Well Then…. Let’s Just Get it All Out There Part 1

stand-up-for-americaTonight I was able to catch back up and read a lot of the comments of the last couple of days. I was not surprised to find that there were quite a few that disagreed with me on several different areas. D13 took me to task a bit (at least I think so, he didn’t say my name, but I got the distinct impression that he was talking about me along with others). I was also accused of felony possession of kool-aid with intent to distribute by TexasChem. Finally, I was under fire from G.A. Rowe, but then again, he and I often disagree on minor things while agreeing on major ones. All three offered up that I was wrong. And I will take that criticism. I don’t mind a bit. For goodness sake that is what I am here for! Now let me say up front that I don’t take offense to a single one of these attacks on my positions…

I Strongly DisagreeQuite the contrary…. I love that they have challenged me on my thoughts. Ladies and Gentlemen, I did not start writing this blog with the intent of forcing my will on anyone. I started this blog with the intention of providing a place where differing opinions can come and debate the issues respectfully. I do my part. I find topics that I think will interest people. I write my opinions. Then when I am finished I find a way to insert an anti-Pelosi comment into the article and hit “publish” (had to add that for you Ray!). I then wait for the responses. And I get shellacked by at least one person on every single article I write. Which is good. I have thick skin. Tonight I decided that I would take a moment to debate a couple of those points very publicly. Specifically, the comments from D13 and TexasChem. Two people who I respect immensely. Because let’s face it, who isn’t itching to take on two Texas boys on the same day. It is a good test of one’s mettle.

Let me start with TexasChem. I went up on my soap box the other day after letting John Adams fire me up. I railed about freedom and liberty. I railed about treating every person equally and respecting the rights of groups that we don’t agree with. And I was met head on by TC, who took offense to my defense of even muslims and homosexuals. His comments started with:

Please explain to me your reasoning behind your belief that the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle a homosexual couple to the same rights as a heterosexual couple. It seems to me to be a serious case of conflicting interests. Homosexuality by its very definition goes AGAINST the laws of nature…that is why I have never understood the whole gay pride thing. What is prideful in having a lifestyle that doesn’t allow for the continuation of our species? DUH USW! I mean a really BIG DUH! Get off the koolaid. Just say NO!

I do beieve that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.However, I also believe that with the option of choice they can give up those rights through their choice of poor/wrong/bad decisions.EXAMPLE: Thieves, murderers, rapists, pedophiles etc.

TC, I am disappointed to hear this from you. I do understand your reasoning when you make the argument that homosexuality goes against the laws of nature in that it can not further the species. I don’t agree at all, but I see your argument. Let me discuss that continuation of the species aspect first. To accept your position would be to also accept the position that my wife and I should not be allowed to marry and love each other in a committed relationship should one of us be sterile and unable to bear children. To accept your position would be to accept that any form of sexual contact not happening for the purpose of procreation is against the laws of nature. All contraceptives are against the laws of nature. You fall into the false belief that because of something as small as their sexual orientation, they are less of a person, that they are less entitled to the rights and freedoms endowed to every man. These are their RIGHTS. Endowed upon them by their Creator. Who in the hell are you do decide that you have the power to strip them of those rights? Do you overrule the Creator?

Married Mother AnywayLet me go a step further, are you also claiming then, that polygamy is true to the laws of nature? After all, animals have multiple mates. And what is more applicable to this law of nature you claim to see than a man of means procreating and continuing the species with as many women and subsequent children as he can support? Do you see the contradiction here? The same law of nature you claim makes homosexuality wrong, makes polygamy right. Yet christianity frowns upon both.

I take you back to the Adam’s quote that I listed:  It stands on this principle: that the meanest, and the lowest of people ARE, by the unalterable and indefeasible laws of god and nature as well entitled to the benefit of the air to breath, light to see, food to eat, and clothes to wear as the nobles or the king! THAT is LIBERTY. That is not me saying that homosexuals are the lowest among us, as I hope everyone realizes. But the second that you feel, in your heart TexasChem, that homosexuals are not entitled to the very same rights and liberties that every one of us, created by whomever we believe in, are entitled to, you sir have lost the very spirit of America, and have also failed to live as God and Jesus have asked all christians to live, tolerant and loving of ALL men, regardless of their shortcomings. If you believe that homosexuals are lacking in the spirit, then remember that Jesus himself said “Blessed are the poor in Spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 5:3). Would you have me believe that Jesus would offer them the kingdom of heaven, yet deny them the same rights and liberties of every other man on earth? Read that statement from Matthew 5:3 again and then ask yourself how you can even ask that first question: Please explain to me your reasoning behind your belief that the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle a homosexual couple to the same rights as a heterosexual couple.

How Disgusting is This?

How Disgusting is This?

This is America. If you really believe in the liberty that it stands for, then you must support that ALL are entitled to it. If you really believe that we were all endowed with certain inalienable rights, then you must support that ALL are endowed with them. Anything less is un-American. Anything less is a slap in the face of the very principles and concepts that our founders put into place. Do not fall into the trap of believing that because they have a different sexual orientation, that they are less of a person than you or I. That they are entitled to any less freedom or liberty than you or I. That for ANY reason that they should have rights denied to them that are granted to others. To do so would be to say that the rights endowed by the creator can be stripped from any person who does not fit a specific mold that you approve of, and eventually stripped from you.

That being said, you are correct that some people can forfeit those rights by the choices that they make. Each of the examples that you listed were criminal activities. And criminal activities in a country of law will result in a forfeiture of rights and liberties. But homosexuals are not breaking the law. They are doing no harm to you or anyone else for that matter. They are merely people who have formed a bond of love that is different than the bond you would form. To claim that they should forfeit any rights for that choice would be awful hypocritical in today’s world. For I cannot name a single person who has not broken at least one of the ten commandments at some point (which it should be noted does not include thought shalt not be a homosexual). Should you have forfeited your rights the second that you went against one of the ten rules brought down from the mountain? Take a look back at the passages that condemn homosexuality in the bible. Care to hear a list of what else that section of the bible lists as abominations or reasons to be put to death?

The koolaid has been passed around much more than I thought amongst you gentlemen. I hear from a lot of you on this blog that we as a society should be tolerant of others. In your endeavors to be moraly just you are placing yourselves in the path of an out of control freight train. HINT:”ISLAM”

NO kool-aidMy friend, it is not Kool-Aid that has been passed around. It is the idea of rights for all, liberty for all, and freedom for all. And you either believe that it is for ALL, or you believe that it is for only those that believe what you believe. No sir, I do not place myself in front of an out of control train. There are aspects of Islam that I detest and which I will not tolerate. But the right to practice the religion? Insane.

My friend, your statement “In your endeavors to be moraly just”, lies the heart of the matter. I will always, always, each and every single time, in every single situation endeavor to be morally just. To do otherwise would go against the very essence of who I am and what I believe. Any man that does not always endeavor to be morally just holds no place of honor in an America as we wish it to be. If we break it down to your christian perspective, any man who does not endeavor to always be morally just will have no place in the Kingdom of Heaven. I may not always get it right, but I can assure you that I will always endeavor to get there in a morally just manner. Can you give me a single reason why I should abandon this principle?

I on the other hand have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance and can vividly see the harm coming from this derailment.I will continue to show others evidence of its destructive force.

Which Religion Most PeacefulLet me begin by making a very BF type of statement, and then I will attempt to explain it. You said “a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance”. That, brother, is the very essence of the difference between your stance and mine. If tolerance is to be abandoned at the first sign of chaos, then I submit to you that it is not a principle for you in the first place. It is nothing more than something you aspire to have.

But think about your statement as you made it. IF there is an imminent danger or threat being posed by someone towards you, it is not tolerance to accept it and no principle applies here. No one has asked you to tolerate those who wish to harm you. No one has asked you to ignore those that wish to harm you. Self preservation demands that you do no such thing! However, your hatred for ALL muslims is vastly off target. You can quote passages of the Qur’an all day along with your interpretations of what they mean and your versions of what their religion is espousing. And trust me, brother, I can quote passages from the Bible all day that will make Christianity seem just as barbaric and intolerant as anything you have ever read. Please don’t doubt me on this. I can quote bible and verse on both holy books. And taking the words from either is not flattering.

Should of HeadscarvesWhat you cannot do is lay any claim to having lived among them, having truly gotten to know them. That is a claim that I can make. And I know that you cannot make that claim because I have never, ever known anyone who has gotten to know them, who spent enough time with them to really know them, who feels the way that you do about the entire religion. You attempt to paint them as an entire religion that is hell bent on killing christians and any other non-believers. If that were the case, my friend, the war was lost a long, long time ago. If all muslims are what you claim, then they outnumber Americans 4 to 1. And they don’t need to recruit to take us down. They don’t need to use religion to indoctrinate anyone. There are enough muslims in the world that if they intend to take down the great Satan because all Americans are evil and all muslims hate us, we are screwed, and were a long time before now.

But that hasn’t happened. And you know why? Because the way that you portray Islam is not how it is practiced by the vast majority of those who follow it. Does the muslim faith have more extremists who hate America and christians as a percentage of the overall than christians? I believe it does. I think about 10%-15% of muslims feel that way. And probably 5%-10% of christians feel that way about muslims. But I refuse to punish the 85% of muslims who don’t feel that way any more than I would punish the 90% of christians who don’t feel that way.

We the American people have tolerated the intolerant to the point that our society is now in jeopardy from our just nature. Stop drinking the koolaid please, for our childrens and grandchildrens sake if not for your own.

Embrace the Concept of America

Embrace the Concept of America

Our society is not in jeopardy because of our “just nature”. Our society is in jeopardy because of those among us who do not live by that principle of being morally just. You ignore the fact that for nearly 2 centuries muslims didn’t care a bit about America, the same as you don’t care a bit about the person who walks a dog every day past your house. But the second that person starts having that dog take a dump on your lawn each morning, you will find that you care quite a bit about that person.

You are right, my friend, to oppose the recruiting conference in Chicago that is a group with clear terrorist ties attempting to recruit members right here in our country. You may even be right, if that school in Virginia is up to no good, to oppose their expansion or wish to remove them from our soil. When a person or group crosses the line, no one has ever asked you to tolerate them. But the second that you decide that your judgement applies to all muslims, you are the one who has crossed the line. It would make you no better than those who thought slaves were less than a person, that women should have no right to vote, or that human rights should be denied to all hispanics because there are some that break the law.

I know you are better than this. I know that this is nothing more than frustration and fear creeping up on you and causing you to act without fully considering the consequences of what you are saying. TC, you are a good and moral person. I can see this about you in the things you post here. Step back from the ledge brother. We must never allow fear of the few to cloud our judgement of the entirety. More important, we must never allow fear to cause us to cast aside our morals and principles. Those morals and principles are what make this country great.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Well stated thoughts, can’t imagine any reasonable answer against them.

    • I would disagree that thieves are against the Laws of Nature and the cultural norm. We actually elevate and in some cases idolize these individuals. Who else would we want to run our government?

  2. USW,

    I will let TC reply on his own.

    I, however, have a few thoughts to post. I will be sending you a possible guest commentary on what direction the past week or so has my mind going. Something about “thought police” vs “personal beliefs and choices” . . . Just something that I think you might find interesting.

  3. USW,
    Thank you. This comeback feature has answered a main concern I’d earlier had. All I can say is, WHERE are the authorities stopping the dangerous group conventioning in Oak Lawn, IL? We all agree these are not our peaceful Muslim friends!

    • Alan F. says:

      You’re going to have to let the radical types alone until they hand you a polarizing moment and then hope you have a government in place that possesses the will to actually do something if that’s what you seek. President Obama was POTUS September 11 2001 and he’d in all likelihood have made counseling available to the families of the hijackers to help them cope with the American public’s scorn… that and demanded a written apology from Bin Laden.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        USW, Alan and HFDD – let me preface by first offering that I was not really sure what you were talking about with ‘this group’ – I assume you mean “Hizb ut-Tahrir”? Can you point me to some solid references that underscore this is a group of terrorists? In this Country we already allow a number of supposed ‘radical types’ to organize and hold meetings and espouse their particular doctrine – that classification could fall upon the Klan, white supremacists, major league baseball owners, hell, maybe even the Republican Party or the Boy Scouts of America. My point or question is simply ‘please enlighten me’ – any time you’re going to suggest infringing the rights of others in a posting dedicated to the opposite I’d think you’d want to be crystal clear on where that thought comes from no? Otherwise it is more right wing hypocritical spew.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          A healthy 😉 was missing after the Republican Party and BSA.

        • Exactly as I said. Anyone wants any group to come under the microscope, they first have to do something polarizing. Anyone looking to their government for something like dissection of a private school curriculum for content scrutiny is going to have to await a polarizing moment for such an action to be carried out AND a government willing to do such to that particular school/group/club/gaggle of individuals. Not so? The past has shown it to be such without error.

          • Also my comments do not differentiate between the Branch Dividians or the latest Burqa or Rock: You Decide group.

  4. Birdman says:

    Stereotyping any group is bad. I’m sure you are correct that 85% of Muslims are peaceful.

    I have heard on the radio various speakers and watched videos where it was stated that Islam was not just a religion but a way of life. Religion is broadly defined and in the U.S. it has Constitutional protections and other protections by law (Title VII) that can lead to problems. What is a religion? It can be just about anything. I agree with individual rights but when your individual right and/or religious right interferes with my individual right then something must give.

    Example: A plant with a 24/7 operation and your religion requires you to be off work every Sunday. The work schedule will not permit this without rearranging other employees work schedules. Why should I as a private property plant owner have to find a way to reasonably accommodate your religious belief? I should have the right to say no and you can go find another job where you can work Monday through Friday and have weekends off. Your individual right is now interfering with mine and other employees who work various shifts including those on Sunday.

    Example 2: Why should I give you time off during the day so you can pray? I’m trying to run a business. Don’t force your individual rights/religious rights on me. I shouldn’t have to bend to make you happy in honoring your religion.

    • When Christmas or Easter roll around, do you treat everyone as you preach, and deny them paid holiday?

      “I’m trying to run a business. Don’t force your individual rights/religious rights on me. I shouldn’t have to bend to make you happy in honoring your religion.”

      Or does your argument only apply to non-Christians?

      • Alan F. says:

        Ah but as the business owner, those are MY holidays. As the business owner I speak English. As the business owner I CHOOSE to not celebrate the holidays of others as is my right to do. They can’t infringe on my right to be me because of their own right to be them. You want to force different then one of us is going to be denied his/her rights and its welcome to the circle of life-choices Simba.

      • In the first example, some 7th day Adventists (Christians) cannot work on a Sunday. The laws require business owners to find a way to accommodate their beliefs as long as it does not cause an undue hardship. When they took the job they knew that they would have to work Sundays and various shifts but it really doesn’t matter now that they are employees. Even if it wasn’t an issue at the time they were hired, an employee could join such a church after you hire them. From an individual rights perspective, they are infringing on the rights of the owner of the business.

        The 2nd example could apply to Muslims. In both examples I am trying to make a point only of “individual rights” and how it can impact situations and how your religious rights can interfere with my rights.

        As far as Holidays go, the business owner can choose not to recognize any holidays. In a 24/7 operation, most employees work on the Holiday. The only employees off work on the Holiday day are those that would have that day off anyway.

      • Should it matter Dave? As an American and a business owner do you not have the right to recoginze what ever holidays or relegion you want? These is one place the government intrudes on peoples rights. If I don’t want my employees to wear errings out in the field then I should be able to ask them to conform or not hire them. Same for a holiday I should be able to let people off or pay for a holiday as I choose not as the government chooses for me.

    • Birdman

      Example 1: I, as a plant owner, would lay out the employees schedule when in the process of being hired. If you can not work this schedule then I am sorry I will not be able to hire you. I know that when I put out a ad for a new employee that would be covered from the start.

