d be mere automatons with no ability to choose. Lewis put it like this: sure, God could make it so that the moment someone swung a wooden club at another head it turns into something harmless…but that means a person can’t choose.”

        If God is omnipotent, he could have made us any way he liked–no evil, still human, not automatons, ect. You say we wouldn’t be human without evil but that’s not true, your God can do anything. What’s so crucial about choice anyway? Why did God set that up as necessity over, say, constant bliss and harmony. You may say that would prove to be boring but remember omnipotence. He could make it so it wouldn’t be boring.

        BTW, why did God sacrifice Jesus for our sins? Seems like an unnecessarily messy way of doing things. And while we’re at it, why is God hiding? Why doesn’t he make himself apparent to all of us? You have nothing but your dogma to answer these questions. No reason. No logic. Just ancient superstition.

      • M. Noonan June 10, 2015 / 1:43 am

        As I said, God could have made it impossible for us to choose evil – but a being which cannot choose certain actions is not a free being. God wanted us to be beings who can choose – remember, before the Fall he called us “good”; which means as we were, free from sin but able to choose it, we were good…we were as we were supposed to be. As for why God wanted us to be such beings, take it up with Him – as I said before, it isn’t for us to argue with God; you’re welcome to try but I believe you’ll get the worse of the argument.

        As for why God doesn’t make himself manifest – well, he did; you know of him as Jesus. Getting on to 2,000 years ago a man appeared in Palestine who said, “before Abraham was, I Am”. He claimed to be able to forgive sins – not just sins done against him, but sins done against other people. He spoke of a very difficult path, a narrow gate – a moral code which was not just the platitude of “do unto others” but a counsel of perfection. He wasn’t asking anyone to do the impossible, just the difficult. Many people claimed that after he was killed, they saw him again in the flesh – they touched him, he ate with them. Make of it what you will but in the world we have, with people being as they are – and completely unchanged in character as long as we can reckon human history – there is one thing about Jesus: he makes sense. If we all did as he instructed, the world even as it is today would be fabulously improved; but he also holds out a promise of a world that is even better…all we have to do is give up our attachment to this world, take up our cross and follow him. Everything will be taken care of – you have no need to worry or to fear.

      • rustybrown2014 June 10, 2015 / 1:09 pm

        Mark,

        Babe makes just as much sense as God, at least from the spheres of logic, rationality, and science. The point is if you’re going to invoke a “self-existent fact” without a scintilla of evidence, I can do the same. As I said, it’s a cop out. If you’re hung up on the impossibility of something coming from nothing then you should be equally bothered by the concept of a First Cause if you’re being intellectually honest. Even if you claim the First Cause exists outside of nature you’re still left with a mystery even greater than ‘something from nothing’, for since the First Cause is independent from nature it cannot even be examined and therefore not understood. Kind of a problem for someone who criticizes others for not being able to explain things.

        “As for the sequence – plants came first, then animals; land plants or water plants is rather immaterial…”

        Now your committing the argument fallacy of special pleading, discounting errors in your thesis as insignificant without any explanation. Look, Genesis is quite specific about the order of things and it’s quite wrong:

        “And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”
        And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

        Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.”

        Now this is unambiguous. Here on day 2, Genesis is painstakingly detailing what it means by “dry ground” and “land” and all the fruit trees that come with it. But it is not until day 4 that God decrees: “Let the water teem with living creatures”. So we have fruit trees before simple celled sea life–that is flat out wrong and not immaterial (BTW, those fruit trees? He created them before the sun, which came on day 3. So we also have plant life without photosynthesis. I could do this all day…).

        “the fact that a Jew lacking modern education figured it out thousands of years ago is staggering…something so unlikely as to be at least closely akin to a miracle.

        Well, I’ve just shown that he didn’t figure it out and was substantially wrong. The things he got right? That plants came before animals which came before man? Do you really think that people from that time and long before didn’t have some inkling about this? We have a natural tendency to categorize and put things in order, from simple to complex being a common method. Does it really take divine inspiration to deduce that humans are more complex than animals which are more complex than plants? Please. The writers of the Bible were not idiots, just scientifically ignorant.

        Let’s recap. You said “Absolutely nothing in science contradicts even the smallest bit of what is in Scripture – there is no contradiction.”, and I’ve debunked that claim with an example that you’ve provided.

      • M. Noonan June 10, 2015 / 2:09 pm

        You might want to look at little more closely into what a contradiction actually is. You’re also presuming to impossible knowledge – you suspect certain things happened a certain way, you don’t know…and you can’t know, because you can’t replicate it.

        Anyways, a First Cause makes sense – something from nothing is an impossibility. Remember, you have to stop thinking in terms of our universe being all there is. God is not contained within it – God is outside of it; he created it. God doesn’t exist in time. He didn’t come from something and go to something – he just exists on his own. Our universe as we have explored it and come to understand it, however, has this fact about it: every effect has a cause. Within our frame of reference, there must be a cause for every effect. Now you wish to dispose of God and say that the only thing which didn’t have a cause was the creation of the universe, itself. That makes no sense; it is, in fact, a denial of your apparent view of the universe – you’re dodging the issue because you prefer that there not be a God.

      • rustybrown2014 June 10, 2015 / 1:23 pm

        Mark,

        Look, the issue of OTC birth control is complex. As I stated earlier, I would be all for OTC if it were fully covered. But there are substantial issues to be ironed out. One big one is that there is a wide variety of birth control for a wide variety of needs. It’s quite necessary that a woman consult with her doctor before deciding which one is right for her. Oftentimes, a woman has to try several methods before she finds one that fits for her. That’s one of the reasons we have birth control as a prescription–it’s a complex but necessary medical issue that can have serious consequences if gotten wrong. BTW, no drug company has even expressed interest in OTC birth control, probably because of liability issues among other things.

        So in theory, the concept of OTC birth control is great and I think most liberals would agree, it’s just that we recognize the many issues that have to be addressed before it can happen safely and effectively. You conservatives don’t give a hoot about that, don’t want it covered by insurance, and are using this issue as a political ploy. It’s not as simple as “if you’re for freedom you’re for freedom”. That’s a juvenile take on the matter.

      • M. Noonan June 10, 2015 / 2:11 pm

        If it is “covered” then it is controlled – someone has charge of it outside of the individual making the decision on whether or not to use it. If this is what you want, then that is fine – but don’t try to say that you are for freedom of choice because you simply aren’t. You’re for government control or insurance company control or some sort of control outside of individual choice. Just live with your view – its ok to desire control; lots of people do. I don’t, in this case.