      Example 2: Why cant they pray during their lunch time, but I know that for any religion if I can not afford to take time out to pray. Then I cant. Now if there is one or two major holidays that they celebrate during the year, like Christians, and they came to me up front about this. I would not have a issue with working around that. If they are a hard worker for me, why not. I think communication is key to this. Example if you need let someone off for another holiday, would they be willing to work Christmas? To me if this is a employee who is hard working and honest for my company. I would have a problem working with them, as I would anyone, about this.
      Ellen

      • Ellen: I agree with you in your example 1. You do lay everything out up front. Many people will say anything to get hired and they may even work the schedule until they complete their probationary period. The employee may then bring up some request to get out of working on Sunday due to their religious beliefs. They could convert to a religion just to try to get out of working on a Sunday. The ball is now in your court. Again, my only point is how one person’s rights can interfere with another person or persons. If we were operating with a clean slate under VDLG, I would not want to make any changes to my schedule to give the employee what they want. I may choose to but would not be obligated to unless I can show some hardship.

        In example 2, praying during their lunch break or other break would be something to look into. As far as Holidays go, you could always work something out. Again, I am approaching this under the VDLG premise. I may or may not work something out for the employee. Under VDLG, I would not be obligated to but may choose to for a good employee.

  5. USW thank you for this discussion. As a gay woman I have had this discussion many times in my life so far. I have tried to see someone else point of view when it comes to my life or rights. But I have rarely seen people try to see my view. So thanks for displaying both. I am American. That should be the end of discussion when it comes to my rights. I am a veteran of our armed forces. I follow the laws, I pay my taxes, I respect the people who live around me. Even if I dont get the same respect back.
    I have a few relatives and friends who unable to reproduce do to medical conditions that they were born with. No one would ever consider taking away their rights. So they have adopted children or one family open their home as a emergency shetler for children taken by child protection. They take them in until the judge can make a judgement of where these children should go.
    But this doesnt make them any less of a American.
    As far as gay pride goes. It is different for everyone. For me and my partner it means that we are have pride of who we are, even if you do not.
    I have always believed that families come in different shapes and sizes. That does not make them any less of a family in my eyes.

  6. Ray Hawkins says:

    Well put USW (although you forget to drop an elbow on Nancy Pelosi).

    I have known several Muslims over the past few years – I never lived with them or talked religon heavily. I do know that as practicing Islam they always struck me as normal, law-abiding and caring people. Will consider inviting one to post here.

  7. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Hello dear peeps!

    I do hold all of you dear as I think every single person here contributes greatly to this site…even you Ray 😉 ! Some of it I don’t necessarily agree with though.

    Does anyone here believe that a person’s upbringing and environment guides or contributes somewhat to who a person is as an adult? Does anyone here believe that in most cases, the family unit (regardless of upbringing/environment) is inherently evil/wrong?

    In your opinion, from the family unit’s perspective, what do you believe the priorities are for most family units? Of these priorities, I wonder what it is that we can find that is common (outside the teachings of various religions) among the differing methods of how we were raised (upbringing and environment). Don’t we ALL need to eat, drink, and sleep? Don’t we ALL want the right to believe spiritually how we believe? Don’t we ALL want our children to grow up to be productive and lead a good life? Don’t we ALL want to have times of enjoyment? Don’t we ALL want to be happy some of the time? Don’t we ALL want our struggles to be as minimal as possible?

    I would like to ask each of you to take a moment and imagine that you were born in a predominately Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist country/region. Now, do you think it is likely that your parents would have embraced Christianity? In this “luck of the draw” scenario, do you think that your family upbringing would now make you “evil/wrong” or your way of thinking/living your life “evil/wrong”?

    ********

    Now, I personally don’t know a lot about Muslim. From what I’ve read here, it seems to me that perhaps some of the leaders in Muslim and Christianity may have something in common – that common point may be the gathering of sheep to their religion and the “politicking” of their religion to meet that sheep herding goal.

    I can tell you that I have sat in Christian churches and have witnessed the leader telling the congregation that any other “spiritual belief” contrary to that being espoused is “evil/wrong” and that it is the moral goal of that congregation to convert the non-believers to the said “correct belief”. I have been to Churches where in my opinion there was downright “brainwashing” being done. I have to say, this totally turned me off and I would no longer attend those Churches. The reason that it turned me off is that I logically cannot say that a person is “wrong/evil” because of how they believe due to upbringing and environment (this is a personal choice for me only – damn, isn’t it great that I live in America and can have my personal choice); using that same logic, I can in no way say that the Christian Churches that I attended are “wrong/evil” either for how they believe…I can only choose to support it or not – whether it is my religion or not, I choose not to support the belittling of another’s religion because that is what that person believes.

    Even though our great nation was built on Judeo-Christian philosophies, I will also repeat that I do not believe that religion belongs in our schools. It is the family unit’s responsibility to teach (or not teach) their children religious beliefs.

    ********

    Now, with all that said, my emotions tell me that I am somewhat scared about Sharia Law and it taking a hold here in the United States of America. We already have a method for law here in the states that works okay…not perfect, but nobody is getting their hand lopped off; there is equality for women, people aren’t being stoned to death for less serious offenses such as adultery, etc.

    My emotions and belief system tell me that if a person is immigrating here to the United States of America to take advantage of a better way of life and the bounty of America (it must be better, otherwise why in the #ell wouldn’t they just stay where they were) then they need to understand that they MUST adhere to the laws of this land – otherwise don’t come here. They need to also understand that this is not a free ride for them and that they must contribute the same as all other citizens of the United States of America do. – Personally, I THINK I would like to see some type of an Amendment that addresses this (not completely sure on this, but that is my initial thought).

    Looking down the road, I do have fears of Muslims overtaking America and having a “majority” vote. Personally, I mostly like my way of life and don’t really want to see change drastically and in a direction of Sharia Law.

    In my opinion, a Jim Jones is just as bad as an Osama Bin Laden – they are so-called “leaders” that were/are lunatics – they have done crazy things in the name of their belief systems.

    I wish all of you a wonderful day!

    Kind Regards,
    Richmond Spitfire

    • RS, it is my belief that you are a product of your environment. It is also my belief that those bonds can be broken if you can figure out how to be true to yourself.

      I too have been witness to Chistian religions who say that theirs is the “only one”. It is that very hipocracy that has kept me from being a member of any church or religion. That said, I try to live my life by the golden rule, which in my feeling is the best way to go about life…If St. Peter feels otherwise, so be it.

    • “Muslims overtaking America and having a “majority” vote” not to worry. The inbound Mexicans will drown them out! Go Christianity! I can see the headline now:

      Hispanic Illegals Save America From Sharia

      Oops! Just gave Ray a reason to open the border… sorry.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Alan – eventually the Chinese will decide whether our borders remain open or not thank you very much.

  8. Morning All:

    I would like to comment on the gay rights issue here. I think in my opinion anyway, that gay people have as much rights as any as the rest of us. Yea, I know, the Bible says otherwise, but why deprive them of happiness because it says so? Who are we to judge on how another person chooses to live their life?

    My own brother was gay, and nobody thought any less of him because of how he chose to live his life. He was still the same loving, giving and happy brother I always knew, except he chose to openly live the life he chose.. Nobody in our family disowned, or loved him any less or looked down on him. Unfortunately, my brother is no longer with us, passed away in 1992 at the age of 40 from a massive heart attack.

    Just because a person is gay, doesn’t mean they should hide their relationships or feeling for another person of the same gender in the closet. I think they should be allowed to marry, or at least have a civil union. Why deprive them of the same rights as straight married people. I don’t care what the Bible says, and I think it’s time to accept the life style these people choose to live. I don’t judge them, because I don’t want to be judged on my life style. It’s not my place to put judgment on them, as it is their place not to put judgment on me. It’s their life, and it does not bother me in the least how they live it.

    If they want to have kids, then so what. The could probably make better parents than straights, you don’t know. Heck, look at Rosie, or Ellen DeGeneres, or even Kevin Spacey. Are they any different from us? NO. So, I say, let them live their lives like anybody else without all the judgment or name calling.

    So, there are my thoughts about the gay issue. Remember the old saying, Don’t judge a book by it’s cover, read it first.

    Judy

    • Judy, I was with you right up until you used Rosie as an example.

      OTFLMAO, with tears running down my cheecks.

      Hope you had a good weekend.
      JAC

      • Great minds…

      • Okay JAC, give me a break here will ya. She was the only other one I could think of besides Ellen De Generous. I don’t like Rosie at all or her big mouth. It’s Monday, cut me some slack. HA HA HA HA.

        Judy

        • JAC, Yes, I had a good weekend, sorry I didn’t acknowledge that the first time around. I hope you had a good weekend as well.

          Judy

    • “Are they any different from us?” Rosie O`Donnell? You’re losing me there.

      • Alan, I meant by her being gay, that’s all.

        • Hell I didn’t know she was a gay person. I have never seen her smile about anything. How could she be a gay person when she has a permanent frown etched into her face?

          Remember, I a traditional definitions kind of guy.
          LOL
          JAC

          • You mean to tell me you didn’t know Rosie was gay? Man, where have you been lately? LOL! Her and her live in have even adopted a few kids, plus I think they had one through invitro if I’m not mistaken. You’re funny JAC.

            Judy

        • Alan F. says:

          I see two types of people. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers and sisters who add to the greatness of being alive (caught Henry V last night) and those narcissistic fun sponges who suck the life from everything and everyone around them.

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Hey Judy…

      Rosi is like an alien from a far away galaxy!

      Best Regards,
      RS

      • RS, That, I agree with you on. She’s probably from some other planet nobody ever heard of yet.

        • I think we refer to it as Hell.

          • You know, she wasn’t always a bitch, if I can say that. She used to be a funny person at one time, until her political and other views changed over the years. Don’t know what happened, but something must have to make her such a hateful person anymore.

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Hi Judy,

              You are correct…there was a time that I found her funny in an “base” kind of way…I don’t know what happened to her.

              Now Ellen DeGeneres…I think she’s hilarious; I also understand that she is a very kind and gentle person and hasn’t let her “stardom” get to her head.

              Talking of female comedians, I used to love Roseanne Barr in the early days — have a girlfriend in PA whose family life seemed to somewhat mirror the Connor family; Rosi got way too raunchy – the National Anthem fiasco was the turning point for me.

              Best Regards,
              RS

              • RS

                I think Ellen is a hoot. As for Rosie and Roseann, yes they both used to be funny at one time, the for some reason, I think their brains made a drastic left turn, and they weren’t as funny anymore.

                I think that National Anthem, that Roseanne did, was just despicable, And I hope she never does another one. Now, one of the funniest gals out there has always been my all time favorite, is Carol Burnett, no one can top her.

                Hope you day is going well.

                Judy

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                Oh Judy!

                Carol Burnett is the best ever! LOL

                My 7-year old daughter does what we call the “Tim Conway Shuffle” when she’s told to do something (remember the old man character that he played where Carol was his secretary). The Tim Conway Shuffle has definately become an inside joke at our house.

                Thank you for the memories! Every so often, I’ll look at some of the Youtube videos…such fun!

                Best regards,
                RS

              • Oh! don’t get me started with Tim Conway, he is so funny, I have tears coming down my face when I see him.. Remember when he played her boss, I can’t remember what his name was in those sketches, but he was so darn funny. How about the time when he did his elephant impersonation, and made that funny sound> Him and Harvey Korman were just a couple of crack-ups when they did her show. I even liked them all when they did the TV show Momma’s Family with Vicki Lawernce. That was a funny show.

                Judy

    • I have no problem with a committed same-sex couple living together. I personally think the Union should be called something other that “Marriage”. Some homosexual couples last longer that some heterosexual couples. These are human beings and God needs to do the judging.

  9. JayDickB says:

    USW: “To accept your position would be to accept that any form of sexual contact not happening for the purpose of procreation is against the laws of nature. All contraceptives are against the laws of nature.”

    I think this logic is fallacious. The nature of the heterosexual act does not change because conception is impossible in that particular circumstance. It is the same act. It is still the same act ordained by nature to perpetuate the species. The physiology of the male and female sex organs also show heterosexual sex to be natural. As BF has said (regarding other topics, of course), it (heterosexual sex) is consistent with the universe (or nature or God, or whatever word you want to use).

    Homosexual sex is different by its nature. It is not consistent with nature because it can NEVER perpetuate the species. In addition, the rectum was not designed as a sex organ. Homosexual sex is a different act entirely and is unnatural. It is a perversion of the human body.

    As to the ramifications of my conclusion, I would live and let live as long as the state is not involved. Given the choice, I would keep the state out of interpersonal agreements altogether, including the most intimate of interpersonal agreements, marriage. Let people make any agreements they want, including homosexuality, polygamy, etc.

    But, if the state is involved, which it is in the U.S., I think distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual marriages are warranted. They are not necessary, but are optional. I think the people of each state should make any laws they want on this topic. It is the people who should do this, however, not the courts. I am fine with the people of a state sanctioning homosexual marriages. I would argue against it in my state and I don’t think my state should be forced to recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states, but other states can do what they want as far as I’m concerned.

    But, the conclusion that homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are the same is, to me, ludicrous.

    • Jay D

      “As BF has said (regarding other topics, of course), it (heterosexual sex) is consistent with the universe (or nature or God, or whatever word you want to use).”

      And so apparently is homosexual behavior as it exists in the natural world in which we are part.

      If it was absolutely against nature then it would not exist for very long. Yet it has persisted for as long as we have written records.

      The use of procreation as the base of the argument ignores all other aspects of how the universe is constructed and functions. You can not take this one point and use it to destroy the other principles and truths. That would create contradictions.

      I do ask this however. If it is not right for the federal to regulate why is it moraly acceptable for the State to regulate it?

      • JayDickB says:

        JAC Good morning to you. Hope all is well.

        Seems to me there are many things that exist naturally that, upon analysis, are not consistent with nature’s design. They are due to mutations. They are mistakes. Homosexuality is likely one of these mutations.

        To me, procreation is one of nature’s most basic functions. All living species were provided with a way to procreate. I don’t think you can easily dismiss procreation’s role in nature or its importance.

        I don’t think any government should regulate interpersonal agreements, but I don’t know if my objection is moral or political; maybe both. But if it’s going to be done, the 10th amendment dictates that the states, not the feds, must do it.

        • I don’t dimiss the importance of procreation, only that it is the only standard used to evaluate what is “natural”.

          Everything that exists in the universe is part of the universe and thus is in accordance with the laws of the universe. Mutations or not, they are part of the whole picture.

          • JayDickB says:

            Procreation is not the only standard for judging what is natural; but it is the prime standard for determining what kind of sex is natural.

            Mutations are part of the whole picture and, in that sense, are natural. But they can produce results that contradict nature’s overall design, and in that sense, these results are unnatural. Often, unnatural results of mutations result in the demise of the individual or, in this case, the unlikelyhood of procreation. It’s a self-correcting mechanism. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t continue.

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Hi all,

              What about the Earthworm. Is the fact that the earthworm has both sex organs a mutation?

              Just wondering…Best regards to all,
              RS

            • Suggest you take some time to do some very deep thinking about what “natural” means. Then we can resume the discussion. Until then it is obvious we are coming from separate worlds on this one point.

              In my view, you keep putting up contradictions in your explanations.

              Something can not exist in the universe and “contradict nature’s overall design”. Whether it exists for eternity or only for a short time it is all part of the universe and therefore must be consistent with the rule/laws of the universe.

              Now if you support the theory that man was placed here from outside the natural universe as we know it then you create a new argument. But then how could we exist from outside the natural universe?

              • JayDickB says:

                Natural could mean “occurs in nature”. In that sense, homosexuality itself is natural. But in that same sense being born with no arms or legs is natural, provided it’s cause is genetic and not environmental.

                But, as stated above, nature’s design for man provides an obvious way to procreate. A sex act that CANNOT EVER result in procreation is a perversion of, and not consistent with, nature’s design, just as a baby born with no arms or legs is not consistent with nature’s design. I call these things unnatural because they are not consistent with nature’s design. If you prefer to call them something else, that’s fine, but they are still inconsistent with nature’s design.

              • But nature’s design for man also includes pleasure.

                And it matters not what the cause of a mutation is, it is either all natural, or anything linked to man is unnatural.

              • JayDickB says:

                Pleasure is a means to an end, not an end in itself. In this case, the end is procreation.

                See below for discussion of nature’s design.

              • Not True

        • Black Flag says:

          Seems to me there are many things that exist naturally that, upon analysis, are not consistent with nature’s design. They are due to mutations.

          This is a contradiction.

          If mutations are a part of nature, then so are its consequences.

          Let me help you see what you’ve just said:

          “A part of nature is not a part of nature because it occurs naturally.”

          Hmmm…..

          To me, procreation is one of nature’s most basic functions.

          Absolutely NOT!

          The most basic ‘function’ in the universe is probably best seen is a rock.

          99.9999999999999…% resembles the ‘essence’ of rocks than of life, let alone human life.

          All living species were provided with a way to procreate. I don’t think you can easily dismiss procreation’s role in nature or its importance.

          But it is not a requirement to procreate to be alive.

          99% of all life dies before it procreates. So by your analysis, they aren’t ‘natural’???

          • JayDickB says:

            I don’t see the contradiction in something occurring in nature that is inconsistent with nature’s design. If the universe includes free will and much randomness in individual events, an almost infinite variety of events and consequences can occur. But, the overall direction of the universe is not necessarily changed by every individual event.

            Procreation is one of nature’s most basic functions for living things; no procreation, no living things.

            An individual can be alive without procreating, but if at least some individuals in a species don’t procreate, the species becomes extinct. If no members of any species procreate, life ends.

            • Black Flag says:

              How can possible something that happens in nature be inconsistent with nature???

              I believe you are changing the definition of “nature” within the same sentence (without notifying any one).

              As far as life: Procreation is necessary by only a small segment of a specie in order to continue.

              To demand that all individuals of a specie being required to procreate so to prove their right to life and freedom is a horrific misunderstanding of our universe.

              • JayDickB says:

                Notice my use of “nature” and “nature’s design”. The two are different. Something could occur in nature and be inconsistent with nature’s design. This concept is similar to God’s plan for mankind. If we have free will, and I believe we do, then we are free to violate God’s plan. To me, God’s plan and nature’s design are different words for the same thing.

                Not all members of a species are required to procreate, and I did not say that they are. But that doesn’t change the nature of the sex act.

              • Black Flag says:

                Notice my use of “nature” and “nature’s design”. The two are different.

                One is used as a noun, in the other as an adjective.

                However, the essence or definition of ‘nature’ has not changed

                Saying “water” and “wet like water” does not change the definition of water.

                Something could occur in nature and be inconsistent with nature’s design.

                Logially, and absolutely, impossible.

                It’s mere existence in Nature establishes it as part of Nature, and hence, must be of its essence (or design).

                This concept is similar to God’s plan for mankind.

                God has no plan.

                It is of the greatest ego to assume “God” has made a “plan” for one particular specie on some insignificant planet around some insignificant Sun in a insignificant part of a rather insignificant galaxy.

                We are humans sent upon our own journey. God’s job has already been done.

                If we have free will, and I believe we do, then we are free to violate God’s plan.

                God’s plans (ie: law) are already there – and there is not one thing a human can possible do to disrupt those laws. The word “impossible” is very accurate in its use here.

                But that doesn’t change the nature of the sex act.

                Which, rarely, causes procreation in humans. (Statistically, between fertile men and women, it takes 100 intercourses to achieve pregnancy).

                So, it is ‘designed’ by nature for something more – isn’t it?

              • You are ignoring the fact that the “sex act” in humans is about much more than just procreation.

                Thus, part of the nature of man is the seeking of pleasure. And that is not just sexual but it is inclusive of the same.

          • JayDickB says:

            Mutations are part of nature as are their consequences. But the consequences can still be inconsistent with nature’s overall design. That is an inevitable result of the free will and randomness built in to the universe.

          • Murphy's Law says:

            BF, you said, “99% of all life dies before it procreates”. Can you back that statistic with research data and the source of it?

            • Black Flag says:

              Sampling:

              Alligators – one egg in 30 survive ~1 per nest of 20 to 50 eggs (99.96% loss)

              Tuna – survival rates are 0.014.5% (99.985% loss) – average spawn per female = 500,000 eggs

              …consider the number of seeds a plant produces vs. the number of plants successfully sprout to full grown plants.

              … so on and so for.

              For the vast majority of nature, the the vast most of life is extinguished well before procreation – Earth life depends on the slimmest of survival rates….

          • Alan F. says:

            “But it is not a requirement to procreate to be alive.” It certainly “was” a requirement.

    • JayD

      The way I have seen it, as my view. Is that God has made everyone. Is heterosexual put on this planet to make sure that the human species is able to continue. Yes. There is no arguement to that. But, to me, that doesnt mean that everyone was meant to be that way. I have always felt that GOD gave me a life for another purpose. I have never felt like I was meant to bear children. Do I have the equipment, sure. But the deisre or purpose never seem for me.
      So I help out at centers for high risk kids. The minute I started I knew that was my purpose. To help kids that dont have to others.
      I dont judge others, because that is not my place to do that. I am going to be judge when I pass from this earth. But not by others on this earth.

      Ellen

      • JayDickB says:

        Ellen – Inasmuch as God created (at least the possibility of) mutations, He allowed homosexuality to occur. My view of God involves free will and lots of other things happening at random. I do not believe God is a micromanager. He created the system, then sits back and lets if function the way He designed it to function. The way His system is designed, lots of things happen that we think are bad. But, for the system to have freedom, that’s the way it must be.

        Your purpose in life comes from deep within you. It may or may not be related to your sexuality. Humans are much too complex to figure out something like that.

        I am happy that you found your purpose and that it involves helping others who need it. That must be the source of great satisfaction for you.

        I also try not to judge others whose actions do not affect me. My description and arguments above about homosexuality are meant to provide my observations and descriptions of facts as I see them. I make no judgment about homosexuality’s morality or desirability. It just is what it is. And I believe that, in most cases, people do not choose it; it is in their genes.

        • Black Flag says:

          Again, by what right do you hold over God to contradict his ‘good’?

          1) By definition, God is perfect.
          2) By definition, God is perfect good.
          3) Perfect good cannot create anything but perfect good.
          4) All things in the Universe are created by God.
          5) All things in the Universe is perfect and good.

          If you disagree with God – well 🙂 that’ll be an interesting argument!

          • v. Holland says:

            Yes, everything is made by God but with free will things can be made corrupt. I’m not ready to make a statement about gay relationships, yet. I’m just arguing that God can create good and man can use it for bad.

            • Black Flag says:

              Try again, V. Holland.

              God cannot create anything bad – including freewill. How can He?

              If He could, that would be illogical and inconsistent – and violate the definition of God.

              Thus, from the point of view of God – It is all good.

              However, You are imposing Your definitions of good and evil upon situations – which, by the way, is perfectly valid.

              Good and bad for men is only defined by men and not by God.

              Leave God out of any ‘good or evil’ discussion – such a conversation is completely moot from his POV.

              • You mean HER point of view.

              • Black Flag says:

                Ah, the appearance of Ying/Yang, I believe is very much an Earthly feature.

                For the rest of the Universe, it is very Yang – violent, incredibly hot, or incredibly cold, incredibly void, incredibly dense – and not much in between.

                Like a man’s brain 😉

              • Here’s my take on this. It seems that moral rules are always in conflict with human nature.
                So, living a “good” life, by whatever standard, involves making the right choices. What’s right for me may not be right for you. God is good, but being perfect his standards are high. We have to work at trying to make the right decisions.

              • Black Flag says:

                True.

                But by what right do you have to impose what you want on me?

          • JayDickB says:

            God may or not be perfect, but the system He created is free to create bad/imperfect consequences. Otherwise it would not be free.

            • Black Flag says:

              By definition, God is perfect.

              If you wish to change the definition, I await your description.

              God’s creation is perfect. There are no other qualifiers after that. It is either perfect or it is not God’s. Binary choice.

              It is Man’s definitions of good or evil – not God’s. God does not know evil at all.

              It is a myth of mankind to apply man’s definitions upon God. It confuses men (which is why it is done).

              • JayDickB says:

                How are imperfect humans related to God’s perfection? I see an irreconcilable conflict between free will and perfection. I see the possibility of, in fact a requirement for, imperfection flowing from free will.

              • Black Flag says:

                You are judging humans, not God.

                It is You who has placed your definition of what a perfect human is.

                Ask yourself this question:

                If a pious man and an evil man both step off a cliff, will God save the pious man from death and throw the evil man twice as hard to the ground to his death?

                Why or why not?

              • JayDickB says:

                I think a perfect God created a free system. Because the system is free, it results in imperfections. But these imperfections do not impair God’s perfection because freedom and perfection are opposite concepts. Even God cannot make opposites the same.

              • Black Flag says:

                Why is your definition of freedom intertwined with your definition of perfection?

                Is a rock free?

                Is a rock perfect?

              • JayDickB says:

                I was not trying to define either freedom or perfection, but rather used those words to describe my concept of the universe God created.

              • Black Flag says:

                We test our concepts against reality.

                We hold onto a premise and definition.

                It is futile to re-define our terms and deny logic and reasoning – and then believe we’ve come to some sort of idea of God.

                God is perfect or He is not.

                God is perfect good or He is not.

                Pick one and stick to it. It, actually, matters not one wit to me.

        • But this part of me should not make it okay for me to have less rights than someone who is not gay. I do understand that alot of people have issue with the word “marriage” being used for us. I see that side of the part. When people think that, they see a man/woman walking down in a church setting. So I am okay with all legal civil unions. That way I have the rights, its not called marriage, but is a legal bond for me. I can go to court house and get certificate.
          My only concern is it should matter if I leave that state or not.

          • Ellen:

            You can buy Marijuana in CA and not be arrested.

            If you go to Texas and it is found, you will be arrested and prosecuted.

            Does that mean that Texas should lose its right to make their own laws and have to adopt CA’s law. STATES RIGHTS – STATES RIGHTS – REMEMBER STATES RIGHTS

            GarthD
            Slavery is Alive in America – We are the SLAVES – No OBAMACARE

            • Black Flag says:

              Because you show one entity capable of enforcing immoral law does not create a right to make immoral law.

              • BF:

                Agreed. But it does exist.

                Needed a better analogy but that was one that personally effected me when I was taking a trip from CA to FL mucho anos pasado. Knew that TX was not to be messed with. Didn’t like it then, don’t like it now but had to deal with it.

                GarthD
                Smoke em, if you got em. Your choice of em.

              • Black Flag says:

                Agreed. But it does exist.

                Agreed. Evil exists.

                But it is not a justification for evil or creating immoral situations, entities or society

              • BF…is that not the crux of the whole argument? All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Which of these are the homosexuals or Muslims not receiving? It is man’s law that gives as a “right” and it is man’s laws that take away that “right”. In reality it is not a right. It is a law that dictates what a person can or cannot do. As long as we live inside a society that enacts laws that infringe on liberty then we suffer the consequences, move to a different society or change our society to one that respects liberty.

              • TexasChem says:

                Immoral by whose standards BF ? Everyones or just yours?

              • Black Flag says:

                By the standards of Freedom, TexasChem.

                It’s all a test of definitions, sir.

                I couldn’t careless if you drink yourself to a stupor, smoke weed, hang out with ‘ladies of the night’…. I cannot judge you for I am not you.

                BUT the moment you impose upon me, you are evil and immoral.

                …by definition.

          • JayDickB says:

            I the state were not involved at all, which I advocate, it would not matter. But, if the state is involved, each state must be able to do its own thing.

          • Ellen,

            I have written before opposing gay marriage. I am totally with you on this. I have no wish to force my morals on you or anyone. In ten or fifty years,
            marriage may have vastly different meanings.

            Society is not ready for that yet, civil unions, for now seems like a good starting place. My father-in-law has a live-in girlfriend, that is a wonderful grandmother to my children. It comes up in frequent conversations and there’s just not a good, short name for my father-in-laws girlfriend. Should I call her his partner?

      • Alan F. says:

        Ellen, whatever you choose to do is all on you and that’s the way it was meant to be. Just have a good ride, enjoy the scenery along the way and if you make a mess of something remember its never that big a deal.

        As for God, I’m certain it rolled the dice and sat back to enjoy the ensuing comedy of errors. If anything, we’ve certainly been entertaining.

  10. For BF:

    Please refute or agree to the following quote:

    “Even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of government.”

    GarthD
    There is no such thing as Collective Rights

    • Black Flag says:

      First, what is the definition of government that is being implied by this statement?

      If it is the same definition which describes what government actually is – that is, my definition so often repeated here, then the statement has a contradiction – that is, it is not a society of rational and moral creation since it has built an violently immoral organization.

      So, let’s avoid the word government since it appears far too difficult for many to wrap their minds around its essence. Let’s simply share an understanding – that is, “..necessitates the establishment of an organization….”

      And what is wrong with that?

      Garth, we have that already today! There are numerous dispute resolution entities that are non-government.

      The question always comes up to this: Who has the right to make laws that impose upon another man? – It is Not a question about law!

      Laws are a good thing – I don’t think ever has Kent nor I disputed the existence of Law as being bad. Our complaint is the existence of immoral and evil law, all of which are created by evil impositions upon non-violent men by violent men.

      So, sit back and ponder a bit.

      If you and I enter into a voluntary contract for exchange of services, and I renege on my part of the contract – What right do you have to violently enforce yourself upon me?

      • BF:

        “If you and I enter into a voluntary contract for exchange of services, and I renege on my part of the contract – What right do you have to violently enforce yourself upon me?”

        None. So what needs to be done? How do I get the contract enforced? Do I just take my loss, shun you in the future, and tell others thru Angie’s List and other methods what an immoral person you are?

        GarthD
        Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral – Peter is Paul’s Slave – Paul is Peter’s forced dependent.

        • Black Flag says:

          None. So what needs to be done? How do I get the contract enforced? Do I just take my loss, shun you in the future, and tell others thru Angie’s List and other methods what an immoral person you are?

          Don’t stop thinking out of the box!

          So, you can’t enforce the contract!!!

          And exactly right! Everyone will know I am not a person to deal with…. and what is the consequence to me?

          A true story – one of the gang that executed the Great London Robbery ran away to South America – rich.

          But everyone there knew he was a crook. Everything he tried to buy cost him 2 to 10 times more than the locals.

          Eventually he went bankrupt and went back home (and to jail).

          Nobody would accept my contracts – and if they do, they’d probably rip me off! I’d slowly die.

          So, let’s follow the corollary – do you think I would risk my word and honor ripping you off?

          Now you can understand why many cultures hold honor to be so important that they’d die before they lost it.

          It takes a very long time of consistent action of trust to be trusted. Sometimes it takes a lifetime – and can be inherited from the father to his son.

          The only dispute between us would be a misunderstanding about our contract – you believe that this clause said this, and I say that is says something else.

          If we are both honest, then we would ask a mutual, trusted honest broker to help us break our impasse. His ‘ruling’ could not be enforced, but since we both agreed to use him, and our society sees him as honest and trusted – if one of us still refused to agree – it would be a black mark upon that person.

          When all men can voluntarily work with Or Not by their choice – trust and honor becomes the most valuable commodity. Even today, we see this – international banking completely relies on trust – and they sell that trust at a premium.

          • BF:

            “And exactly right! Everyone will know I am not a person to deal with…. and what is the consequence to me?”

            I more worried about the consequences to me. I hope there are consequences to you but there might not be. You might be one of those Stock Market Advisers – TRUST ME but here are all the papers you have to sign that tell you that I can not be trusted. Still TRUST ME those papers don’t really mean anything. Take me at my WORD.

            In your story, it is good to see that there is no honor among theives. But, how did so many Nazis live in South America if morality was so great there?

            “So, let’s follow the corollary – do you think I would risk my word and honor ripping you off?”

            So why do we have contracts? Why not the old fashioned handshake that meant “my handshake is my word”.

            If your method was in place, I would have to require a monetary deposit with a DRO or a personal bond that was sufficient to cover the value that was susceptible to loss. Maybe we could deposit the money with Judge Judy’s court. If you ripped me off, I would like the nation to see that you are slime. Sure a lot of work to buy a computer over the internet. Honor matters to you and me but there are too many out there who feel we are the source of their value. If there weren’t, our country would not be in the shape it is and we would not have any reason to be talking about these things. And, I used to like you BF. (I would put one of those funny winking faces here but I don’t know how.)