      • rustybrown2014 June 10, 2015 / 2:35 pm

        Mark,

        I’m quite aware of what a contradiction is and I’ve just displayed one between the Biblical example you’ve provided and science. The contradiction is unambiguous and spelled out in my last post. Genesis claims land plants came before sea life as well as before the sun. This contradicts reality. End of story.

        I’m not presuming any impossible knowledge; I’m merely stating that no divine knowledge was needed to write Genesis and I’ve laid out my case. Do I know that absolutely? No, but neither do you know the opposite. And my opinion is based on logic and common sense while yours is based on magical thinking. That’s cool with me but only one of us is dealing with methods which reliably help us discern reality.

        As for creation of the universe and First Cause, you’re repeating dogma and I suggest we let it drop and agree to disagree. Neither you nor I know how the universe came to be but I admit my ignorance without appealing to unprovable supernatural claims.

      • M. Noonan June 10, 2015 / 2:44 pm

        Let’s be clear – a contradiction is something like, “and then God decreed that pigs can fly”. This is demonstrably untrue. Given that Genesis was written thousands of years ago by and old Jew who didn’t have our body of observed knowledge, not a bad job of putting the creation thing into place in a reasonable manner. Also, you don’t know if the first self replicating bit of DNA was on land or in the water – we suspect it was in the water because that appears to be easier to come about, but we don’t know. And we’ll never know.

      • M. Noonan June 10, 2015 / 2:56 pm

        And let’s have a little fun with this. Thanks to the calculations of a Catholic priest who partially corrected Einstein’s math, we know the universe is expanding. Ok. Into what? I really like having these discussions, after all.

      • rustybrown2014 June 10, 2015 / 2:45 pm

        Mark,

        Fine, I’m for birth control being fully covered by insurance. If you prefer to twist that into being “controlled”, go bananas. But like Ama, I think you have a rather odd view of insurance. Every human being I’ve ever run across has desired being under the “control” of being covered by insurance, the more the better. Based on your position, I suspect you have no insurance policies for yourself in order to provide yourself with the most “freedom”. That’s your right, but I don’t think it’s very prudent.

      • M. Noonan June 10, 2015 / 2:52 pm

        I have insurance because I couldn’t possibly afford health care without it. I’d prefer there was no insurance for basic health because if that were the case, health care costs would be low enough for me to pay for them out of pocket in all but the most extreme circumstances; you’d still want insurance for the catastrophic stuff…but that would be real insurance: ie, something which covers you against a highly unlikely event, and it would be cheap to buy. I am, however, stuck with the system we’ve got because I simply cannot convince a majority that they’d be better off without insurance. But insurance is control, period – I’m glad you at least came around to that.

      • rustybrown2014 June 10, 2015 / 3:07 pm

        Mark,

        Sure, “and then God decreed that pigs can fly” is a contradiction, but so is having land plants before sea life and plants before the sun was created as the Bible states–those things are also demonstrably untrue. The fossil record is clear that sea life came before land plants. Do you also deny that photosynthesis is required for plant growth?

      • M. Noonan June 10, 2015 / 7:23 pm

        Photosynthesis is required, but we have found species around black smokers at the bottom of the sea which don’t use sunlight to do photosynthesis…which means there could have been all manner of ways of doing it, depending on the environment at any given time.

      • rustybrown2014 June 10, 2015 / 3:16 pm

        Mark,

        “I’d prefer there was no insurance for basic health because if that were the case, health care costs would be low enough for me to pay for them out of pocket in all but the most extreme circumstances; you’d still want insurance for the catastrophic stuff…but that would be real insurance: ie, something which covers you against a highly unlikely event, and it would be cheap to buy.”

        Well now your talking about a world that we don’t live in so I think your preference falls outside our discussion. Can I get a pony while we’re at it?

        Look, you’ll get no argument from me that our health care system is screwed up, but that’s perhaps a topic for another time. And I haven’t come around to thinking of insurance as control, at least as you seem to describe it.

      • rustybrown2014 June 10, 2015 / 3:19 pm

        Universe expanding? Darned if I know into what. Isn’t there a theory that says it’s going to contract and collapse? I’ll bet THAT would put an end to this discussion!

      • M. Noonan June 10, 2015 / 7:28 pm

        No, it wouldn’t – we’d still be alive…

      • rustybrown2014 June 10, 2015 / 7:34 pm

        Sorry Mark, no plant life around black smokers, only animal life. Nice try though. Getting back to something I asked earlier, can you point to a single instance throughout all of recorded history where religion has disproved a tenet of science?

      • M. Noonan June 10, 2015 / 7:41 pm

        Eugenics.

      • meursault1942 June 10, 2015 / 9:46 pm

        Wow, there’s a lot of errors to address here, starting with the notion that the Catholic Church “created” science. Nice try, but that is a falsehood. Science wasn’t invented by any one person or group. But to take one example, if you want to know who did a lot of the heavy lifting in developing the scientific method, read up on Ibn al-Haytham (yup–a Muslim. Imagine that!).

        As for the rest of the errors, an easy way to deal with the bulk of them will be to have Mark do it for me. Since Islam was mentioned in the previous paragraph, let’s continue with that. I know you believe that Islam is incorrect and that the Koran is inaccurate, Mark, so here’s your challenge: Prove it–but do so in a way that does not simultaneously implicate the Catholic Church and the Bible. After all, both have the exact same claim to truth–holy scripture that is the alleged word of god and whose accuracy is averred by that same scripture. So why is the circular logic of the Catholic Church “correct” and the circular logic of Islam “incorrect”? 

      • M. Noonan June 11, 2015 / 12:18 am

        Ibn al-Haytham, however, got it via Christian writers who were on the trail of the scientific method as early as the 1st century. The thing about the great Muslim contributions to science is that they are invariably based upon Christian or pagan roots…and they never led much of anywhere. Even in such practical things as conquest, Muslims often had to rely upon non-Muslims for the technology necessary to win: at the siege of Constantinople, it was a Christian who cast the cannon which allowed the Muslims to batter down the walls, for instance. That is the thing about Islam – not a lot of enterprise. Think about it – they were making bank off trade, but it was Christian ships who came to the Muslim world to pick up the goods and bring them to Europe…like Muslims couldn’t build an effective ship for long distance trade? Well, as it turns out, they couldn’t…

        I believe this lassitude is directly related to Muslim theology. Now, to be sure, I can’t prove that Mohammed didn’t receive a revelation from God, but I firmly believe that he didn’t. After all, what he did was take Catholicism and strip out believe in the divinity of Christ – that, in turn, meant an end to the priesthood because without a divine Christ, you don’t need the sacraments instituted by Christ. But he kept a great deal – God being one; being the Creator of all things, etc. He also kept belief in the virgin birth and held that it would be Jesus who would come at the end of time to judge the world. But by denying the divinity of Christ, he also set God in a theology which held that there was no free will among human beings…that we only do what God decrees. This is great for long-term social stability, but it just kills the idea that the world can be understood by human reason and that human being can change themselves and things. Islam took over what was arguably the most technologically advanced and wealthiest civilization in the world – that being the Greco-Roman world built up in the Middle East and North Africa over a thousand years. From the moment of the Muslim conquest, it was all rather down hill from there…no new development, no new advancement…increasing impoverishment as the stored wealth of the area was drained away and not replaced, declining population (for instance, the population of Egypt declined markedly – and didn’t recover to its Roman levels until the middle of the 19th century).

        The difference between Islam and the West is the same as the difference between any other civilization and the West – the West, being based upon Christian theology, believes the world to be a rational place which human reason can come to understand by observation and experiment. Christian theology holds that human beings are not puppets on a string – Christian theology also holds that the moral worth of a person is in no way dependent upon a person’s social position. This theology does lead to a more thrusting and risk-taking civilization; one not bound so much by how grandma used to do to it, but ever on the look out for some more efficient way of doing it (this does have its drawbacks, of course – the atomic bomb being a prime example of going a bit too far).

      • rustybrown2014 June 10, 2015 / 11:58 pm

        Eugenics? Please expound.

      • M. Noonan June 11, 2015 / 12:21 am

        Eugenics was settled science. Tired, stodgy, old Christians said it was horribly wrong and should not be done. Pity it took the Holocaust for Progressives to get a clue.

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 2:26 am

        “Eugenics was settled science. Tired, stodgy, old Christians said it was horribly wrong and should not be done. Pity it took the Holocaust for Progressives to get a clue.”

        Oh, give me a break. For one thing, eugenics IS a settled science–selective breeding, whether done with livestock or human beings, does produce tangible results. No question that that that issue was discovered by science. But you’re wrong in assuming it was only “tired, stodgy, old Christians” who were responsible for the rejection of human eugenics. There were PLENTY of scientists and liberal humanists who were against eugenics as well. In any event, this all has nothing to do with the science of eugenics, which is settled. It has everything to do with human beings deciding that this was an ethically dubious line of inquiry to act upon. Historically, religion played a role. But humanism and innate common decency also played a large hand.

        Next? Any examples where religion has trumped science?

      • M. Noonan June 11, 2015 / 10:56 am

        Racism.

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 2:29 am

        sorry about the weird extra “thats”

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 2:31 am

        …in the second sentence .

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 2:43 am

        Next? Any examples where religion has trumped science?

        I’ll take the none response to mean “no”.

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 11:26 am

        Racism? Please expound.

      • M. Noonan June 11, 2015 / 11:47 pm

        Progressives believed that the races could be classed as inferior and superior. A direct denial of Catholic dogma – though you will be able to dig up some of my departed Evangelical brothers and sisters who got it just as wrong as the Progressives.

      • meursault1942 June 12, 2015 / 2:19 am

        Ibn al-Haytham, however, got it via Christian writers who were on the trail of the scientific method as early as the 1st century.

        No, he was building on what the Greeks had done. But at least you are admitting that no particular group created science, as it was an ongoing effort from a multitude of cultures. That’s a marked improvement from your earlier (false) claim that the Catholic Church somehow “created” science.

        and they never led much of anywhere

        Also false. Again, there’s the major development of the scientific method itself, among a great many other things both within and outside the realm of science. It appears you need to do some research, but for now, this is the main point that you helpfully made for me:

        Now, to be sure, I can’t prove that Mohammed didn’t receive a revelation from God

        Correct. Nor can you prove Catholic theology. And that’s exactly the point: The underpinnings of both are belief, not fact. But you know what does have underpinnings of proof and facts? Science. And that’s why you’ve got it exactly backward in proclaiming that science trumps religion. Religion only works if you believe it–and even then, it doesn’t really work so much as provide a semantic escape (i.e. “God did it” and similar evasions). If you don’t believe it, it holds no currency.

        Science, meanwhile, works regardless of your belief. You can say you don’t believe in magnetism, gravity, cell biology, molarity, whatever–but those things will just keep right on working, and they will be replicable and consistent.

        So here you are trying to put belief on par with testable, observable, verifiable fact. Beyond that, you’re claiming that when science and religion are at odds (virgin birth in humans, for example), then religion simply must be correct not despite its lack of factual grounding, but because of that. And even beyond that, you’re claiming that placing belief above science is somehow the rational, pro-science position and that people who actually work with and understand science are the ones who are irrational and anti-science. 

        I’m sure each step of painting yourself into this corner seemed like a good idea, or at least a convenient defense, at the time, but in the end, all you’ve done is paint yourself into a corner.

      • Cluster June 12, 2015 / 10:20 am

        Science is good for explaining what has already been created but beyond that, it explains nothing. Faith is the search for something deeper.

      • rustybrown2014 June 12, 2015 / 3:54 pm

        “Science is good for explaining what has already been created but beyond that, it explains nothing. Faith is the search for something deeper.”

        …and is not good at explaining anything!

        Also, science does much more than merely “explain what’s already been created”. It makes accurate predictions (that’s actually one of the requirements of true science), and allowed us to create the computer screen you’re now gazing at (among other things). What has religion created OR explained? Nothing.

      • Cluster June 12, 2015 / 7:34 pm

        It makes accurate predictions (that’s actually one of the requirements of true science),

        Well then you should stop believing in global warming. Nearly every single prediction, catastrophic or not, has proven to be wrong.

      • rustybrown2014 June 12, 2015 / 4:13 pm

        Sorry Mark, your racism example doesn’t cut it. For one thing, races can be classed as being different from one another. Judging what is inferior or superior among these differences is a sticky issue and one that I think modern scientists are reluctant to undertake for fear of career suicide. Aside from that, there have been racist scientists and racist Catholics–both groups hopefully gaining a better understanding of the importance of tolerance as the human race matures. That’s a part of humanism.

        You’re 0 for 2 in trying to find a single instance where religion has trumped science, plus proven wrong with the one example you provided to show religion is at least equal to science (Genesis). Care to try again?

      • M. Noonan June 12, 2015 / 10:25 pm

        Actually, I’m 2-0 on that, and you’re only thinking you won the Genesis argument because you believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture…which is a problem some of my Evangelical brothers and sisters share (though it is fun to get into “sola scriptura” arguments with them because I’ve got bags of Scripture which show that they’d have to be Catholic, then).