            Most business by individuals today is done with other individuals/businesses of which nothing is known. Generally, the value of the trade is not worth the cost of any form of litigation (just in the time it takes). Sure, you are creating a criminal act, but the police will find that pursuing it is not worth their effort. They will say, take it to civil court – oh, oh, there isn’t any in your world. Probably no police either.
            DRO’s will not work – you will just ignore the judgement.

            I know force is bad, but you are going to have to do more to show me how it would happen in reality.

            I personally will not use EBAY for anything because there is too much fraud.

            GarthD
            ONE MUST NEVER FAIL TO PRONOUNCE MORAL JUDGEMENT

            • Black Flag says:

              I more worried about the consequences to me.

              Then do your homework!

              Would you ignorantly sign over your life’s savings to a stranger???

              Or would you investigate his background, evaluate his history and his actions, identify who he calls ‘friends’ to see if they, too, are moral and honest (“birds of a feather flock together” is a very truthful saying – honest people do not hang out with dishonest people).

              If you still make a deal with a dishonest man, who is the idiot?

              I hope there are consequences to you but there might not be. You might be one of those Stock Market Advisers – TRUST ME but here are all the papers you have to sign that tell you that I can not be trusted. Still TRUST ME those papers don’t really mean anything. Take me at my WORD.

              Do not mix up today’s way of doing things to be the way a moral society does things.

              Today’s society: You have abdicated your responsibility to government to protect your interest – you expect the government to enforce and protect your stupidity by its violent threats upon another person. (PS: I don’t think you are stupid – it is merely for example purposes).

              Once you take control over your own business and do not rely on government violence – your dealings with others also changes.

              You, instead are seeking some sort of deal that though maybe rotten, your ‘greed’ says: “This is a immoral deal that will make me rich. I am dealing with an immoral man. I will get government to beat him up if he tries to screw me. I am a smarter immoral man than he is….I hope.” And, often, you lose.

              But if you do not deal with immoral people, ever – guess what kind of deals you get, and equally important guess what kind of deals you avoid.

              It’s like Poker (ya know, my favorite source of analogy 😉 ) –

              If you avoid playing bad hands, you find yourself less often in bad situations requiring extremely difficult choices.

              If you play good hands, you find yourself often in very good situations with easy choices.

              Works for life too.

              So why do we have contracts? Why not the old fashioned handshake that meant “my handshake is my word”.

              I use a contract because it is an excellent tool to precisely define everyone’s responsibilities.

              A handshake after is merely the agreement to the very precise statements. “I agree to my responsibility as laid out on this piece of paper in great detail”

              If your method was in place, I would have to require a monetary deposit with a DRO or a personal bond that was sufficient to cover the value that was susceptible to loss.

              Perhaps – that is a good solution for those that have yet earned “trust”.

              Many contracts I have made had that too – it’s called “Earnest Money” – a payment to prove myself that I am serious and committed.

              Honor matters to you and me but there are too many out there who feel we are the source of their value. If there weren’t, our country would not be in the shape it is and we would not have any reason to be talking about these things. And, I used to like you BF. (I would put one of those funny winking faces here but I don’t know how.)

              Again, don’t mix up a moral society (populated with a few immoral people) with today’s immoral society populated by a large mass of moral people.

              Today, people have abdicated their moral responsibility to government. A ‘crook’ gets punished by government, and as such, the rest of us are supposed to forgive him

              Thus, crooks now have another equation – is the risk of government punish less than the gain of ripoff; if they get off ‘lightly’ (which is often the case) they are absolved!

              And then one wonders why our society is a mess!

              Now think about how it would be if society never forgave a breach of trust?

              • BF:

                I can see the world that you are talking about and I even believe that I have lived “through” the social time like that in the U.S. even though we had your definition of a government. I long for the days of yesteryears. Hi Ho Silver, away.

                “Now think about how it would be if society never forgave a breach of trust?”

                Think. Think. Think. Great!!!

                “Again, don’t mix up a moral society (populated with a few immoral people) with today’s immoral society populated by a large mass of moral people.”

                How do you change society from the latter to the former? My gut feeling has always been that there would have to be a crisis, such as in Atlas Shrugged (financial and moral), then the MORAL rather than the government would be asked to come to the table. But the MORAL would have to be ready (Don’t let a good crisis go to waste). IMO, I don’t think they are. If they were ready, I, in my dreams, would see them closing the loopholes in the Constitution and starting again. But, in my dreams, I see the immoral – already so dependent upon the gov’t – unable to accept that they would have to produce or die. And, chaos would reign if no force was allowed.

                Really, I would love to see how a better form would work. For now, I am willing to suspend my reality and see what your dreams are.

                Do you have a “yellow brick road” to lead us to the world of your dreams? If so, tell us about the steps and we can await the house falling on the Wicked Witch. BF, put on your slippers. I can be the Tin Man for I am not a cowardly lion. WE’RE OFF TO SEE THE WIZARD.

                GarthD
                Make up a very long list of dreams – and then see them to reality

              • Garth:

                What would happen if the Moral people stopped doing business with the Immoral people?

                If they were to stop sacrificing their internal core for the sake of pragmatism.

                Would not the moral soon find the other moral? Would not the immoral become isolated among themselves.

                Going Galt without relocating.

              • JAC:

                My assumption on signing a contract was that I had in fact looked into the background and thought the person to be moral.

                If I thought someone was truly moral, I would do as I have many times in the past gone forward without a contract. Tho I had a list of what needed to be done.

                So, a contract to me means I can not be totally assured of the morality of the other person, or he not assured of me. It gave confidence that there was a way to force adjudication of the situation if one or the other of us was correct.

                Have also found that when someone pulls out a contract, that my “watch out factor” goes on alert because of its unreadability and the fine print.

                GarthD
                The Lawyer always gets their share

              • Black Flag says:

                How do you change society from the latter to the former?

                By precisely my wise old friend, JAC, said.

                YOU stop doing business with immoral people!

                It starts with the individual!

                All of this will not occur overnight – perhaps not even in a life time.

                It didn’t warp overnight either and it slowly warped over many lifetimes.

                Correction will take time – and must start with the People.

                By YOU acting morally at all times, your children will learn the same, and then their children….

                ….in a handful of generations, the world will be different.

                But the MORAL would have to be ready (Don’t let a good crisis go to waste). IMO, I don’t think they are.

                They are ready – because they live that way already and right now today.

                Moral people aren’t acting immorally, waiting for society to change.

                They live that way no matter how society changes.

                Really, I would love to see how a better form would work. For now, I am willing to suspend my reality and see what your dreams are.

                Do you have a “yellow brick road” to lead us to the world of your dreams? If so, tell us about the steps and we can await the house falling on the Wicked Witch. BF, put on your slippers. I can be the Tin Man for I am not a cowardly lion. WE’RE OFF TO SEE THE WIZARD.

                The Wizard was a fake.

                The secret is for YOU to live like you are free – because if you do, you will be free!

                Do not care what others act – you have choice; make them wise choices – act as if you lived in a moral society – do not depend on the government to guard your contracts.

                Go seek MORAL people to interact with.

                DO YOUR HOMEWORK and SEEK THE SAME LIKE YOU.

                It is very hard work – you have to prove yourself to them, too.

                But when you do -a glorious, rich, wealthy and prosperous life you will live!

                Imagine what you could do when you are surrounded by trustful, brave strong moral people – who would die then break their word!

                They exist all around you today. They are hidden from you because you do not seek them.

                Break out of the box!

                Every dream of freedom is yours now – today – to hold.

                All it takes is work.

              • BF:

                You imply that the situation will turn itself around. Kind of hard to believe.

                As it was in the beginning it will be later on even though it is not now.

                I believe that our Founding Fathers were as moral a group as you could get. They passed it on to those who passed it on, yet somewhere it went wrong.

                Those who claim they are moral now make excuses for those who aren’t which in itself is immoral.

                Can not see how those who aren’t now moral are suddenly going to see the light and give up what their leaders, the immoral, are giving them. Especially when their leaders, those they trust, are telling them it is right and at best not telling them that it is immoral.

                Not worried about myself, I am not too often a victim.

                GarthD
                ONE MUST NEVER FAIL TO PRONOUNCE MORAL JUDGEMENT

          • But BF your consequences are that you are no loger given contracts….how do you make Garth whole again under this way of life? What is Garth’s recourse for obtaining his justice?

            • Black Flag says:

              Amazed1

              Define justice.

              Is it just to attack a non-violent man?

              What does Garth do to make himself whole?

              Make better choices next time – like he should have done the first time

              He can look at the event as a ‘teaching experience’ to know that immoral men hunt everywhere – but immoral and evil are not the same thing.

              The man did not attack Garth.

              Garth voluntarily made his deal – he was not forced. Thus, no force can be used in his quest for ‘justice’ – whatever that is.

              • Black Flag says:

                But I’m sure his neighbors would help Garth.

                Perhaps if the man then made a deal with me – I would have him pay me in advance – then I might give it to Garth (since he a stupid, but trustful man).

                The immoral man would lose his money – my friends would see the sense of justice, and Garth has learned a lesson – for free.

                Or maybe I would just keep the immoral man’s money…..

              • LOL….ok I get the picture. There is no retribution, vengence and certainly no eye for an eye.

              • Black Flag says:

                Eye for an eye?

                That means someone attacked, doesn’t it?

                Revenge? Who wants revenge?

                “When planning for revenge, prepare two graves”

            • Thank You Amazed:

              BF and JAC were just going to let me go on the public dole. My wife, two cats and a dog are all going to be homeless and without food. How do you think my “Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral” shirt will do in the middle of the land of Altruism. I will no longer be able to be moral.

              BF, stand for your word and HELP ME!

              Thanks guys. Its been a good conversation.

              Remind me never to write one simple paragraph again.

              GarthD
              As Always, your neighbor on Galt Street.

              • Black Flag says:

                Ah, stupidity has its costs – and it usually a lesson in life.

                This one “Don’t give your money in trust to strangers”.

                But of course, the real Garth would never be that stupid ….

                …and hopefully, even if ‘government’ promises to beat the crap out of the other guy…

        • Garth:

          There is nothing wrong with contracts and they don’t imply that one party is dishonest. Three good reasons for contracts:

          1. Very complicated terms or conditions. As BF said, it acts as a reminder to both parties.

          2. Death of one party. It acts to settle any questions in case of such an event, as well as other unforseen acts of god.

          3. Oldtimers. If I start forgetting what I said, I check back to the paper.

          Honest business dealings can be restored if the honest make a definitive effort to make it happen. They must slay pragmatism and condem it to the abyss. If you sacrifice the convenience of the immediate you will be rewared even more in the long term.

          The reason it will work in the long term is because the dishonest and immoral will destroy themselves in the long run. That is what we are seeing happen today. It can not go on forever in my opinion.

          Keep the faith Garth. It will take time but I think good will happen if we have enough people thinking in a moral manner. And as BF said, there are many more than most of us realize because all we hear about are the bad ones.

          JAC

    • Alan F. says:

      “a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral” would leave each other alone.

      • Alan:

        The only kicker is “honest disagreements” which in fact do occur.

        We need that Latino Judge in on this to make a better decision than any white man

        GarthD
        Slavery is Alive – We are the Slaves – Say No to Obamacare

        • Black Flag says:

          But any disagreement would be non-violent by nature – hence, any solution would need to be non-violent as well to be moral.

  11. Once you fall for the myth that it is OK to take the property of others against their will (“taxation”) and the myth that it is OK to control the non-aggressive behavior of others (“government”), it is easy to eventually justify anything.

    To those who believe that “if the government would just obey the Constitution”: read this

    I also would recommend you watch the video I link to here and look at the logical inconsistencies that completely destroy the argument the author of the video was trying to make.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Kent – still failing to see how a DRO is not another form of government (sorry BF – here we go with definitions again) – to me it is dangerous to assume that a DRO will always render a proper or objective decision, especially wherein money is involved (money as in there is profit to be made by the DRO). Just asking you to help a brother out to understand – thanks.

      • Ray, what is DRO? My brain is not connecting again, sorry!

        JAC

      • DROs are voluntary; governments are not.

        There is no “assumption”. If the DRO does not render a “proper or objective decision” then it could go out of business due to no one trusting its judgment anymore and flocking to competitiors instead. If, after all this, you still are not satisfied, you would have the option of refusing to abide by the decision and trying to justify yourself to anyone who is reluctant to deal with you afterwards.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          flickering lightbulb…………..hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……….sounding reasonable

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          keep posting a reply and it evaporates………

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            kent – “ok”

          • USWeapon says:

            Not sure why it sent your replies to the spam folder. I approved one of them and deleted the other duplicate one. The only thing that I can think of is that the extra m’s made it think it was spam? Or I am secretly filtering out all comments by you that would appear to make you seem reasonable. I can’t have anyone thinking that liberal leaning folks have common sense or put any real thought into discussion topics.

      • Is a DRO like the ‘binding arbitration’ clause in a credit card agreement? If so, I’d hardly say they were voluntary. As it has become more difficult to engage in cash transactions it has become all the more necessary to use credit cards (or other bank cards). If the issuers do something wrong then they have set up an alternate court system that they sponsor to handle these disputes. Who do you think will win these disputes?

        I know the laws regarding credit cards have been changed lately. Does anybody here know if the ‘binding arbitration’ clauses were nixed?

        • Black Flag says:

          Break out of your paradigm –

          Don’t muddle current ‘law’ with what a ‘voluntary dispute and arbitration’ clause would be in a moral society.

          You need to understand what “voluntary” means –

          • I appreciate your ideals, but I live in the present and not some hypothetical Utopian future.

            Human relations will always be complicated and the best we will ever do is to rely on justice that evens out disproportionate advantages. For instance, you cut the cake but I get to choose the first piece. It’s in your best interest to make the pieces even. Expecting people to do the right thing out of a sense of duty seems like a system that encourages predators. Level the playing field like golf handicaps to prevent runaway abuse of power.

            • Black Flag says:

              So, let me repeat what I hear you are saying.

              Because some humans are evil, you want the right to do evil to all humans.

              • Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying…not.

                What I’m saying is that we should rely on mechanisms that reduce the possibility of cheating and exploitation while maximizing freedom and opportunity. It’s about compromise. If we rely upon the goodness of people’s hearts we are going to end up with a whole lot of mostly good but powerless people being used by an extremely powerful minority. Now that I think about it, isn’t that what we already have?

              • Black Flag says:

                Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying…not.

                Except that is what you are saying – I’ve just cut to the chase.

                You are justifying that statement in your comments – you haven’t come out and “said it” – but you are trying to build a case to why that is what you want to do.

                What I’m saying is that we should rely on mechanisms that reduce the possibility of cheating and exploitation while maximizing freedom and opportunity.

                “..reduce the possibility..” of Santa Claus and Easter Bunnies…

                What you want is the ability to predict the future, so that you can act with violence NOW.

                The maximizing of freedom is not to impose upon freedom.

                It is a contradiction to say: “To maximize freedom we must limit it”.

                It’s about compromise.

                Exactly what I preach.

                The moment “pragmatism” and “compromise” enters a discussion about freedom – evil is created.

                There is no compromise to Freedom – either you have it or you don’t.

                If we rely upon the goodness of people’s hearts we are going to end up with a whole lot of mostly good but powerless people being used by an extremely powerful minority.

                I don’t rely on people’s hearts now – why is the a requirement for a moral society?

                What you are saying, thus, since some people are evil we need an immoral unprincipled society to deal with it!

                Now that I think about it, isn’t that what we already have?

                Exactly what we have today – a society based on an immoral premise.

              • There is no contradiction in maximizing freedom because there is no such thing as absolute freedom except in isolation. If you want to live as free as a hermit by all means go ahead. But if you want to live with the rest of us and benefit from the advantages of living in a community you’re going to have to give up some things in exchange for others.