        Any particular person can be guilty of any manner of sin – that is just fallen human nature…but the Church has never held that any particular race of people is inferior to another. How could it? It was mostly slaves, foreigners and other despised people who made up the Church to begin with.

      • rustybrown2014 June 12, 2015 / 7:44 pm

        “Well then you should stop believing in global warming. Nearly every single prediction, catastrophic or not, has proven to be wrong.”

        That’s not even close to the truth Cluster.

      • M. Noonan June 12, 2015 / 10:23 pm

        Name a prediction which came true – I mean, other than the ones made true by fudging the data…

      • rustybrown2014 June 12, 2015 / 10:46 pm

        “Name a prediction which came true – I mean, other than the ones made true by fudging the data…

        Uh….how about the fact that the planet’s getting warmer?

      • rustybrown2014 June 12, 2015 / 11:11 pm

        Sorry Mark, you’re 0-2. My question was name just one time religion supplanted science–that means proved science to be wrong. And I’m looking for unequivocal examples, you know like the time when science proved the earth revolved around the sun contrary to the churches opinion. Solid, unquestionable stuff like that.

        Your two attempts are ridiculous. Eugenics is in fact science but was a social movement that has been rejected by good people both inside the church and out. The church did not disprove eugenics. And racism has never been a foundational tenet of science. The church isn’t racist? Bully for the church! Neither are scientists. 0-2 Mark.

        And I most certainly did win the Genesis argument. Do you remember saying this:

        “the sequence in Genesis of the development of life is completely in accord with what we have learned by scientific observation”

        Sure seems you’re suggesting a pretty “literal interpretation” there, doesn’t it? If not, then what did you mean? Then do you remember me proving that Genesis got the order SUBSTANTIALLY wrong by quoting its actual text? And I threw in the mistake of creating plants before the sun for good measure? Yeah, I’d say that’s a pretty clear win there, Mark.

        So now on top of simply dismissing evidence with no cause (contraception debate) you’re just making things up and creating your own reality. Not exactly covering yourself with glory in this argument, are you?

      • M. Noonan June 15, 2015 / 12:39 am

        I’ll revise and extend my remarks – strike “completely in accord” and substitute, “does not fundamentally contradict”.

        Feel better?

        Now, as for your other two defeats – settled science “proved” that racism is true and that eugenics were the way to go. They weren’t – and it was stodgy, old Christians who said so all along.

    • Amazona June 7, 2015 / 11:12 am

      “….The program offered free IUDs to low-income teenagers and women who wanted them,…” rustybrown2012 June 6, 2015 / 3:58 pm

      I’m sure you would love to have more attention paid to you, but you’ve made your point, which is that you are a mindless parrot eagerly regurgitating hate-based garbage fed to you by your chosen sources of anti-Right rhetoric. You loved the taste going down, you loved the taste coming back up, and you have made it clear you have nothing else to offer.

  5. Cluster June 6, 2015 / 4:23 pm

    I think we can all thank Rusty for bringing up one of the more pressing issues of the day. I can’t think of any other issue that deserves more scrutiny and discussion than contraception, particularly women’s contraception and how those heartless bastards in the GOP are playing games with their sex lives. Well done Rust.

    • rustybrown2012 June 6, 2015 / 4:26 pm

      I think you’re referring to Mark, not me. He brought it up.

      • rustybrown2012 June 6, 2015 / 4:57 pm

        I see you still have a knack for getting things wrong.

      • Amazona June 6, 2015 / 5:08 pm

        “I see you still have a knack for getting things wrong……” whines the guy who posts the silly Slate piece. Pot, meet kettle.

  6. Cluster June 8, 2015 / 8:08 am

    Good article here on the media’s bias not just towards liberals, but towards trivia:

    The major media apparatus’s bias in favor of Democrats is only one of its biases, and maybe not even the most important one, though it will probably seem so to whomever the Republicans nominate in 2016. In the long run, its more important bias is its bias in favor of trivia

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419428/when-biases-collide-kevin-d-williamson

    A good portion of yesterday was spent debating contraception. A trivial subject of which liberals find of the utmost importance apparently, and the primary reason why liberals are so uninteresting to talk with.

    • Retired Spook June 8, 2015 / 9:36 am

      Cluster,

      As I said before, Liberals open themselves up to ridicule so often on so many levels, it’s a shame we don’t take advantage of it more than we do. But then I guess we’d have to think more like Liberals. On second thought — never mind.

    • M. Noonan June 8, 2015 / 10:44 am

      True – and they wanted us fighting over it in 2012, rather than fighting over Obama’s manifest failure…and they’ll want us fighting over it in 2016 because sure heck they won’t want to fight over Hillary’s corruption and lack of meaningful accomplishments.

      • Cluster June 8, 2015 / 11:54 am

        True that. Hillary has already attacked the Republicans over the manufactured issue of “voters rights”. Hillary’s campaign will be all about abortion, global warming, voters rights and gender equality – all manufactured issues designed to attract the LIV’s. The GOP candidate best be prepared to answer these issues in short order, and redirect the conversation to issues that actually matter.

      • rustybrown2012 June 8, 2015 / 3:31 pm

        Hey, you’re the one who brought it up! Excuse me for weighing in on a topic you posted about.

      • Retired Spook June 9, 2015 / 5:49 am

        Hillary’s campaign will be all about abortion, global warming, voters rights and gender equality – all manufactured issues designed to attract the LIV’s.

        You left out the most important one: INCOME INEQUALITY. We need to have everyone making the same income — well, except for the ones who decide how much that will be. They will NEED to make a little more — OK, a lot more.

      • Amazona June 9, 2015 / 9:53 am

        I wonder if we can just give speeches to each other for half a million a pop, or if there has to be some federal agency lining up audiences so we can all have our turn at equalizing income by getting paid a million dollars an hour to spout platitudes.

        How can we spread the wealth gained by influence peddling? We have seen that simply taking money away from some to hand out to others is not acceptable if the money is to be taken from high-ranking Lefties. Clearly we need another level of bureaucracy to figure out how the average Joe can get the same economic benefits as Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid, without influence to barter.

  7. rustybrown2014 June 10, 2015 / 5:06 pm

    Here’s an enlightening article about IUD’s, teen pregnancies and abortion:

    Given the opportunity to make an informed decision at no cost, around 30,000 participants in Colorado chose LARCs. The results were staggering: a 40 percent decline in teen births, and a 34 percent decline in teen abortions. And for every dollar spent on the program, the state saved $5.85 in short-term Medicaid costs, in addition to other cost reductions and the enormous social benefit of freeing low-income teens from unwanted pregnancies and what too often follows: dropping out of school, unready motherhood, and poverty.”

    http://www.thenation.com/article/207825/birth-control-works-too-well#

    Read the whole thing. It’s astounding. 34 percent decline in abortions! I’ve said it before, The religious right needs to do some soul searching and decide which is more important to condemn: birth control or abortion. Every sperm is sacred or the aborted fetus? Because science is proving that you can’t logically be against both.