                Set your own priorities, but save the lectures about the evils of compromise for someone else. If you want to live a saint’s life and turn the other cheek while others harm you through their abuse of power, go ahead. Whatever helps you sleep at night…

                But it seems to me that to do so is pretty foolish (not to mention passive, lazy, and naive). To call those who agree to live under certain rules of fair play and justice ‘evil’ because you want to take some high road of absolute morality is just pure BS. Brother, what are you selling?

  12. Black Flag says:

    “a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance”.

    This is a statement from someone who is an educated savage. (I mean no disrespect nor insult, but merely by definition).

    A man who is drowning (self-preservation) who will throw a child off of a life boat so to save his life is precisely the demonstration of the above statement.

    All civilized men would look upon him with distaste and call him “Savage”.

    All savage men would look upon him with the thought “He did what he had to do to save himself”.

    The most defining thing between civilized man and savage man is that a civilized man will not destroy the rights of another man merely to save himself.

    The concepts of human rights is a concept that only a civilized man can understand – it is beyond understanding of savages.

    The choice becomes for each and every one of use – am I a civilized man or a savage man?

    • Hi BF

      I would think that you are a civilized man, but here is a question for ya.

      You start out by being a civilized man, then turn into a savage man, how did that happen? Hypothetical here.

      Judy

      • Black Flag says:

        You were a savage already – simply pretending to be civilized.

        A savage can become civilized – civilization is derived from thought and reason.

        A “civilized” man turns savage with he no longer thinks or reasons. A man capable of abandoning reason whenever he finds it pragmatic to do so has been always a savage.

        • You have me somewhat confused here BF. How can you start out by being savage, then becoming civilized. Wouldn’t that be the other way around? That makes more sense to me than the way you described it. Or, am I missing something here?

          • Black Flag says:

            No.

            A savage man can learn.

            Our great-…parents were all savages one time.

            They learned and reasoned and became civilized.

            Savage + learn + reason = Civilized.

            A man, who educated and learned, but still holds for himself an option of savagery must be a savage from the very beginning.

            To still hold to savergy, means this man will abandon reason whenever it suits him.

            I cannot think of a better example that could highlight the essence of Savagery then that.

  13. Ray Hawkins says:

    With respect to what is ‘morally just’ – I see my buddies at Fox using the abortion fetus graphic as a despicable tactic to frame the argument surrounding the Health Care reform and government involvement in paying all/part of the cost of certain abortions.

    Clearly there are times when the Federal (and sometimes the State) governments should be required to pay for certain abortions. The Fox ‘news’ approach is simply clouding the issue and using misdirection to improperly frame the debate.

    • Ray:

      “Clearly there are times when the Federal (and sometimes the State) governments should be required to pay for certain abortions. ” Absolutely NOT.

      “I see my buddies at Fox using the abortion fetus graphic as a despicable tactic..” Absolutely YES.

      Reversed order so we could end on agreement for a change.

      Best O’ the Day to Ya
      JAC

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        JAC – to the disagreement:

        Example One:

        The U.S. Government pays for all medial procedures and health care costs of Active Duty personnel. There are currently men and women that are active duty. There are currently men and women fighting in theaters of battle (e.g. Iraq & Afghan.). Should a female U.S. soldier be raped and impregnated by either (a) another U.S. soldier or (b) the enemy; then, if so desired, the female soldier should be able to obtain an abortion in a U.S. hospital at the expense of the U.S. Government. (I believe both scenarios a & b have occurred)

        Example Two:

        If a U.S. soldier were to rape and impregnate another (U.S. citizen, foreign citizen, enemy), then the U.S. government should offer to said victim access to medical care and resources to perform an abortion. (I believe this scenario has occurred as well)

        Thanks,
        Ray

        • You are talking about what is currently in effect.

          I am talking about what SHOULD be in effect.

          The examples of military personell is an interesting one however. Remember this one when we are building mechanics of how to make VDLG work.

          It will all depend on what we allow govt to do under our moral foundation.

          I challenge you to think outside your comfort zone here and suggest some possible solutions that exclude “required govt payment”.

          Thanks Back at Ya
          JAC

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            I’m honestly not certain what is in place – I didn’t mean to imply that government is currently paying for such – merely that the scenarios of actors has likely occurred – I would have to defer to a USW or D13 regarding whether or not Gov pays now.

            “I challenge you to think outside your comfort zone here and suggest some possible solutions that exclude “required govt payment”.”

            – I think you’re asking me to build a network of mouse traps JAC – to intellectualize away supporting our military personnel, who fight for our freedom, soup to nuts. Somebody signs the check in the examples provided.

            • I actually didn’t have anything in mind. My challenge was to see if you might come up with something.

              The conept being to address the examples you gave without requiring direct govt payment for the abortions tied to your examples.

              I can think of ways to make it indirect. I am in a general way thinking this is a medical care issue which could be structured differently, but not sure.

        • If a woman was raped….why did she not take the morning after pill? Why wait to see if she were pregant then have a much more dangerous proceedure? Just wondering.

    • USWeapon says:

      Agreed Ray. I have never liked the use of those pictures as an emotional appeal to win the debates. Stick to the issues of what is right and wrong rather than trying to evoke emotion as a tactic to overrule logical and moral thought.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Which btw – and this may sound weird coming from me – but they need to kill this bill – it has gotten too ugly, too cumbersome, no one understands it, and even the most liberal of liberals will be dissatisfied because of all the amendments they will have to add to strong-arm votes. Pull the plug.

        • “this may sound weird coming from me ” It doesn’t to me, based on your stated postition regarding govt.

          “Pull the plug.” Oh but I wish I could. Wait, sorry….I thought you meant the govt. I see now it was only the health care bill.

          I am looking for the day when you declare that your are opposed “because it stands in opposition to Liberty”. I will drink more than one beer on that day. And there will be great joy in Mudville.

          The Best to You
          JAC

  14. TexasChem says:

    Incoming guest commentary USW in a day or two, I am extremely busy at work and barely had time for this drive-by.I’m at work with pressure on my crew and I to produce Grade A product to meet demand for a product already sold.

    Glad I speed read.Too bad I can’t correlate my thoughts into productive arguement as fast as I read.Maybe need to practice on that!I will dispute your arguements though, I caught many contradictory statements and a few with not enough support for valid conclusion!*wink* @ Blackflag.Ya’ll may wanna’ review your posts a bit!

    • Black Flag says:

      Ah, such assumptions – guard yourself well, sir, because I do not respond to every contradiction I see from people doesn’t mean the contradictions didn’t exist.

      🙂

  15. At no time should abortion ever be government funded, ever. They don’t need to show graphic pictures, or movies about an abortion just to get their point across. Sorry, But I am totally 100% against abortion, and have my reasons for it. I know there are some who ask, but what about rape, or and this is hard as well, but what about incest? That’s hard for me because it’s still a life and doesn’t it still deserve to live? That’s my thinking on this issue.

    That gal who was repeatedly raped by her own father, and having those kids by him. I’m glad he’ll be spending, I hope the rest of his life in prison for. I know in my heart, that she could have aborted each of those babies on her own, but she didn’t. WHY NOT? How does she explain to her kids, if she does, what her own father did to her, and that he is not only their father, but I guess grandfather at the same time, or is he?

    I hope I didn’t and don’t sound contradictory here, but abortion is a very touchy subject with me, always has been. Maybe it’s because I had to endure years of testing, both me and my husband to see if we were able to have our own kids. After years of being probed and prodded by doctors, and stabbed with numerous needles for blood work, it finally paid off, 13 years after we were married. I got pregnant. Lost that one in the 5th month, a boy. Turned out I had a weak uterus, and when I got pregnant again, I had to have my cervix stitched so it wouldn’t happen again. I had another boy, and he’ll be 27 next month. After having Christopher, I got pregnant again 10 months later. Lost that one, a girl in the 4th month. It took me a year to get pregnant again, with the help of a fertility specialist. Got pregnant again, had another boy. He’ll be 24 in November. I went through hell and back just to have these 2 boys. Was it worth it? Yes, and I’d do it all over again if I had too. Maybe not now at the age I am, 57 BTW, but if I had to do it all over again back then yes.

    That’s why I am against abortion, and always will be, because of what we went through to get what we got. The best 2 son’s anybody could have. I know, everybody says that about their kids.

    Have a good day

    Judy

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Judy – would you consider that your own struggles are creating cognitive dissonance with respect to imposing morals upon others? I too have experienced firsthand the frustrations of becoming a parent (10+ years) – it is a sticky situation to then define how others should act and who should pay for it.

      • Judy S. says:

        Hi Ray

        Is that what I’m doing? I don’t mean too. I was just saying I don’t believe that government should be funding abortions. If it sounded like I was throwing my beliefs at others, I wasn’t. I was merely saying I am against them. If anyone decides to get an abortion, I do not hold that against them, I don’t judge them for it, it’s not my place to. I just don’t like the idea of snuffing out a life before it has a chance to begin. Does that make sense to you Ray?

        That’s how I feel, and if anyone here thinks I’m trying to Push my morals and beliefs on them, then I do apologize for it, because my post was not intended that way.

        I feel that sometimes I get questioned on the things I believe, and that I have to go into some long drawn out answer to try and prove my point on what I’m trying to say. I do not always know what some of these words mean that I see on here, and I have to go look it up, and hope I understand what they mean. Like with you word cognitive dissonance, I really didn’t know what that meant, had to look it up. Hope I answered correctly on what you asked me. I speak from the heart, and if it doesn’t always make sense, I’m sorry, that’s just the way I am. I’m an open honest, person,, and I try to speak my mind, but if it’s going to hurt somebody, then I keep my mouth shut. I don’t always like creating waves.

        Judy

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Judy – I understand – whereupon my son was born it made me seriously consider my position on the issue. I could not look at him today and even fathom being the one to “pull that trigger”.

          • Judy S. says:

            Thank you Ray. For all the hell we went through to have our son’s, and unless some one who has been in the same situation as we were, then in MY opinion, they can not speak about it. I may be wrong here, but dammit, that’s how I feel and that is also how I think about it.

            Just like with these 2 wars going on in Iraq and Afghan., unless you had somebody there, and you don’t know if they were alive or not, or wounded then I don’t want to hear it, because I was in that situation.

            When my son was in Iraq 5 years ago, fighting that Al Sadar and his men, not hearing from him for 3 weeks, not knowing if he was dead, alive or wounded, then y ou can’t tell me what it’s like or how I feel, because that was hell for me and his father, and brother with what we went through.

            I know it’s not the same thing as abortion, but my feelings are the same none the less. Make sense to you Ray?

            Judy

    • Murphy's Law says:

      I too am against abortion, and I believe that life begins at conception……and I base that on science, not religion. A fertilized egg has ALL THE DNA IT WILL EVER NEED for development into a viable life- nothing is added at the molecular level after conception to aid in development or viability. What determines each different species and its viability is its DNA, and that is all.

      I also believe that in the case of rape or forced incest, someone deserves to die but IT SHOULDN’T BE THE BABY.

      • Murphy:

        But are you willing to impose your belief on others by force?

        That is the question.

        • Judy S. says:

          I don’t think that’s what Murphy is doing JAC, and I don’t think it’s a fair question. I more or less said the same thing, but yet I’m not questioned. WHY? We are not forcing our beliefs on any one, just stating what WE ourselves believe in, why can’t you accept that JAC?

          Judy

          • Black Flag says:

            I think that was what JAC was asking.

            What point are you or Murphy willing to enforce your belief?

            • Judy S. says:

              BF, What do you mean, what point are we willing to enforce our beliefs? I’m not trying to enforce my beliefs on anybody. I thought I made myself clear on that. I was merely saying what I, ME, MYSELF believe in, not what anybody else has to believe in. Can’t I believe in something without having some body else believe the same way? After all, are we not all different in what we believe in, no matter what it is?

              Judy

              • Black Flag says:

                Yes, that is why there was the question.

                That is the difference between today’s society and a moral society.

                Today’s society attempts to enforce beliefs upon others.

                A moral society does not.

              • Judy S. says:

                Well, I’m hoping that you believe that I am a moral person BF, because I don’t like the idea of somebody pushing their beliefs on me, and I don’t believe in pushing my morals and beliefs on somebody else.

              • Black Flag says:

                Oh, I most certainly do know you are moral, Judy!

          • A simple yes or no would be fine Judy.

            Without a clear position then a question asking for a clear position on the key question is reasonable, don’t you think?

            You had not made you position explicitly clear but I assumed it because of prior comments. I was not sure about Murphy, and thus the question.

            We are searching for moral clarity here, with respect to building a foundation for government reform. All questions hunting for that are fair game where the water is not absolutely clear.

            • Judy S. says:

              JAC

              Yes, I suppose. But what do you mean that I didn’t give a clear answer? I thought I gave a perfectly clear one. Does it not meet your standards, or am I allowed to give what I feel are clear answers JAC?

              Like I said earlier JAC, I give the answers to questions on what I believe to be are the right ones for myself, not for those who want me to say what they want to hear. If I can’t speak my mind, or say what I want to say, then why am I here? It’s like what I told BF a while back, if it’s not what you like or the way you like the answer, then I’m sorry, but I again say, I speak from the heart and I speak what’s on my mind. If that’s not a good enough answer, then I’m sorry.

              • Judy you are completely misinterpreting the question.

                Prior to my question to Murphy I did not see you explicitly say you Believe X But would not impose it on others. Perhaps you did and I missed it, but I knew that you had implied so in other comments so I assumed it to be true.

                Apparently I assumed correctly but you seem upset because I asked the question of someone else who had not stated which way he stood on the question.

                Lets turn the table. Where did I ever say that you can not have your opinion on this matter? Where did I ever say you could not speak your mind on this or anything else? Where did I say your answer was not good enough for me?

                Please read my words again, in their totality. I simply don’t understand your reaction. I think you are reading things into the words that are not there.

        • Murphy's Law says:

          BF,

          Perhaps you have answered these questions in posts submitted before I “joined in” here……if so just refer me to the dates and # of the post and I will read it. It is obvious that you are against all government and laws- YET you live in the US, benefit from the protections our laws provide, and I’ll bet are wholeheartedly in favor of the governing body of the World Series of Poker tournaments in which you participate. Do they have laws preventing a fellow poker player from coming over and taking from your stack of chips? If the player next to you reached over every hand and grabbed part of your winnings, time and time again, would you force on him/her your desire to keep your chips? I don’t know, maybe you wouldn’t. I would. If you are totally against gov’t and laws, why do you not go to, say, an island and set up a society without government and laws- rely only on yourself for everything? Live completely off the land, just you and your family? Maybe invite those of like mind to live there as well? I’d be interested to see how long the little utopia would last. Really- have you tried it? Do you plan to in the future?

          As you know, we are a nation of laws which you, even if you don’t want to admit it, benefit from. Just as I agree with laws that “take away the rights” of my neighbor to steal and murder, I would agree with laws to abolish abortion. JAC- if that is “imposing my will on others by force (of law), then yes. I have never, nor will I ever blow up abortion clinics or murder abortion doctors. Like it or not, abortion IS legal in the US right now, and I abide by the law. I deplore it (legalized abortion), just as there are other laws with which I do not agree.

          I believe the baby’s right to life supersedes the woman’s right not to be pregnant and, like I already said, I would support the overturning of Roe v Wade thus making abortion illegal again. And I have, over the years, supported organizations which worked towards that end. Remember, the rights in question here are not the same- for the baby it is his/her right to LIFE, and for the woman, simply put, it is a nine month period at the end of which she can choose to give the baby up for adoption to parents who probably desperately want a healthy baby, or maybe even a less than healthy one. I also realize that the scenario I just described is not always the case…….but it is the case in the overwhelming majority of times. (I need to research how often a pregnancy results from a rape, and what percentage of abortions are for that reason.)

          I trust that answers your questions- and have a very good evening, both of you!

          • Black Flag says:

            It is obvious that you are against all government and laws

            NOT ALL LAW – just Immoral Law

            – YET you live in the US, benefit from the protections our laws provide,

            No!

            I do not benefit from Immoral Law, nor does it protect me!

            In fact, it directly threatens me, my family, my friends and the nation!

            and I’ll bet are wholeheartedly in favor of the governing body of the World Series of Poker tournaments in which you participate.

            They do not subscribe to immoral law.

            They do not believe they have a right to attack non-violent people.

            It seems you remain unclear about what government means or does.

            Do they have laws preventing a fellow poker player from coming over and taking from your stack of chips?

            You are confused.

            It is not the government that made it ‘against the law’ to inflict harm upon another person.

            It is the Natural Law – far before any government – that made it evil to inflict harm upon another person.

            Do you believe that writing down the “Law of Gravity” made it law?

            If you are totally against gov’t and laws, why do you not go to, say, an island and set up a society without government and laws- rely only on yourself for everything?

            Your implication is that a society cannot exist without a entity that attacks non-violent people.

            Is this your belief?

            As you know, we are a nation of laws which you, even if you don’t want to admit it, benefit from.

            Please explain how one can benefit from immoral law?

            …, just as there are other laws with which I do not agree.

            So how do you rationalize supporting immoral law, if you are against it?

        • Hi JAC….good evening. Have a question for you..out of curiosity. This subject is not high on my list but…..you asked at what point would Murph would be willing to enforce her belief. My question: At what point do you enforce a belief if a life is on the line? What about the unborn that cannot protect themselves? Whose right are you protecting IF you enforce a belief that actually preserves another’s right?

          • I draw the line between those who might be and those who already are.

            I can’t enforce the preservation of one right against another. That would mean one or both is not a right, or I am evil. So now go back to my first answer.

            “At what point do you enforce a belief if a life is on the line?” Were there other examples or was this really directed at the abortion question? Obviously I don’t have a right to put another person’s life on the line.

            And the right I am protecting is the right to life, which includes the ownership of one’s own body. The individual is the ultimate sovereign entity. The mother has that right by her existence to protect her sovereignty, the unborn do not. So that leaves the decision to the mother, her doctor, and her God or own moral standards. But it is her agony to resolve. The Government has no place in the decision, legally, financialy or otherwise.

            And just for the record, my question was whether Murph would “force his/her belief on others”, in other words use the government to impose a ban on abortion.

            Hope that clarifies my position. If not feel free to ask more.
            JAC

            • Hey JAC, I just read your answer to D13, and I have a question for you now. Why didn’t you just ask me that same question about the government, because I have answer for you on that one.

              I don’t think the government should impose a ban on abortion even though I’m against them for this reason. And I hope this will satisfy you one way or the other. OKAY.

              The reason I don’t think they should ban abortions is because if they do, then women will either go to another country like Mexico, or somewhere else to get them. Or, how about going back to the way they used to do them, like in the back alleys somewhere or maybe doing a botched up do it yourself abortion.

              I agree with what you said about the government should not make the decision that does not involve them, legally, financially or otherwise. That is something that should be strictly be between the doctor and patient only.

              If the government puts a ban on abortion, then they are forcing their beliefs on on those who may not believe in it.

              Now, I suppose you’re going to say that I’m double talking because I don’t believe in abortions, right. It’s not that JAC, it’s that the government has no right where they don’t belong. They DO NOT belong in the medical profession.

              Judy

              • Ray had already asked you the question but you had not yet resonded when I asked Murphy. See my response to you at #24 regarding why I did not ask you the question and the rest of that rabbit chase.

                “Now, I suppose you’re going to say that I’m double talking because I don’t believe in abortions, right.”

                You are WRONG. That is not double talk. Your position is in fact Consistent with your previously stated support of freedom and liberty. BRAVO!!!

                Had you answered the opposite then I would have pointed out the contradiction between your support of liberty and using the govt to impose your beliefs on others.

                Hope you sleep well tonigt
                JAC

            • Murphy's Law says:

              JAC-

              “I draw the line between those who might be and those who already are.”

              You “already were” before you were born- otherwise your mother’s belly would not have gotten big.

              “The mother has that right [to life] by her existence to protect her sovereignty, the unborn do not.”

              Why do the unborn not have that right? Just because in 1973 the Supreme Court said so? I realize that was their ruling…….but WERE THEY CORRECT IN DOING SO?

              Are you really protecting the right to life in saying the mother can choose to terminate her baby’s life? In the great majority of cases, the mother’s life is not threatened with a pregnancy…….but an abortion always terminates the life growing inside her. That life had its own DNA, its own blood type, hair color, eye color, etc……again I am not arguing this from a religious standpoint. That embryo, that fetus…….is a body growing within the mother, not one of her body parts, like her arms, legs, organs, etc. From a biological point of view, it is a separate living being.

              I realize my view on this is not at all politically correct……and I don’t give a rat’s rear. I won’t drink the Kool-aid the MSM puts out. I’ve seen the result of 35+ years of legalized abortion, and it hasn’t been pretty. Many abortion clinics operate in less than sterile conditions and the MSM won’t report when legal abortions are botched, when women with complications after an abortion are whisked literally out the back door, sometimes (not often, but it has happened) to die at home because these “clinics” don’t care about the mother’s health afterward…….they just want to keep the clients coming in the door.

              The MSM also won’t report on the emotional trauma after abortion that women experience……..many report having been pressured into it by boyfriends or parents, and later regretting it.

              Like I said, I REFUSE to drink the MSM Koolaid on this one.

              • Murphy:

                “You “already were” before you were born- otherwise your mother’s belly would not have gotten big.”

                Sorry, but no. At fertilization the combined cells have 0% of surviving to become a human. That % goes up once the fertilized egg attaches to uterin wall. Now the chance (%) of becomeing a human goes up every day until the fetus is born.

                But the chances of complete successful birth never goes to 100% until the birth actually happens.

                Meanwhile the mother’s chance of existance has been at 100% the entire time. And by incurring pregnancy her chances of premature death have actually risen during that time.

                So when this mother, whom you used govt to force her to carry the child, dies due to complications of pregnancy, who do we charge with her murder? Or lets assume she just gets very sick and requires costly medical care. Who do we charge with assault and who does she sue for recovery of her medical costs?

                “Why do the unborn not have that right? Just because in 1973 the Supreme Court said so? I realize that was their ruling…….but WERE THEY CORRECT IN DOING SO?”

                The unborn do not have the right, and I certainly don’t, to require the mother to put her life on the line against her will. One persons right to their sovereignty can not impede on anothers. As the mother exists 100% and the fetus only has a chance of existing <100%, as a full human, the mother gets the protection.

                This has nothing to do with Roe v Wade. That was in my opinion, and others, a terrible ruling. It was based on presedence that was based on faulty legal philosophy and interpretation. My position on this would be no different without the court ruling.

                "Are you really protecting the right to life in saying the mother can choose to terminate her baby’s life? In the great majority of cases, the mother’s life is not threatened with a pregnancy.."

                In my view I am. As I said the mother is 100% existing and to force her to dimish her chance to remain alive by any amount is immoral to me.

                "I realize my view on this is not at all politically correct"

                What is PC is not relavent in a discussion of moral principles. You are aligned with about 50% of the country. But I am guessing less would actually outlaw the practice all together. Most realize there are true medical reasons to terminate a pregnancy.

                The rest of your comments regarding the clinics, success, trauma etc is not pertinent to my view regarding the use of force to take the freedom of the mother. They may make good rationalization for others to do so, but just remember when you rationalize using force on others you give them the right to do the same to you.

                And for the record, I do not like abortion. It is a god awful thing. It prevents a potential person from being born and can create tremendous emotional scars for all involved.

                But the rights of the mother must prevail, in my opinion. I have no right to interject myself, via the government surrogate, in the lives of the mother, her family, her doctor and her preacher. It is an issue she must deal with and only she can answer.

                Please note here Murphy that I am not saying you position is wrong or you need more Kool-aid. I am not trying to get you to change your position. I am stating my view and showing how my principle of liberty and non-initiation of force is consistent with my position on abortion. By doing so I am highlighting the contradiction, in my view, of those who say they want liberty but would use govt to ban abortions.

                I hope that clears up the mud a little.
                Best Wishes to You and Yours
                JAC

  16. USW said: D13 took me to task a bit (at least I think so, he didn’t say my name, but I got the distinct impression that he was talking about me along with others).
    ————————————–
    Hmmmm..went back to reread my post and I specifically did not name you USW…nor did I render any opinion on homosexual behaviour (nor will I) nor the Islam Religion. I have never taken the position that all of Islam is bad. I have made reference to that if it is such a peace loving religion, where are the voices? That is all I have said. I even went to great lengths (if you remember) on a post some time ago wherein I actually went to three Mosque’s, named the Mosque’s and where they were, and the questions asked. I posted their answers. I also posted that the women were not allowed to talk or speak to me at the Mosque. Only one Cleric actually gave me the time of day and I posted what he said as well. The only time that I have ever worked with the Muslim community is when I was over in Kuwait and Afghanistan. Did not live in their homes but interacted with them a great deal. Most of the ones I interacted with were very peace loving and nice but they still would not speak out against the militant side. And, I got the feeling from them, that they felt the only religion in the world was theirs but I did not talk about Christianity at all to them nor will I. That is all I have ever said.

    My long winded post was referencing things that I saw here in the US and I think people did not look deeply enough to get my meanings concerning liberty and freedoms. It upset some so much that they went out and cut their lawn, and edged, and swept, and watered, and then drank a beer. I did call some out on the fact that if I hold a definition different than theirs, then I am told my thinking is flawed and that I am wrong and in the same breath, claim they do not pass judgment and support free thinking. THAT is a contradiction. No one looked deeply at what I posted. If they looked past the peripheral, then they would have understood where I was. But that is ok as I am not offended. Some on this blog have an agenda and that is ok as well. I am intelligent enough to see through it and not easily swayed by oratory and philosophy although I support their right to be so inclined. When I read them and then think of my position, they are not all that dis-similar. We all understand the same things but have different approaches. Not many look past the peripheral at the true meanings. I did not and do not take offense at all.

    Now, you referenced TC on things but I did not feel you addressed me…because I do not feel about Islam and homosexuality as TC posted. But that is also ok….LOL. I did not attack you in any manner whatsoever except to post my feelings and reasons….but I did harp on changing through the vote and I still believe that is the best way….right now. So, THIS Texan is still behind his adobe wall waiting for you to come after me. Can I get up now? We can have a beer, or two, or three…perhaps a bit of Mescal and Lime? Some fajitas and peppers? (Beer has to be ice cold, though).

    Have a wonderful day.

    D13

    • ooooops….fergot to refresh…just saw part 2. My bad. Give me a few minutes.

    • Black Flag says:

      “I was over in Kuwait and Afghanistan. Did not live in their homes but interacted with them a great deal. Most of the ones I interacted with were very peace loving and nice but they still would not speak out against the militant side.”

      Perhaps it was because ‘we’ were in ‘their country’.

      I have lived in a community of Muslims – a long story to Judy S. that still needs an ending – I had a 8 year relationship with a beautiful daughter of a Muslim who happened to be an Ambassador for his government.

      Every notion you hold about Islam and Muslims is not representative at all of this great people. No more than you accept the Aryans or the Mormons, etc. as representative of your beliefs, you should not apply such prejudice upon an entire people as well.

      • Black Flag says:

        PS: I only met him once, briefly. She was a product of his 2nd of 3 wives – and he spent almost all his time with his third wife.

        However, the other two lived in a style equal to that of the third wife – as required by Islamic law. They wanted for nothing.

        His daughter lived mostly in the West – and picked up more of Western style of life than the rest of her family. However, she still retained all the best parts 🙂 of her culture!

      • Judy S. says:

        Yea, and I’m still waiting for that ending BF. I know this might sound silly, but maybe when it’s a slow time on here you can finish your story. Gotta know how it ends.

        Judy

      • And being in “their” country shuts them up?

        • Black Flag says:

          You wondered why they didn’t throw flowers at your feet.

          It was because your feet was in their country.

          • No, never wondered why they did not throw roses at my feet. I did not expect it nor do I expect it. Do not wonder to this day why they do not throw roses…but the criticism would still be there if we were not there. Then they would say…where is the USA?

            I agree that there are countries that I wish my feet were not in….Bosnia, for example. That was nothing but ethnic cleansing. I hated being there and hated seeing the tens of thousands slaughtered. we had no business there either…but we were. And they did throw flowers, then.

            • Black Flag says:

              “but the criticism would still be there if we were not there”

              (Sigh) – their complaint is that you are there and you say they’d still complain that you’re there even when you’re not there…

              …oh boy…

              • No, that is not what I said. I said that if we were not there, THEY would complain that we were not? Actually, I could care less what they think if I am not there.I simply do not actually care what the world thinks of us. We owe the world nothing…not even apologies. I do not think we, as a country and government, need to intervene in any sovereign nation or country. My only argument has been, that I am a United States citizen and an Army officer and I have a duty, oath, and responsibility therein….even if unpopular. Were I in the decision making capacity at the time as a politico, I would have said, as I do now say,…let them stew in their own juices and leave them alone. If my ox isn’t getting gored then why bother…. it is the BF way.

                I am not in favor of the incursion in Afghanistan nor Pakistan…I was not in favor of the incursions in Vietnam, Granada, Kuwait, nor Iraq. But, I had a responsibility and treason, subversion, anarchy, were and are not viable alternatives at all. THAT is my only stance. I had responsibilities and I had not only a moral duty but a sworn oath to go where I was told to go and to fight whom I was told to fight. I was only concerned at the time of fighting the wars…not the making of them.

                Leave them alone…let them do their own thing and let the water seek its own level. At some point, it will be here. If the US backs completely off right now, and minds its own business and turns a blind eye to the woes of other countries, it will still come here. That is the sad part of it. It will never go away.

              • Black Flag says:

                No, that is not what I said. I said that if we were not there, THEY would complain that we were not?

                Why would they complain? They want to be left alone.

                This is what they’ve wanted since before 1914.

                They still haven’t gotten it…..

                Whatta ya say we give it a try?

                Actually, I could care less what they think if I am not there.I simply do not actually care what the world thinks of us. We owe the world nothing…not even apologies. I do not think we, as a country and government, need to intervene in any sovereign nation or country. My only argument has been, that I am a United States citizen and an Army officer and I have a duty, oath, and responsibility therein….even if unpopular./

                Check that oath.

                It has nothing to do with putting boots in foreign countries.

                I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

                Notice is says not on thing about defending the government, nor the country, nor the People.

                Notice where the oath places the allegiance – not to government, nor the President, nor the People, nor the country – but the Constitution.

                Not one thing about going into other countries for whatever reason other than for the defense of the Constitution

                So one must ask one’s self – which master are you serving?

                I had responsibilities and I had not only a moral duty but a sworn oath to go where I was told to go and to fight whom I was told to fight.

                Really? Can you show me in the Constitution where it says that?

                it will still come here..

                And where in all of history has that ever been true???

              • Black Flag says:

                No, that is not what I said. I said that if we were not there, THEY would complain that we were not?

                Why would they complain? They want to be left alone.

                This is what they’ve wanted since before 1914.

                They still haven’t gotten it…..

                Whatta ya say we give it a try?

                Actually, I could care less what they think if I am not there.I simply do not actually care what the world thinks of us. We owe the world nothing…not even apologies. I do not think we, as a country and government, need to intervene in any sovereign nation or country. My only argument has been, that I am a United States citizen and an Army officer and I have a duty, oath, and responsibility therein….even if unpopular.

                Check that oath.

                It has nothing to do with putting boots in foreign countries.

                I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

                Notice is says not on thing about defending the government, nor the country, nor the People.

                Notice where the oath places the allegiance – not to government, nor the President, nor the People, nor the country – but the Constitution.

                Not one thing about going into other countries for whatever reason other than for the defense of the Constitution

                So one must ask one’s self – which master are you serving?

                I had responsibilities and I had not only a moral duty but a sworn oath to go where I was told to go and to fight whom I was told to fight.

                Really? Can you show me in the Constitution where it says that?

                it will still come here..

                And where in all of history has that ever been true???

              • You will not find it in the constitution. Do not pick the oath apart piecemeal. you like to argue, so argue away. Play the arena of semantics. You have that right.

                BF Says: It has nothing to do with putting boots in foreign countries.