    • Cluster June 10, 2015 / 6:41 pm

      It’s hard to believe you spend this much time and energy on such a minor, completely manufactured issue.

      • rustybrown2014 June 10, 2015 / 7:38 pm

        Wow Cluster, you really take the cake. I point out a program that reduces teen pregnancies by 40% and abortions by 34% while saving the state money and you call it a minor, manufactured issue. Talk about your ideologues!

      • Cluster June 11, 2015 / 7:34 am

        Well, your creepy obsession with teenage girl pregnancies aside, contraception is affordable and available in every CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, and many other locations everywhere for everyone and no one in the political sphere is proposing to take that away. Particularly from the teenage girls you seem to care so much about.

        You are a weird, weird little man.

      • Amazona June 10, 2015 / 8:02 pm

        Cluster, the Left HAS to invent things to have fits over. When you invent something, you control it all the way. Because it is your invention, it only has the characteristics you give it, and from that point on you can also control the narrative. A real issue has a life of its own, and an objective reality that would have to be overcome. But an invented issue is only what you make it, and you can design it and then manipulate it any way you want.

        The problem is that every now and then your issue starts to slip out of your fingers. The whole contraception charade had some traction for a while, until the smoke cleared and people started to think things like “Hmmmm. I wonder if the Fluke’s “friend” has a cell phone, or tattoos, or piercings, or dresses well, or has a nice car. I wonder if she buys a Starbucks every day, or even a couple of times a week. Passing up a venti latte once a week would pay for those birth control pills she claims she has to have. And how did someone smart enough to get into Georgetown manage to go there for three years before finding out it is a Catholic school? This whole thing stinks on ice.” Then as the meme is crumbling under the weight of common sense, some dastardly Republican has the unmitigated gall to undermine the Lefty whines about access to contraception by suggesting it be easier—-and cheaper—-to get.

        Uh-oh. Now Lefty foot soldiers have to argue that women need to see doctors to get BC, that they just can’t be trusted to make their own decisions about their own bodies. And they have to make the Crystal Ball arguments, such as claiming to know that Cory Gardner really meant the opposite of what he said. It is kind of fun to watch, and there is the added benefit of the inadvertent exposure of a Lefty belief that federal office holders really ought to interfere in state legislation, but watching Rusty flail around trying to score some points from his minders is a little like watching a pig on ice.

      • rustybrown2014 June 10, 2015 / 11:44 pm

        Nice, odd little rant there, Ama. Quite light on information, facts or sources (none) and long on weird misstatements, fantasies and uncharitable speculation of my and others positions (all), but I know that’s your style. It’s all you got.

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 11:40 am

        Cluster, we’re talking about LARCs here like the IUD or hormonal implants at no cost, quite different from the contraceptives you bring up. Can you try to focus on the topic and be relevant?

        I’ll give you points for originality though–I’ve never heard a concern for reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions, teen or otherwise, characterized as a “creepy obsession with teenage girls”! What a completely novel way of looking at things! I guess if I were touting the benefits of some program that reduced the incidence of Alzheimers you’d refer to it as a “creepy obsession with geriatrics”. No Cluster, we’re talking about a medical issue here, and your bringing sexuality into it is quite revealing. Talk about creepy.

      • Cluster June 11, 2015 / 12:32 pm

        At no cost?? So it’s completely free?? As opposed to the $4.99 monthly charge for the pill, or the $6 charge for condoms. I don’t understand how your bizarre mind works. Just a bit of common sense – if you were really concerned for these girls and their “health”, you would also advocate the benefits of being less sexually promiscuous and the benefits of making better personal decisions, but I would never expect to see that side of the equation being argued from someone as left, as strange, and as emotionally immature as you.

      • Amazona June 11, 2015 / 12:36 pm

        Like every other Lib who has no response to accurate statements, Rusty falls back on the old standbys—-a personal slur (rant) followed by a slightly wordier version of Huh-UH!

        What I want to know is why the blog decided to open the sewer and let the trolls back in. First it was Seminar Poster Rusty and now mersault. How many times do we have to go through this? Conservatives have discussions and then the blog vandals rush in with their only goal being to disrupt a conservative venue.

      • Cluster June 11, 2015 / 12:44 pm

        As I have said before – they are obsessed with us. They speak of us often over at their own sewer and evidently Rusty felt like coming on over and bringing up the irrelevant issue of contraception with which he constructed the typical imaginary moral high ground and proceeded to denigrate those of us who have different views. They are pathological, uninteresting and honestly the strangest people I have ever come to know.

      • M. Noonan June 11, 2015 / 11:49 pm

        Well, in Rusty’s defense, I did open the issue – but he does seem to have a concern about it which is rather out of kilter with other issues I brought up. At any rate, the purpose of bringing it up wasn’t so much to discuss contraception but to discuss who is in favor of State power and who isn’t.

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 12:44 pm

        Yes Cluster, at no cost. And it saves the state money. And the birth control is much longer lasting and effective than the ones you mention. That’s the successful state program we’re talking about. Would you please do some reading? Your commenting on something you no nothing about; it’s rather embarrassing.

        For your information, everybody wants guidance for young girls to make better decisions for themselves and be abstinent until they’re more mature. It’s only cretins like you that want abstinence only–a stupid, unrealistic policy that’s a miserable failure. I prefer dealing with the real world and advocating policies that actually work. Go figure. I guess I’m “strange” that way!

      • Cluster June 11, 2015 / 12:56 pm

        It’s only cretins like you that want abstinence only

        I want abstinence only? News to me. Is this like when Sen. Cory Gardner proposes OTC affordable contraception available to everyone it means that he too wants abstinence only?

      • Amazona June 11, 2015 / 12:51 pm

        “…. IUD or hormonal implants at no cost…”

        OF COURSE it’s free, Cluster! Haven’t you been paying attention? It’s just like Free Money because it’s from INSURANCE !

        And insurance is not OPM, or even considered money at all. It is just a magical source of free goods and services, to which anyone is fully entitled.