                D13 says: No, but it has everything to do with following orders and the moral responsibility to do so. It is amazing that you and I are in agreement on foreign countries but you have the audacity to question an oath to the Constitution which covers the very premise of our government and the right of our government to defend the Constitution in any way it sees fit to do so. Any other allegiance, sir, is treason and sedition and I will have none of it. My government may not be correct all the time, but it is my government and my country. If I do not like it, I will change it. Change it by our laws and our system and not do it otherwise. It may take longer and I may die before it is changed but I can plant the seeds of change.

                BF says: And where in all of history has that ever been true???

                D13 says: History, my protected friend, is still being written.

                Have a great day.

  17. Just a few comments today. When we humans start to decide what is right or wrong in nature, and act on that, we will destroy ourselves. Nature simply “IS”, in all it’s forms and differences. Any ideas that one part of nature is wrong or “mutated”, is somewhat arrogant. Nature evolves as it chooses, and humans will never change that, we are not in charge of mother earth, despite what some feel or believe.

    There is a fear of the Muslim faith (or whatever it’s called today) in this country. There is some absolute hatred out there as well. I’ll be nice to them if they are nice to me! I’ll get back on alittle later, got some stuff to do!

    Peace !

    G!

  18. Black Flag says:

    WASHINGTON – The federal government has devoted $4.7 trillion to help the financial sector through its crisis, a watchdog report said Monday.

    Under the worst of circumstances, the report said, the government’s maximum exposure could total nearly $24 trillion, or $80,000 for every American.

    Are you scared yet?

    • BF, I am not scared at all. I’m more concerned with those who have no clue, and would then pose a threat to those of us who do!

  19. Black Flag says:

    Todd

    From previous blogs:

    So if Wealth has nothing to do with happiness, then why are you so opposed to taxes? Why not just give the government 70-80% of your wealth and income, and live happily on what’s left??

    Because it is my property.

    Many people are confused about wealth – wealth does not equal happiness nor unhappiness.

    What it does mean is responsibility. This is why so many kill themselves (or blow it) when they are rich – the responsibility of wealth is too much for them to handle.

    Do not wish yourself wealthy unless you are equally able to handle its responsibility.

    Wealth is property – all property requires care. If you are careless you will lose it.

    Things like Zone Laws infringe on individual rights for the “common good”. So do you consider those wrong/evil?

    Yes, they are mostly wrong.

    First, there is no such thing as a ‘common good’, other than freedom.

    There is no right to interfere with a man’s actions if it does not impose upon your actions.

    However, if his actions DO impose, he does not have the right. Hence, you have a right to stop his imposition.

    There is a difference between painting a house pink and running a manufacturing steel plant next to your house.

    • Black Flag,
      I didn’t expect this about zoning laws:

      Yes, they are mostly wrong.

      Do you have an example of one that is not wrong?

  20. Judy S. says:

    BF, I’m answering you down here because of that darn squishy box.

    Just how do you know I’m a moral person BF? Is it because of how I answer people here, or what? Or could it be because you know me without ever meeting me, and how I might think or answer on certain issues? I’m curious.

    Judy

    • Black Flag says:

      By your comments.

      It is up to you to disprove me, if you wish.

      • Judy S. says:

        Now, you know I can’t do that when I know you’re right. But thanks, I’ll take that as a compliment. What is it about my comments that makes you think that, and why? That’s if you don’t mind me asking you.

        Thanks

        Judy

  21. Black Flag says:

    GarthD

    You imply that the situation will turn itself around. Kind of hard to believe.

    As it was in the beginning it will be later on even though it is not now.

    Yes! It will!

    First, seize full control of your own mind!

    This is required before one can see clearly and penetrate illusions!

    Second, steel yourself for a fight – the process is painful.

    Many things held dear will evaporate.

    It is very painful to see much of what we believed and loved was merely illusions and ghosts – and was never real to begin with.

    How much have we paid!

    For emptiness less than a vacuum!

    I know, personally, of what I speak of.

    Thirdly, rescue your kids.

    Free them from indoctrination.

    Take back your kids – and bring them home. Homeschool them.

    Do not inflict the same torture of illusions upon them from which you are fighting to free yourself.

    Fifth, hold yourself immutable upon your principles.

    You live in a pragmatic world – where we are pounded, day in day, by self-appointed authorities that claim you must act from pragmatism.

    You must not – no matter the price – ever act so!

    Your principles must always be held – immutable – even if it costs you!

    The cost will always be some insignificant babble or trinkets.

    Here are the false Gods of Pragmatism – worldly goods – but jewelery around one’s neck earned by pragmatic choices are merely chains of slaves.

    Yes, you may lose your house – but never your home, because it can’t be taken since it is in your heart that a home is built from.

    Yes, you may lose your car – but not your freedom for you have your legs and you can walk away.

    Yes, you may lose all your money – but it was fake – and they can’t take your ability to earn like a free man.

    When you are willing to leave behind all that was gained by illusion – you will be free….and probably very, very poor – but only for a short while.

    But, do not waiver.

    For there are many thousands who have done the same – and they are waiting for you – you have to find them, though, and you can’t as long as you are mired in the slop.

    These people refuse to run with the ‘pigs’ in the mud. So you can’t be in the mud with the pigs if you want to find them.

    Believe me – they are ‘out there’, waiting for you.

    They are gracious, and charitable – because they can afford to be – because… they are free!

    I believe that our Founding Fathers were as moral a group as you could get. They passed it on to those who passed it on, yet somewhere it went wrong.

    Here is the most important lesson they taught:

    There does not exist a strong enough moral basis to satisfy a requirement to hold the power of violence over free men.

    There exist no such test strong enough for such a power to be given to any man.

    Thus, such power can never be given.

    Not worried about myself, I am not too often a victim.

    I never held any doubt about who you are!

    You are among the Remnant – the very ones that I am, as is JAC, as is USWEP are alive on this Earth to preach to!

    It is to you that I carry my message –

    It is a message that says:

    Hold on! Do not let go of your Right.

    Respect the the Rights of ALL MEN – no matter what law of weaker men says, that is the core of all Truth – and do not ever use a law of weak men to break another man’s Right!

    The men of Principle will be redeemed – for they still hold on to real freedom!

    The world of these illusions is coming to an horrific end.

    It will seek to destroy men, probably many of our loved one, as it collapses.

    The only resistance left will be that of free men – who have always resisted the illusions and impositions placed upon them.

    Hold the Fight, Dear Remnant – all the rest of mankind depends upon it!

    Our risk is that we may inflict another illusion upon mankind.

    I pray we will be strong enough to avoid the same mistake our Father’s made…

    (Black Flag steps down from his pulpit…)

    • they are “out there”

      Is that supposed to be funny, or is it just me?

      • Jennie, Yes, we are out here. I’m one who does not wallow with the pigs in the mud. If I’m wrong, Flag will surely correct me, but I have lived life quite different from the “masses”. I do not live where I intend to, it’s just a temperary shelter that I may be comfortable in. I have no debt, not loan payments, no credit cards payments, no car payment, I just pay for the roof over my head and utilities, with a few nice things like internet and Directv (must have some entertainment). I spend much time in the deep woods of Pennsylvania, away from the scrum of city life. Today, I was preparing some equipment to provide food for my family this fall. I’m a single parent. I think I know where Black Flag is leaning, and tend to agree.

        I’m also a vet, with a strong belief in freedom, which I would rather die fighting for than live as a slave to any government. We are few, prepared, and determined, and willing to help those that choose the same path. It will be hard work to get to the place of refuge I have chosen, but I will prosper and survive. I am not alone in my thinking and decisions, but many misunderstand because they do not realize what befronts them in the future. I would rather be prepared and wrong, than to live without the freedom I fought for, I hope you would choose to be prepared as well!

        G!

    • Thank you John:

      Thanks for not making it 60 pages long.

      GarthD
      Til Then

  22. Judy S. says:

    My son sent me this a while ago, and I thought I’d pass it along to you folks here. You decide if it’s true or not.

    Judy
    ___________________________________________________________________

    FINALLY…THE $50,000 QUESTION WAS ASKED (by whom and is this true?

    YESTERDAY ON THE “ABC…OBAMA SPECIAL ON HEALTH CARE”……OBAMA WAS
    ASKED: “MR. PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH
    CARE PROGRAM AND JOIN THE NEW “UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM” THAT THE REST
    OF US WILL BE ON ?”

    OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND DIDN’T ANSWER IT!!!

    A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND THEIR RESPONSE
    WAS … WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT !!!!

    IT WAS ALSO ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE “KENNEDY HEALTH
    CARE BILL” HAS WRITTEN INTO IT THAT CONGRESS WILL BE (FROM THIS GREAT HEALTH
    CARE PLAN) EXEMPT !!!!!

    HOW ABOUT THOSE APPLES…..NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR OBAMA OR
    CONGRESS….. BUT “OK” FOR THE REST OF US?

    WE AMERICANS NEED TO STOP THIS… ASAP AND REVOLT… THIS IS WRONG
    !!!!!

    IF YOU AGREE PLEASE PASS THIS ON.

    IF NOT, PLAN TO SUFFER (WITH THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN ….FOR
    FREE)…. WHILE OUR POLITICIANS TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES!

    • Murphy's Law says:

      Judy,

      It is true- the prez and Congress will force this plan on us, but they will be exempt from it. This is proof they know how bad it is, and don’t want any part of it!

      You are right, we MUST stop this if at all possible.

      • Judy S. says:

        But yet, they are willing to cram it down us whether we want it or need it. God help those who will be the unlucky ones who get the death penalty because our wonderful government will choose who will live or die.

        My son said tonight that if this bill passes, the doctors will get out of that business, and find something else that will make them the money they were making while being doctors. I asked him, Then why are you going to go into medical school if you feel that way? Right now, he’s in pre-med, and in 2 years he suppose to be going into medical school. He said because that’s what he wants to do. He also said, the problem is going to be, is when he’s told how much money he’ll be making if Obama has his way, like they way he’s dictated to the CEO’S on how much they’ll make.

        If we have to do it, then I say, so do they. Yea, I know, when pigs fly, right.

        Judy

  23. Judy S. says:

    JAC, I am answering you down here because I don’t like that squishy box, too hard to say anything in there.

    Maybe I am misinterpreting what you’re saying, I don’t know. I don’t understand when you said you thought I didn’t answer explicitly about what I was talking about. I’m not upset JAC, I just don’t get why you and others here have to have what I feel are the answers you want and not the way we might want. Sometimes I feel like I’m always being tested and quizzed on things here, and I assumed that it was just all of us having a conversation about things, giving our opinions about the topics at hand.

    I speak my mind, that’s all, and I don’t really understand what you might be getting at here. Am I not being clear on what I’m talking about or what? Believe me, if I get upset, you’ll know it. I am not as informative as you and others here, but if I see something that might strike a cord with me, then I will say something. I hope that kind of answers you somehow JAC, but there again, I’m not sure if I’m being clear with you or not. OKAY!.

    Judy

  24. Judy S. says:

    Gotta take a break for a while. Will check back in later.

    Judy

    • Judy:

      This all started with you asking me the following:

      “I don’t think that’s what Murphy is doing JAC, and I don’t think it’s a fair question. I more or less said the same thing, but yet I’m not questioned. WHY? We are not forcing our beliefs on any one, just stating what WE ourselves believe in, why can’t you accept that JAC?”

      Now lets take in order. I stated in a follow up that it is in fact a fair question of Murphy. While your opinion of how Murphy would answer is fine, I would prefer for Murphy to answer the question directly. I still think it is a fair question given the emotions contained in Murphy’s post.

      In response to your second question, regarding WHY I didn’t ask you the question, I explained later that while you had not addressed the specific question of forcing your beliefs on others, AT THE TIME I ASKED MURHPY THE QUESTION, I assumed I knew your answer ( I expected you would say NO). I also knew Ray had asked you essentially the same question already. So if my assumption regarding your answer was False I would know your position once you answered Ray. In either case,there was no reason to ask you the same question, from my perspective.

      Now lets address the third question: “We are not forcing our beliefs on any one, just stating what WE ourselves believe in, why can’t you accept that JAC?” First, I don’t know how you can say WE since Murphy has not answered the question, as far as I can tell. Second, your statement to Ray clarifying that you did not intend to impose your beliefs on others had not been made when I posed the question to Murphy. So in essence this part of your question is attempting to hold me accountable for not knowing your answer to Ray before it was given. And of course you are critcizing me of doing something I did not do. How could I be questioning your beliefs, at the point in time when I posed the question to Murphy, when the question was asked of Murphy and not you?

      Third, despite the timeline and the confusion, the fact remains that I never questioned your beliefs about abortion. I never insinuated or directly stated that I do not accept your position. What I asked was whether those feelings against abortion were strong enough to cause Murphy to impose Murphy’s beliefs on others by using force, which means the government.

      We are having discussions here regarding those things that a morally based government should and should not be allowed to do. As such the question I posed to Murphy is in fact a FAIR question, in my opinion.
      You in fact answered the question to Ray, stating that it is not your intent to impose your beiefs on others. I take that to mean your answer to my question, had I asked it of you, would be NO.

      Murphy has still not answered the question, unless I missed it somewhere.

      I hope this helps clear this up. I did not question you at all on anything to do with this issue and am still baffled as to how you think I have or where in fact I did.

      JAC

      • Judy:

        P.S. I just found Murphy’s answer buried in a response to BF. Turns out you were wrong.

        Murphy would in fact use govt to make abortions illegal.

        Do you see now why I thought it a fair question? We should never assume the obvious.

        Good night dear friend.
        JAC

  25. Black Flag says:

    When Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) asked Wednesday whether citizens have a right to self-defense, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “I don’t know.”

    Coburn had asked, “As a citizen of this country, do you believe innately in my ability to have self-defense of myself – personal self-defense? Do I have a right to personal self-defense?”

    In reply, Sotomayor said that, “I’m trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can’t think of one. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.” She then went on to explain that self-defense rights are usually defined by state law.”

    Unsatisfied, Coburn continued, “But do you have an opinion, of whether or not in this country I personally, as an individual citizen, have a right to self-defense?”

    Sotomayor responded, “I – as I said, I don’t know.”

    Later in the exchange, Coburn said, “I wasn’t asking about the legal question. I’m asking your personal opinion.”

    “But that is an abstract question with no particular meaning to me,” Sotomayor relied.

    This person will judge you.

    She doesn’t even know if you can fight for your own life.

    God bless the Constitution, right?

    • Bet if her ass was on the line she could answer it. How can anyone, in the position she is in at this time of history, be so utterly stupid! In Ohio, if someone enters your home uninvited, the resident can shoot and kill them, end of story. I would say Texas falls in that catagory as well.

      This is appalling, and anyone that supports her should be (use your imagination)!

      G!

  26. Hey BF, still waiting on that answer from you.

    Judy

  27. Black Flag says:

    Todd

    Black Flag,
    I didn’t expect this about zoning laws:

    Yes, they are mostly wrong.

    Do you have an example of one that is not wrong?

    Any neighbor, whose actions interfere with me on my property, impedes my rights.

    I gave such an example, an automotive plant beside my house.

    • Black Flag,
      How does an automotive plant beside your house impede your rights?

      If they own the property and stay on their property, how are they impeding on your rights?

      • Black Flag says:

        If their smoke, or noise makes my life hell – what right do they have to do that?

        • They don’t. But how do you know the plant will be smoky or noisy before it’s built?

          If you’re stinky and noisy, what recourse do your neighbor’s have? 😉

          • Black Flag says:

            True – which why I said “Mostly wrong”.

            1 – “mostly wrong” is where they are stinky and noisy.

            … Recourse: The same recourse I have if you were invading my property…which they are…

  28. This is for BF and JAC.

    I was hoping to have an answer from the both of you before I leave for the night, but that’s ok, I’ll check back in the morning. I have arthritis so bad in both hands, it’s beginning to hurt more and since I’ve been on here most if not all day, I really have to get off and give my hands a break.

    So, on that note I would like to say, it’s been a real pleasure talking with both of you today.

    Have a wonderful rest of the night BF and JAC
    Catch you both tomorrow.

    Take care

    Judy

    • Black Flag says:

      I haven’t forgotten your question – it is merely deeper than an one sentence answer.

      Yes, I suffer arthritis in my left hand – it causes me to stagger to the left when I type 😉

      G’night!