        BTW, did you pick up on Rusty’s whine about how girls have to pay for prostate care? Talk about clueless! The whole concept of different risk pools just flew right over his head, or was just dismissed because it is not convenient. But the concept of insurance as it is supposed to be—-a private contract between a person and a company that reflects a pool of shared risk—is that there ARE different categories of risk. This is why bull riders and sky divers have, or at least used to have, higher premiums than accountants—-their risk pool had a higher claim rate, so they paid more to be in it.

        When insurance is run as a business, instead of as a government-funded gimme plan, there are different risk pools, so men of a certain age are not in the same risk pool as young women who might have pregnancy claims.

        The original insurance model did make some people “unisurable” (to use Leftist terms, which is really Leftspeak for higher premiums due to risk factors) and this is what the laughably named Affordable Care Act was supposed to correct. Of course, being an act of an infinitely expansive federal government, instead of just addressing that one segment of the uninsured, it dismantled an otherwise functional system and replaced it with an expensive bureaucratic nightmare. And now the risk pools have been merged, to a great degree, so now young women DO have to subsidize prostate treatment, and older men DO have to subsidize pregnancies, and we all DO have to subsidize transgender surgery and so on. We not only have to subsidize things well outside our own risk pools with our higher premiums, we have to do it with higher taxes. The biggest “benefit” as far as the Left is concerned is that this all means far more intrusive control by Big Brother.

        Another note: Somewhere else in this thread someone commented on having very low medical costs and wanting to be able to just buy insurance for catastrophic events such as cancer or serious injuries or heart attacks. In a functioning insurance climate, this used to be possible, which not only gave people control over their own health care decisions it kept costs down. Now this is not allowed. So instead of paying my own out of pocket costs as I go and paying a couple hundred dollars a month for catastrophic coverage, I have to pay a thousand dollars a month so Jimmy doesn’t have to strap himself down when he wears a fetching new frock, or Sally wants to kill off an inconvenient human being because she was having too much fun to be responsible.

        This, to the RRL, is Progress.

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 1:13 pm

        Cluster,

        Who is it that pushes abstinence only programs? Only conservatives and the religious right.

      • Cluster June 11, 2015 / 1:56 pm

        You said it was me – so please at least be honest. Of course the religious right pushes abstinence, what would you expect from them? It’s just like when someone from the left says that IUD’s are provided at no cost, and promote unrestricted abortion at any time – that’s what we expect from the left.

      • Amazona June 11, 2015 / 1:24 pm

        “It’s only cretins like you that want abstinence only”

        Note the totally predictable Lib pattern of “discourse”—that is, a personal attack followed by an effort to deflect to something else. Once you recognize this pattern, it is clear every time a Lib pretends to engage in discourse.

        As for the pathology of Libs, you have recognized something I have been commenting on for quite some time now, though my analysis goes a bit farther than your comments. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that the Left purposely creates a safe haven for the hate-driven, a place where the personality disorders that used to make them social outcasts and even candidates for imposed mental health efforts are now praised and validated. Much like ISIS draws in a certain pathology—-mostly young people obsessed with hatred and a need for violence—-and validates these disturbing personalities, telling them that these traits are really noble and in service to a higher cause, the Left trolls for the gleefully vicious, the outsiders looking for a way to feel like insiders, the hateful and the vindictive, the misfits, and tells them they are really the guys on the right side and anything they do to attack the Other is proof of their superiority. The Left attracts these people, nurtures their pathologies, validates their pathologies, feeds their hatreds and resentments, and then sends them out as political and intellectual cannon fodder, to sites like ours where they are encouraged to disrupt and destroy as much as they can.

        We see it all the time—mindless parroting of a few carefully selected sources that tell them what they are supposed to think, and the fallback tactics of attack, deflect and deceive. When we try to engage them in what, to normal people, would be discussions designed to lead to more knowledge and better understanding, they distort these efforts into verbal slugfests designed to give them as many opportunities as possible to hurl invective and exhibit their pathologies. This is what they feed on, and for some reason every now and then this blog opens its doors and welcomes them in, providing nourishment and entertainment for them while doing nothing for the blog, or for actual discourse, except to degrade them.

      • Amazona June 11, 2015 / 1:31 pm

        “Yes Cluster, at no cost.”

        Cool. Who knew that these products—-condoms, birth control pills, IUDs—-simply appear as if by magic? And that they can be distributed to anyone who wants them, AT NO COST to anyone?

        Oh, wait. You mean there IS a cost? It’s just passed on to someone else? Hmmmmm. To whom? Oh, to INSURANCE COMPANIES, which means exactly the same as “free” because when OPM is funneled through an insurance company (or the government) it suddenly morphs into money that is just ……… there. There is a magical process by which this money, taken from individuals, is converted into vague, unidentified, untethered, free-floating, FREE STUFF. Once OPM is filtered through the feds, or through insurance companies, it’s up for grabs, so just dip right in and take a handful.

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 1:32 pm

        Ama and Cluster,

        I’m trying to discuss issues. If you don’t want to, stay out of it. Why do you constantly make it so personal? It’s weird. And you guys are much nastier with the insults than I am–the evidence for that is right here in this thread. Mark chooses to debate maturely and we have a relatively civil exchange. Sure, there’s some sarcasm and a few barbs, after all we are debating. but we’re both adults and can take it. Grow up. I’m willing to reset the civility mode if you are, but if you want to keep calling me names I’ll respond in kind.

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 1:40 pm

        “Note the totally predictable Lib pattern of “discourse”—that is, a personal attack followed by an effort to deflect to something else.”

        I only called Cluster a cretin after he bizarrely claimed I had a “creepy obsession with teenage pregnancies” called me “a weird, weird little man”, “strange and emotionally immature”, and “pathological”. Not that it bothers me a lick, but let’s be clear about who’s throwing out the “personal attacks”–it’s you and Cluster. It’s all right there in this thread. You want to stop it now and discuss some issues?

      • Amazona June 11, 2015 / 1:50 pm

        No, you are NOT “trying to discuss issues”. You are the one calling names and hurling insults, and what you may think of as “trying to discuss issues” is really nothing but making snide and hostile and very rude attacks on the personal beliefs of Mark and many others.

        Sure, to someone like you ridiculing and demeaning personal beliefs might feel like “trying to discuss issues” but what you are really doing is attacking the intellect and integrity of everyone who does not think like you do. You use words like “insane” and “cretin” and “superstition” and “rant” so freely, it is obvious that this is the way you think—-that you are somehow entitled to treat people this way.

        Sorry if it riles you to have it pointed out to you. I have gone through your posts and have not found ONE actual issue being discussed by you other than the personal belief that it is the responsibility of Other People to subsidize responsible behavior. When someone disagrees with you, you revert to your default position of name calling and insults.

        What you and your kind do not understand is that there is a world out here in which people with different ideas DO discuss them, but we do it with mutual respect, we do it without name calling or insults, and we do it with the goal of arriving, if not at a different point of view, at least of understanding the other point of view.

        Your approach is one of anger, attack, insult, and battering down anything anyone else says. This is how you choose to be, so quit whining when others find it offensive.

        And if you think you get to exclude people from the open blog discussions, maybe you ought to ask Mark to join you in a private, off-blog, chat room where you can insult him and his beliefs at will without offending anyone else. Till then, this is an open blog so get over it.

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 1:55 pm

        Ama:

        “Who knew that these products—-condoms, birth control pills, IUDs—-simply appear as if by magic? And that they can be distributed to anyone who wants them, AT NO COST to anyone?”

        Nobody said there’s “no cost to anyone”, yet another of your misstatements. The program was funded by a private donation, and should be continued with state money (yes, the dreaded OPM) because of it’s success in not only the health front but fiscally–it pays for itself and actually saves taxpayer dollars by stemming unwanted pregnancies. It’s all right there in the article and in the state’s website. Whatever happened to reading up about an issue before opining on it? Am I old fashioned?

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 2:03 pm

        Again Ama, why the personal attack? You obviously can’t recognize an olive branch when it’s waved in front of your face.

        As to invective, I welcome a count. You and Cluster not only started it but have hurled far more than I.

        Finally, I suggest you let Mark speak for himself.

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 2:23 pm

        Specifically I said it was “cretins LIKE you”, but if that’s not your position, I apologize for lumping you in with it.

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 2:24 pm

        That last one was to Cluster BTW.

      • Amazona June 11, 2015 / 2:37 pm

        Poor Rusty, wanting so badly to be the boss of SOMETHING and trying to set rules for the blog. Waahhhh waahhhhh waahhhhh.

        Here, by the way, is an example of Rusty not attacking someone in the course of one of his “discussions”: (To Mark) I live in the real world and am intellectually honest. Unfortunately, that seems to be a difference between me and you.

        Wow. Knocked me over with that display of tolerance and civility!

        Mark has a higher tolerance for silliness and rudeness than Cluster and I do, so he may put up with you a little longer, but while you pat yourself on the back for glomming onto a little more blog time than usual just remember that even Mark may get tired of getting sucked into your game and letting you use him as a springboard for wild-eyed uber-emotional attacks on an invented Other.

      • M. Noonan June 12, 2015 / 12:47 am

        It does at times get tiresome – but I think it has been useful as a reminder. Our Progressive friends are getting more and more strange by the day. Found out just today that we’re not allowed to say “you guys” any longer as it has been deemed sexist. We’re way into the looking glass, now.

        But, this can’t go on – lunacy is its own cure; they’ll push to far and fall.

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 3:16 pm

        Jesus Ama, get a grip. You’re acting like a child. And you might want to check your penchant for butting your nose into other peoples affairs. If you have something to contribute to the discussion I’m having with Mark have at it, otherwise, I’m sure Mark is capable of speaking for himself.

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 4:37 pm

        Ama:

        “Here, by the way, is an example of Rusty not attacking someone in the course of one of his “discussions”: (To Mark) I live in the real world and am intellectually honest. Unfortunately, that seems to be a difference between me and you.

        Wow. Knocked me over with that display of tolerance and civility!”

        I’ll humor you and address this. While this is a stinging accusation against Mark it’s not without merit. I put out numbers from a state government agency and the CDC which are not contested by anybody to my knowledge and Mark dismisses them out of hand, without any reason for doing so beyond his ideological bias. I view this as being intellectually dishonest and I expressed that to Mark. I’m awaiting his response, or if he chooses to do so he can drop it entirely, and I will not dog him with it. This is what constitutes adult debate. Now can we get on to discussing something?

      • Cluster June 11, 2015 / 5:36 pm

        The CDC is just another inept government bureaucracy that is wrong more often than right. They have made many mistakes in the past. Just look up their track record as it pertains to vaccines, influenza, or how about the most recent scare with ebola. And of course the ineptness is compounded by the numerous times progressives and government have lied about everything from health care, to immigration, to taxes, to foreign diplomacy and on and on. Every time a Democrat opens his mouth anymore, lies flow out. Just look at Obama. He lies about everything nearly everyday, so forgive us just a little when we don’t just fall over ourselves with this recent information from your vaunted CDC.

        Aside from that, this is a non issue and one that is tedious and simplistic. In other words, no one gives a shit. Contraception is affordable and widely available on every street corner. I think the only reason you are harping on this program is because you think it’s free. And evidently, that’s what excites a child.

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 6:04 pm

        Cluster,

        Do you have any evidence that the CDC is “wrong more often than right”? Because I don’t believe that’s the case. Have they made mistakes, gotten things wrong? Sure. So has every other organization in the history of mankind.

        Let me ask you this: Since numbers from state governments and the CDC can’t be trusted, what can? It would appear your view is that nothing can be quantifiable anymore. Really Cluster, please let us know what constitutes as evidence these days. It a seems to me you’re operating with standards outside of reality.

        Again, sorry to burden you with this trivial topic of reducing abortions, unwanted pregnancies and saving taxpayer dollars. I was under the impression these things were important to you, as they are to many of us. My bad.

      • Cluster June 11, 2015 / 6:13 pm

        Rusty, you took the CDC’s numbers and promoted them to be gospel truth without any question. The ebola issue alone and how wrong and inept the CDC was on that issue should give you reason to pause, but something tells me that when government speaks, you listen and seldom question.

        And your impression of me is wrong, and always has been.

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 6:23 pm

        Cluster,

        It’s not the CDC’s numbers, it’s the state government of Colorado’s numbers. The CDC just confirmed them, and NOBODY has disputed them. What leads you to disbelieve them? And I’ll ask you again, what would constitute as proof in your world? It seems that nothing is quantifiable to you anymore. Wow, guess we can save a whole lot of bureaucracy, we’ll just stop keeping track of everything since it’s all bullshit anyway, right Cluster?

      • Cluster June 11, 2015 / 6:37 pm

        I don’t care about the issue and forgive me for not giving a f**k what you think about it. Have a nice day.

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 7:22 pm

        Good evening to you sir!

    • M. Noonan June 10, 2015 / 7:46 pm

      Amazing what you Progressives will believe just because someone writes it down.

      Ok, so 30,000 of the IUD’s were passed out and this resulted in a decline in teen births by 40%.

      It doesn’t actually say if the 30,000 participants were all teens. It sort of implies it, but it doesn’t say it. But let’s assume that they were all teens. Ok, that means you got about 10% of the Colorado, female teen population using it – and out of this 10% usage you get a 40% drop in teen births? Does that seem credible to you?

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 2:01 am

        Mark,

        It’s not all teens so your calculations are for nought, plenty of young women in their 20’s included. I agree the numbers are impressive; does that automatically lead you to disbelieve them? Why? Because they don’t fit your narrative? The numbers come from the Colorado Dept. of Health after all, since this was a state program. Isn’t that the type of state initiative you guys are always yammering about? Maybe they aren’t valid if they don’t fit your ideological framework. But wait–this reduces abortions so it DOES fit your ideological framework. Seems like you have some sorting out to do.

      • M. Noonan June 11, 2015 / 10:56 am

        If it wasn’t all teens, then the 40% reduction claim becomes even more incredible. I’d have to see the underlying data to be able to decide, of course…but I do wonder if someone is fudging the numbers to create a hot headline to advance a Narrative.

        If you think I’m being skeptical then you’re right – most Christians are skeptical because we were told to be so. And I always doubt any story put out by anyone claiming they’ve done a great job…its just too self-serving.

      • rustybrown2014 June 11, 2015 / 1:11 pm

        Mark,

        The numbers come from the Colorado Dept. of Health and are confirmed by the CDC. They have not been called into question or contested anywhere (besides this blog) as far as I’ve looked. It’s quite clear you’re being extremely biased in rejecting these numbers out of hand for ideological reasons. Yet we are indeed talking about real numbers concerning reducing abortions and unwanted pregnancies and saving taxpayer dollars–ALL issues you and your kind are constantly yammering about.

        I’ll tell you something, if you were to provide similar numbers from a conservative program that contradicted my political beliefs, I would not dismiss them out of hand. I would do some research and accept what the facts revealed. I live in the real world and am intellectually honest. Unfortunately, that seems to be a difference between me and you.

      • M. Noonan June 11, 2015 / 11:57 pm

        Let’s just say that we on the right are, in general, skeptical of official government pronouncements – especially when said pronouncements are clearly in support of something the government wants to do.

        You should be skeptical, too, given the vast amount of things our government has said which proved upon later examination to be complete nonsense – and I’ll grant that Republican governments have been guilty of this, as well…though never as sweepingly dishonest as Democrat governments.

        To give another example of this – “women make 77% of what men make”. Routinely asserted by government but it is complete BS. It has been illegal since 1963 for anyone to pay a woman less than a man for the same job. That little detail is often left out of the discussion, of course. Other details are also left out: if women make 77% of what men make, who on God’s green earth would hire a man? A woman makes as much as a man for the same job, period. But we’ll keep hearing that statistic until the end of time because LIV don’t know that it has been illegal since 1963 to pay women less and LIV are also not the sort to bestir themselves to investigate the claim…but any investigation of the claim shows that women tend to concentrate in lower-paid fields for a variety of socio-economic reasons and also women having children takes them out of the labor force for at least a period of time, so they don’t gain in income as steadily as men. But if you find yourself a woman who learned, say, how to be an engineer and she applied herself to her vocation steadily, then she’s making as much as any man who also learned how to be an engineer and steadily applied himself to his vocation.

        Now as to your stats – go check them out, for crying out loud. Don’t just take someone’s word for it because you like the words. It rather defies logic that providing somewhat less than 10% of teens an IUD would result in a 40% reduction in teen pregnancy. It could be true. It might not be. I’m not going to bestir myself to check because I don’t care – but you do care and want us to believe you…which means you have to bring something to the table other than “the government says so”.

      • rustybrown2014 June 12, 2015 / 3:34 pm

        Mark,

        “Now as to your stats – go check them out, for crying out loud. Don’t just take someone’s word for it because you like the words.”

        I DID check them out. I’ll say this one more time since I’ve said at at least twice before so please pay attention. The numbers come from the Colorado Dept. of Health and are INDEPENDENTLY confirmed by the CDC, something omitted from the original article and which I was not aware of at the time I posted it. The numbers haven’t been called into question or contested anywhere, even from conservative sources I’ve looked into that have addressed this issue. And now you’re saying the burden of proof is on me to confirm the numbers a fourth time? fifth time? sixth? Is that the standard you undertake yourself when presenting evidence? No, of course not. So you are being massively hypocritical here as well as intellectually dishonest. That’s not skepticism Mark, that’s pigheadedness, and you know it.

        You know, usually in debate when someone presents evidence and even a couple avenues of independent confirmation it’s then incumbent on the doubter to provide evidence to the contrary. Sorry you can’t “bestir” yourself to do some checking yourself, I was under the impression that reducing abortion was important to you. You’re being an ideologue who dismisses evidence out of hand when it doesn’t fit your narrative, period. Yet it’s good to be aware of your peculiar standards of evidence and debate. You and others here occasionally post figures to support your arguments and now I’m aware that I can just say “I don’t believe it” without a shred of proof and I’ve won! Strange way to debate if you ask me, but it’s your blog.

        BTW, the numbers aren’t nearly as unbelievable as you make them out to be, which you would know if you “bestirred” yourself to do a modicum off research. The numbers are in line with national averages (though better) and the state never claimed that the ENTIRE 40% decline was due to the program, just a large percentage of it.

      • M. Noonan June 12, 2015 / 10:26 pm

        I want them to be independently confirmed by you – not Gov’t A confirming Gov’t B.

      • rustybrown2014 June 12, 2015 / 3:43 pm

        Mark,

        On the other hand, I’m in complete agreement with you that the “77% of what a man earns” meme is complete bullshit. It annoys me to no end that this lie is repeated time and time again (yes, even most notably by Obama). But I’ll just point out that that 77% number is exposed as a fraud by figures from the BLS, a government organization. So it’s fine to be skeptical, but you must look into the methodology, not just the source.

      • rustybrown2014 June 12, 2015 / 10:43 pm

        Independently confirmed by me, eh? Yeah, I’ll get out my calculator and get right back to you on that. You’re being hypocritical and disingenuous.

        I must say, I find your gambit a rather cowardly way of shutting down a debate that you’ve clearly lost–I mean, rather than trying to prove your point you merely reject your opponents verified facts. That’s the way a spoiled child acts. But I sure will remember your ridiculous standards the next time you or others on this blog quote some numbers.

      • Cluster June 13, 2015 / 8:58 am

        I find your gambit a rather cowardly way of shutting down a debate that you’ve clearly lost

        And the imaginary pedestal has been constructed, and victory in the debate has been declared. This tactic by progressives always makes me laugh.

Comments are closed.