  29. Black Flag says:

    Ah, Trip Aces lost to running – flush draw… now I’m on tilt so its time to go to bed.

    • USWeapon says:

      Always makes me feel on tilt as well. Just keep reminding yourself that jerks like that pay you off far more than you pay them off.

      Nice to see Phil made the November 9, though!

  30. Black Flag says:

    Earl H

    There is no contradiction in maximizing freedom because there is no such thing as absolute freedom except in isolation.

    Of course there is such a thing! But I guess it depends what you think “freedom” is….

    Freedom is the lack of imposition. If no one imposes upon you, you are free.

    If you want to live as free as a hermit by all means go ahead.

    Why not in society? Why do you believe you have a right to impose upon me?

    But if you want to live with the rest of us and benefit from the advantages of living in a community you’re going to have to give up some things in exchange for others.

    That’s called Free Trade – I have no problem with that (please review the meaning of the bolded word).

    But if you mean you have a right to take from me without my consent – or demand an action from me with a threat of violence – then yes, we have a problem.

    You are imposing upon me.

    So where do you get the right to do so?

    Set your own priorities, but save the lectures about the evils of compromise for someone else.

    Lecture I will.

    It is when a man compromises his principles that evil is created.

    This is the Original Sin.

    If you want to live a saint’s life and turn the other cheek while others harm you through their abuse of power, go ahead. Whatever helps you sleep at night…

    You appear confused.

    Why do you believe that if I refuse to compromise my principles – and if I do not impose upon other men, that I am a saint?

    It is a measure of civilization, Earl.

    If you are willing to throw away reason whenever it suits you, you are not a civilized man – but a savage.

    Human Rights is as foreign a concept to a savage as space travel would be to Homo Erectus .

    But it seems to me that to do so is pretty foolish (not to mention passive, lazy, and naive). To call those who agree to live under certain rules of fair play and justice ‘evil’ because you want to take some high road of absolute morality is just pure BS. Brother, what are you selling?

    Freedom, Brother, Freedom

    It appears the assumption of your ‘rules’ and ‘justice’ require someone that someone has the right to attack non-violent people – or how else are you going to enforce ‘your rules’.

    By what Right do have to make rules over me? You smarter than me? Gift from God?

    • Black Flag (or whatever your name really is), what color is the sky on your planet? Freedom is not lack of imposition. It is choice. Real choice. If your neighbor is starving and you have all the available food it’s not ‘freedom’ for you to deny him the food unless he gives you all his life’s belongings. That’s exploitation. Would you claim some moral high ground by saying that you didn’t cause his starvation and are therefore not required to help him? What if you somehow knew ahead of time that he would be in this predicament and did nothing to warn him? Do you think that it’s OK to take advantage of another man’s suffering if you stand to make a profit (as long as you didn’t cause the problem)?

      If this is what you call freedom, then you certainly aren’t a saint. You are an opportunist and your claims to morality are just self-serving rationalizations of your own greed.

      Good luck with your version of freedom, it sounds real swell.

      • Black Flag says:

        Freedom is not lack of imposition. It is choice. Real choice.

        I think we need to expand on your concept and definition of freedom. Work with me so I can understand.

        If I give you a choice between peas and carrots, you feel you are free?

        If your neighbor is starving and you have all the available food it’s not ‘freedom’ for you to deny him the food unless he gives you all his life’s belongings.

        So your corollary is that a starving man has a right to steal from me?

        That’s exploitation.

        No, its a tragedy.

        HOWEVER no matter the tragedy, you have no right to steal from me.

        An immoral act does not absolve a tragedy, no matter how hard you wish it so.

        Would you claim some moral high ground by saying that you didn’t cause his starvation and are therefore not required to help him?

        Correct.

        Your basic assumption is that I should risk my life and that of my family to help him – please explain why I would do this?

        What if you somehow knew ahead of time that he would be in this predicament and did nothing to warn him?

        I, unlike you, have no power of future knowledge. The best I can do is leave you to manage your own affairs as you see fit.

        The moment I believe I am smarter than you about you, you have become my slave.

        Do you think that it’s OK to take advantage of another man’s suffering if you stand to make a profit (as long as you didn’t cause the problem)?

        You’re muddling concepts of economics (profit) into a discussion of principles (taking advantage). You’re already struggling as it is – keep it simple, sir.

        If this is what you call freedom, then you certainly aren’t a saint. You are an opportunist and your claims to morality are just self-serving rationalizations of your own greed.

        Greed is good.

        It propels humanity into progress. Without it, we’d have been ‘satifisfied with our lot’ a long time ago in the Savannah.

        Good luck with your version of freedom, it sounds real swell.

        Ah, good sir.

        You are attempting to rationalize evil.

        You want a Right to attack non-violent men – you hunt for an excuse to do so.

        But think about it – if you can justify attacking a man for your reason – that you believe is ‘good enough’, what stops me from finding my justification and claiming its ‘good enough’ to attack you?

        Careful.

        What you do to another gives them the right to do to you.

        • I’m not talking about peas and carrots. Don’t be silly. I’m talking about giving people the opportunity to make real choices about their lives and empowering them to make this world a better place. When power is concentrated, choices are limited. You end up with some people having all (or most of) the leverage and limiting the choices people can make. You seem pretty dead-set against violence, but would you consider the abuse of power and influence to limit choice an act of violence? I’m guessing ‘no.’ I do, though. I think that withholding the resources people need to live because you have been fortunate enough to hoard them is itself an act of violence. Greed is not good. Humans don’t live on the savanna because they learned to cooperate. Every species that has survived has done so primarily through cooperation.

          This doesn’t mean that competition hasn’t played a part. But if you are suggesting that we should leave the slow and injured to the predators, then I think your idea of morality is pretty twisted. We should reward excellence and innovation, but saying that greed is the only way to get there seems pretty far-fetched (not to mention sounding a lot more like what most would consider ‘evil’). We put a man on the moon through competition with the Soviets. It was a pretty amazing accomplishment. But what did we ultimately gain from it other than bragging rights? The human race has much more to gain from cooperating than competing.

          It seems to me that you are the one rationalizing evil.

          • Black Flag says:

            I’m not talking about peas and carrots. Don’t be silly.

            I don’t think I am silly.

            You are using broad-based, hazy, concepts as an attempt to specifically define another.

            You said choice was freedom.

            I offered an example. You obviously didn’t like my choice of example.

            I would suggest that choice, though a part of the concept of freedom – does not define freedom.

            I’m talking about giving people the opportunity to make real choices about their lives and empowering them to make this world a better place.

            Ok, so let me try another.

            If I give you choice between driving a car or riding a bike, are you free?

            When power is concentrated, choices are limited.

            How does power limit my freedom?

            You end up with some people having all (or most of) the leverage and limiting the choices people can make.

            So, by corollary, (once again) that I can attack non-violent men so to give me more choices for myself?

            So, if I can’t attack non-violent men, what choice do I have for myself in determining my actions on others?

            Would the only other choice be to voluntarily engage in mutual trade of some sort?

            You seem pretty dead-set against violence, but would you consider the abuse of power and influence to limit choice an act of violence? I’m guessing ‘no.’

            You’re right. No.

            Violence is pretty easy to define. You want to extend the definition into realms that would make the definition bizarre and irrelevant – that is, after you’re done, everything is violent-hence, the word has no meaning.

            I do, though. I think that withholding the resources people need to live because you have been fortunate enough to hoard them is itself an act of violence.

            So, if you are withholding your house that you have been fortunate to ‘hoard’ – I have a right to attack you and take your house?

            Why or why not?

            Greed is not good. Humans don’t live on the savanna because they learned to cooperate.

            PS: We cooperated on the Savanna too!

            Every species that has survived has done so primarily through cooperation.

            Cooperation is good too!

            But the root of cooperation is “to work with” – not to “impose upon”.

            This doesn’t mean that competition hasn’t played a part. But if you are suggesting that we should leave the slow and injured to the predators, then I think your idea of morality is pretty twisted.

            I didn’t say that either.

            But attacking me so to force me to take care of others will limit and impede my ability to take care of myself and my family.

            It is my own measure of my own ability to decide whether or not I have the capability or the want to help another – not yours or anyone else.

            Be afraid if you rationalize anything different – for I will find much rationalization to force you to care for me!

            We should reward excellence and innovation, but saying that greed is the only way to get there seems pretty far-fetched (not to mention sounding a lot more like what most would consider ‘evil’).

            You’re definitions continue to be lacking – you hold many assumptions and ideas of what you mean to say, but use concepts that do not seem to portray that meaning.

            Slow down, and select your words more precisely. You wish to be emotional in your descriptions – and wish to invoke irrational response with that emotion.

            “Care for the poor, ‘evil’ if you do not!” — holds much emotion, but very little thinking or thought of the implications of your demand.

            Take a slower pace with this discussion – peel away the implications of such a plea, and you may see that it is, indeed, a declaration of right to inflict grievous harm on innocent people, instead of a plea for moral action.

            We put a man on the moon through competition with the Soviets. It was a pretty amazing accomplishment. But what did we ultimately gain from it other than bragging rights? The human race has much more to gain from cooperating than competing.

            What is your proof?

            In fact, the Universe does not agree with you.

            The Universe, in fact, uses competition to determine most of its right answers.

            The Universe’s primary test is pitting one thing against the other – winner take all.

            It is but one strategy to cooperate – it is not the only strategy nor is it necessarily always the best strategy.

            It seems to me that you are the one rationalizing evil.

            Oh?

            You still have not offered your answer.

            By what Right do you believe you can force upon non-violent men?

            • It is obvious to me that you have no interest in listening to what I have to say and that you are solely concerned with bullying those who disagree with you. Each time you post you take up more and more space on the page without really saying much. I have read your responses to others and you do the same to them. As far as I’m concerned I am done discussing anything with you and you can feel free to pontificate without any interference from me.

              Good luck.

              • Black Flag says:

                It is obvious to me that you have no interest in listening to what I have to say and that you are solely concerned with bullying those who disagree with you.

                Oh dear.

                Asking what should be simple questions of you is now bullying?

                😦

                Each time you post you take up more and more space on the page without really saying much.

                Probably because I haven’t gotten a response to my questions – so I try to ask the question again, in a different way, in case the previous attempts were not clear.

                Sorry for trying.

                I have read your responses to others and you do the same to them.

                Yes.

                I ask a lot of questions. It helps me understand what they are trying to tell me.

                What I have also found much of the time, the people didn’t know what they were really telling me – and find themselves in a quandary of contradictions of the principles.

                They want freedom for themselves but not for others.

                As far as I’m concerned I am done discussing anything with you and you can feel free to pontificate without any interference from me.

                The war between reason and illusion, illusion claims another victim.

              • Asking questions isn’t bullying. But pretending not to understand and responding with page-hogging B.S. aphorisms is. There is nothing I can say that will show you what a pretentious know-it-all that you appear to be. Go right ahead and assume I’m wrong because I lack the desire to butt heads with such a hardened ideologue. I firmly believe that reason is on my side (in addition to good manners), but you’re welcome to disagree.

                Have a nice day!

              • Black Flag says:

                As I said before, sir,
                most people think they know what they are saying – but really all they are doing is parroting some Authority who told them something.

                You claimed choice=freedom.

                I offered a couple of choices and you dismissed them – I don’t know why since based on your claim, they should have amply demonstrated freedom.

                You claimed hording is violence. I asked a simply question about your house. No answer.

                I have never claimed to ‘know it all’ – I am simply asking, so that I know.

                Because I find contradictions in your positions is not my fault, sir.

              • What is your infatuation with the ‘enter’ key? Can’t you write all of that into one paragraph? Each time you post you get more and more indignant and pretend to have been more than reasonable in the first place. You haven’t. You are gifted in the area of using code to decorate your posts, but you continually take up more and more space saying less and less each time. You find contradictions because that is what you’re looking for. When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

              • Black Flag says:

                See #32

  31. Black Flag says:

    D13

    You will not find it in the constitution. Do not pick the oath apart piecemeal.

    Very strange comment.

    I provided the entire oath – verbatim.

    What part do you believe was delivered piecemeal?

    Are you implying that there is some part of the oath written in invisible ink?

    you like to argue, so argue away. Play the arena of semantics. You have that right.

    My goodness.

    What semantic do you see in the statement “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;”??

    Is there some question to what these words mean? It appears darn clear to me.

    BF Says: It has nothing to do with putting boots in foreign countries.

    D13 says: No, but it has everything to do with following orders and the moral responsibility to do so.

    But have you tested your order against the Constitution? That is your oath – you did not swear to obey orders.

    You swore to defend the Constitution.

    It is amazing that you and I are in agreement on foreign countries but you have the audacity to question an oath to the Constitution which covers the very premise of our government and the right of our government to defend the Constitution in any way it sees fit to do so.

    It cannot do so in any way it sees fit! That’s the point of the Constitution.

    Any other allegiance, sir, is treason and sedition and I will have none of it. My government may not be correct all the time, but it is my government and my country.

    But neither are a party to your oath. If it is, can you point to the paragraph?

    BF says: And where in all of history has that ever been true???

    D13 says: History, my protected friend, is still being written.

    Have a great day.

    Ah, so in 10,000 years, no such example.

    I will place my bet on the side of history.

    History doesn’t repeat itself – but it does rhyme

  32. Black Flag says:

    Earl

    What is your infatuation with the ‘enter’ key? Can’t you write all of that into one paragraph?

    Most people infuse into their posts about a dozen mixed ideas – each with their own nuances, meanings and misunderstandings.

    One merely has to see all the threads simply trying to define ‘government’. Everyone knows government when they see it, but how many were able to articulate what they saw?

    When I see a ‘break point’ in people’s understanding – I break it out for particular notice.

    And, because of the limitations of the wordpress, it also helps keep the discussion thread organized.

    (See, I answer questions, now your turn!)

    . You find contradictions because that is what you’re looking for.

    Bingo. You win a prize!

    That is precisely what I am looking for!

    Muddling around irrationally is pointless.

    I cannot judge your actions from my point of view. How can I ever know mine is right and yours is wrong? (Ans: I can’t)

    So I can I measure whether your point of view has validity? The only way I’ve found is to test the consistency of your own statements against your own stated principle.

    If you say your principle is X but you apply it Negative-X; you’re inconsistent and contradictory.

    Contradictions do not exist in the Universe. So, something is wrong with your position or your prinicple.

    That is why I ask.

    If I find you attempting to claim X while also claiming Not-X, while then I’ll call you on it.

  33. Black Flag,

    Continuing the Zoning discussion.

    Who would decide if a plant is too smoky, smelly, or noisy? What is the standard?

    If you stop them from building next to you, don’t you just cause them to build next to someone else and thus infringe on them? NIMBY…

    Maybe some agreement on where industry, retail, office, residential should be located? But that sounds kind of like Zoning Laws…

    • Black Flag says:

      With all things – no harm no foul.

      I need only demonstrate harm.

      I have no problem with them making autos – just as long as they don’t impose or harm me in the process.

  34. OK…..I don’t have the stomach to read all the opinions based off of your own anal retentiveness or lack of therapy. I’m being harsh here but this is how it is period.

    Some people are born with the extra XY chromosone and that makes them genetically gay.

    There is one other issue: like it or not Christian folk, the bible had to eradicate the concept of reincarnation out of the scripture because they were NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO CONTROL YOU if you knew you could be an asshole in this life and wait for the next to get it right.
    So here is what happens….I have had real encounters….so listen carefully……
    a child….especially as s/he reaches the age of 3 years old, starts to be able to voice their greatest concerns about the previous life before them. We all have what is termed, a reptilian brain that is ancient, but what is happening to the children is a kind of shadow effect from the other life.

    Do not shy away from this conversation. The child WILL go on for hours, but s/he has to. This is the moment that the spirit resolves itself and becomes the new gender. If you shut this child up then you doom him/her to confusion for the rest of the adult life.

    So stop telling children to stop make beleiving, if you let them actually vent about the shit they saw, and you realized how trivial your damn life is in this day and age….
    you would feel like an …..ASSHOLE
    SORRY BUT TRUE

%d bloggers like this: