No More Parties for Me, This is Serious

I have left the Libertarian Party.  No, I have not left because I have changed my political position or philosophy, I have left because I realized a big part of the problem with our representative democracy is political parties themselves.  For a long time I have been voting third party, knowing that the current political parties are both corrupt, and are scarcely different in any important way. My line of thinking was that a vote for a third party was a vote against the status quo and a vote for someone who’s political leanings were far more close to my own than what was being offered by the two mainstream parties. I often was criticized for “wasting my vote”, and not employing strategy by not supporting a party that had a chance to win. I always argued that a vote for the status quo was a waste since, at best, it was a vote for the lesser of two evils, guaranteeing the perpetuation of evil among our representatives.

Now I am going a step further. I am not even going to employ the idea of a party itself when choosing a candidate, meaning that there is almost no traditional political strategy at all. Foolishness? Not really, I think the foolishness is the system we have allowed ourselves to be manipulated into.  The United States was not initially designed to have political parties. There is no provision for them in the US Constitution, nor is there any requirement to use such a system in the writings of the founders. Indeed, the first political parties emerged 20 years after our independence.

The first parties were factions within the initial government under George Washington, the Federalists and the Democratic-republicans. This was a basic philosophical difference between the two groups that underpinned all other issues. As such, an organic development of political factions, or parties, was understandable. Even then, however, the Federalists did not last long, and the Democratic-republicans were the only viable “party”, meaning there was another period of essentially no political parties involved in the selection of representatives.

As time went one, there were again ideological divides, the appearance and disappearance of the Whig party, and the eventual split of the Democratic-Republicans into two separate parties that lead, ultimately to today.  The problems began when parties started over specific issues rather than basic philosophy. When things really got bad, however, was when election law started getting manipulated. Most of this happened at the state level, but it was corrupt none the less. It is difficult to imagine getting onto a ballot without party support, especially on a national level. With the restrictions that are put in place these days it will not be easy.

The thing is, we need to stop focusing on the presidency. Sure, a president that would rescind all of the messed up executive orders, abolish the czars, not sign legislation into law that was unconstitutional or increased taxes or spending, and lift the moratoriums on domestic energy would be perfect, but the real problems are in Congress.  I think it would be possible to get someone in there that would not only refuse to play the game, but would expose it for what it is. I will be embarking on a project to that effect, I think it is the last best hope we have, and it all starts with refusal to play the game. The system will be hard to fight, hard to change from inside, but the games that are being played within the system now will make such a thing impossible unless we refuse to play at all. No deals, no earmarks, no compromising, no using technicalities to get things blocked or last-minute sessions to ram things through. No failure to show up at votes, no writing of bills so complicated they cannot be understood, no tacking on legislation that cannot stand on its own, no voting for anything that does these things, and no promises made that cannot be, or are not, kept. Full disclosure of anything legal to disclose and full compliance with every law that regular citizens have had levied on them.

New media affords the potential to accomplish all of this, but we must think outside the box, and if we are to operate within the system, we must at least not try to additionally play the games. There is no time for games, and no room for the corruption and hypocrisy that the games force one to engage in. I don’t care “how it’s done in Washington”, because that is precisely what must change. I don’t want an experienced politician, knowledgeable in law and public service. I want someone with a real life brain and integrity that won’t quit.


  1. 8)

  2. I am with you all the way Jon. And I agree that you cannot START with the Presidency. But maybe one day we could end with it.

    I also believe that when a bill is proposed, it should be on it’s own, not with a lot of other crap tucked into it. Most especially when it comes to spending bills. When this happens, we get what we have today. Deadlock. Some bills are not killed because of the main subject, but because so much garbage is added onto them. Then they are voted down because of one of the small additions. Or they tack something on just before it is voted on trying to sneak it in, or sometimes to make damn sure it fails. This particular strategy is used a lot lately if you have noticed. And then the Party that stuck it on rails against the other for killing it. And most of the public don’t even notice this is happening.

    If they don’t have time to pass bills on their own, then in my opinion, they have too many bills. I believe this to be one reason for the complication of legislation today AND the size of Government.

    On the Party affiliation, there should only be one Party. The American Party. You are an American or you’re not. You should not have a Party platform, but rather a position on the issues or ideology, and beliefs and values platform. And it should be the one person’s, not any Party’s. I am sick to damn death of hearing about Democrat or Republican issues. It’s like the Representatives in Government cannot think for themselves. They all have to have their position on issues handed to them from these Giant Party Apparatus’. Even the Independents, those few we have, caucus with a Party. In other words, why bother calling themselves Independents? If you are going to caucus with the Democrats, just call yourself Democrats and get it over with. Same with the Republicans.

    I called myself an Conservative Independent after the ’08 election. I am sick to DEATH of only having a Republican or Democrat to vote for. Even at the local level!!! If I was ever stupid enough to run for any office (or had the inclination, or was a political animal), I would run as simply an American citizen. And no one group would tell me how to vote or what to think. I would go my own way. If I believed I should vote for something I would. If not, I wouldn’t. If the people voted me in, they would expect this. Because I would make it clear going in. If you don’t agree with me, then don’t vote for me. Do not expect me to go with the status quo.

    I believe about the only one who has been doing this in the past, despite his Party affiliation is Ron Paul. He always votes his conscience. Consistently. He takes a lot of guff from the others for it too. But he has my respect even when I don’t agree with him, because I know that is what HE thinks, not what his Party thinks. You can tell that more and more are coming around to his way of thinking though, by the way the support he is getting continues to grow.

    Until we have a lot more like him, nothing will EVER change. Even at the local level. And that is where this MUST start. It will not happen overnight. Not in the next decade. Change would be slow. But it is change this country desperately needs.

    • I appreciate your support Esom. Surprisingly, I have not had that reaction from most people. Despite the fact that most people hate the party system and want something better, I find a lot of resistance to the idea of pursuing an elected office without associating with any political party. Even those who support a third party insist on either starting a party or joining an existing one. When you talk about not having a party at all you get either immediately laughed out of the conversation or you get a deer in headlights look.

      What I find even more surprising is how many people pooh-pooh the idea of speaking honestly and speaking your mind as a potential candidate. I can appreciate the argument that says that if you say everything you think with no filter you wont win, that sort of makes sense. But to say that one SHOULD lie or they cannot succeed really shows how far we have sunk as a supposedly representative society. It is possible to make campaign promises and keep them, you just have to not promise that which is not within your power, and you have to do what you say. I think if a candidate got in as a member of the House and did everything they said they would and rocked the boat a bit, served no more than two terms then went to Senator, served no more than 2 terms, then ran for President, they would have a shot so long as they kept every promise they made and bucked the status quo. I am surprised at the hopelessness of people, so many just say I am dreaming and then climb back into their rut and whine about how bad the candidates are. Its insanity.

  3. 8)

  4. The real problems are in Congress-hmmm-I have always agreed with this statement BUT I find that the other two branches seem to have a lot of power-I never thought they were supposed to have. Is this just Congress not doing their job-or has Congress used their power to give the other branches more power-or is Congress’s ability to stop the manufacture of false powers which the executive is claiming an illusion?

    • Its a combination of factors. Congress has handed over some powers because of gutlessness and indecision, or in trade for other things. Congress has also failed to challenge things that they should. Further, they have control of some things, like budget levels, that could negate powers in the other branches. And, honestly, regardless of the power of the SCOTUS, for example, if Congress was no longer passing unconstitutional laws, or better yet repealing them, then the SCOTUS would have a lot less power to trample the Constitution.

      Aside from that, there is more than just power levels to consider when looking at Congress first.
      1) The real seat of corruption is Congress, and most budget related things start there. The trading favors games and all that stuff is worse there than in the more prominent seats, like the POTUS.
      2) There is a more direct effect in Congress since a lot of the stuff at the execute level is appointed, not voted in. Now, granted, the right president could change all that, but as voters, we have to look at both branches of representatives, and I am sorry, but not near enough pressure is being put on Congress. Too many people hate Congress as a whole, but can be fooled that its not “their guy” that’s part of the problem.
      3) While I am making a seeming non-strategic move in pushing for a non-party candidate, it does not mean I am throwing strategy to the wind. We need to stop going for the big win (POTUS) and start a little smaller. It is a lot easier to get a no-name straight-shooting person that does not have the political and financial support of a party into Congress than to get them the national recognition needed to win the Presidency. Now, if that person served a couple terms in each side of Congress and kept every promise they made, then that person would have a very good shot at the presidency.

  5. I think you are spot on again. I however, think we as individuals need to take it a step further. We need to make absolutely damn sure that those non-representing representatives know exactly how we feel and what we expect, and at the same time we convey our expectations and supporting principles to our friends, neighbors and fellow citizens; as an act of independence. Maybe if enough individuals take this particular stance more will wise-up/rise-up and the individual voice becomes loud enough to warrant some influence.

    Maybe SUFA could create our own Consititution or doctrine and use it as a guide to advance the effort. We kind of threw this around before and just for kicks and giggles here are some starting questions:

    -Should the POTUS have Executive authority
    -What binding parameters should the Federal Government be limited to manage and maintain
    -What binding parameters should local and state government be limited to manage and maintain
    -What divisions of the Government should we maintain
    -What should the time limits be for Congressmen and Senators
    -Should the Electorial College be maintain or should we go with popular vote only
    -Should we maintain a significantly downsized EPA, Dept of Energy, Homeland Security, Dept of Argriculture, etc, etc
    -What original Constitutional Ammendments should stand as initially written
    -How, if at all, should taxes be collected and at what rate or %
    -Do we need the IRS
    -Do we need the Federal Reserve
    -Should we return to the Gold standard
    -Do we need a Dept of Education
    -What Constitutional Ammendments should we elliminate
    -How and who should have responsibility for the Military

    I am sure I have only scratched the surface, but it is a start.


    • These answers are oversimplified and idealistic (not taking into account the impact of things were these changes to be made immediately), but might press the discussion along. I will consider these points more deeply. I also will be doing subsequent articles on what the goals/campaign promises of our honest man candidate should be.

      -Should the POTUS have Executive authority
      Yes, but we should discuss what some of that is. In other words, “executive orders” need to be severely limited, as should executive appointments.
      -What binding parameters should the Federal Government be limited to manage and maintain
      A balanced budget. No deficit spending ever. Other than that, the current constitution is fine, if we solidify and enforce the 10th amendment. In other words, they are limited to what is listed, not restricted only by specifically listed no-nos.
      -What binding parameters should local and state government be limited to manage and maintain
      Balanced budgets all around! And abide by the federal protection of natural rights. Outside of that, whatever is fine, the states can compete with each other for the best system.
      -What divisions of the Government should we maintain
      The military, the courts, FBI, and immigration management for the federal level, the states can do what they want, so long as their budget balances.
      -What should the time limits be for Congressmen and Senators
      2 4-year terms.
      -Should the Electorial College be maintain or should we go with popular vote only
      Popular vote only, Senate seats should be voted state wide with the top two winners being the senators.
      -Should we maintain a significantly downsized EPA, Dept of Energy, Homeland Security, Dept of Argriculture, etc, etc
      Nope, either let the market or the states handle that. If there are state line issues with commerce, a department of interstate commerce can be in place to coordinate conflicts between state departments like FDA, etc.
      -What original Constitutional Ammendments should stand as initially written
      Most of them should be stood by, but the language on almost all of them might need to be updated/clarified
      -How, if at all, should taxes be collected and at what rate or %
      1% national sales tax plus usage taxes for infrastructure.
      -Do we need the IRS
      -Do we need the Federal Reserve
      Hell no
      -Should we return to the Gold standard
      -Do we need a Dept of Education
      No, states or the market will handle this
      -What Constitutional Ammendments should we elliminate
      The 16th.
      -How and who should have responsibility for the Military
      The current configuration is ok, except that we cannot engage in military deployment without a declaration of war (or in the case of helping with a disaster, a declaration of emergency) made by Congress.

      • Common Man says:


        I respectfully disagree with the POTUS having any executive order. We have a system for electing certain individuals and it does not require ultimate authority to execute. the Executive order has been used by almost every POTUS in the last several decades and for the most part those orders were unconstitutional or at least imoral.

        I also have a problem with the judicial system, local, state and federal. It, and those in it are rendering a great deal of laws that violate both Natural Law and Consititutional rights. They are also the main driver in a great deal of many new and revised laws that continue to errode Natural rights and individual liberty. The Supreme Court itself is a facade of what it was initially designed. And judges should be limited to 10 years not for life, they become moronic long before they die.

        Why 2 four year terms for representatives? Why not 3 year terms and out? And while we are on the subject of representatives, should they keep their retirement program and other exclusive benefits. I also believe that each and every son-a -bitch should take a 50% cut in pay and that pay rate stays stagnant at least until this country has a balanced budget.

        Everything else I think we are in line.


        • I understand your sentiment on executive order. I guess I don’t want the branch to lose power totally and be just a figurehead. Cabinet appointments, subject to Congressional approval should be fine. Appointment to positions of actual authority, however, would not be allowed. Executive orders would be eliminated or reduced to a very limited scope and nothing that significantly affected budgets. Most likely the largest flexibility would be for military action (only after official mobilization) and perhaps personal rewards to heroes, etc.

          I agree with the issue with the judicial system as it stands. I don’t have a huge issue with their role, but term limits, 10 years and a 2 term max I agree with. There should also be a certain vetting concerning constitutional expertise, not just “law knowledge”. And, there should be a process for removal if they blatantly violate the constitution. Of course, if something is ruled unconstitutional, like the judicial system has already done with the health care bill, it will be stricken immediately and must either start over or win appeal, but will be null and void till that time. That is not a failing of the current judicial system, that is on the executive branch, and as far as I am concerned, it nullifies their authority entirely, as they are in blatant violation of the checks and balances by refusing to follow a judicial order. Obama should be held in contempt and jailed immediately.

          I like the idea of two terms for people who earn it, tho I would consider banning consecutive terms. I think in the current climate 4 years is not a bad term period, but I am open to shorter terms 2 3-year terms would be fine also. As for the pay rate, if they did the work they are worth it, but there should be no retirement benefits at all. No one retires after serving 4 years at a job. No special benefits or legal exceptions will be permitted. NONE. The only unusual benefit would be security protection while in office. And every vote they miss, they take a pay cut. No shirking congressional duties to campaign or to avoid casting a vote on a bill to “stay neutral”. And all votes on all legislation will be made public and easily accessible.

  6. Canine Weapon says:

    • Canine….you really need a life. Did USW hide his slippers? Is there food coloring in your food? Are you wearing your tin foil protective suit?

      One rapto-cat is on the way for your amusement.

  7. I had to post this-it seems to fit the overall discussion and point out part of the problem with parties and government-the creation and control of things like the NLRB Board. And the following sentence points out another big problem.

    “An NLRB Union spokesman told The Daily Caller that organizers are “asking for the status quo” to be maintained. He explained that “we’re not under the statute that governs private employees — it’s a completely different statute.” ”

    February 24, 2012
    Unionized workers organize against National Labor Relations Board
    Published: 11:37 PM 02/23/2012
    By Adam Jablonowski – The Daily Calle

    In a twist on typical union activity, employees of the National Labor Relations Board are accusing their bosses of treating them unfairly. NLRB Chairman Mark Pearce and Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon are facing resistance as they attempt to limit the amount of on-the-job time unionized employees can spend on union business, and on attending seminars and other meetings.

    On Feb. 16, many NLRB employees attended a seminar at the Cornell Industrial and Labor Relations School in New York City, where NLRB Deputy General Counsel Celeste Mattina was speaking. Outside the meeting room, some in the NLRB Union passed out flyers accusing Pearce and Solomon of “Declar[ing] War on NLRB Employees” in an effort to “destroy their employees’ union.”

    The NLRB’s leaders, the flyer claimed, “are demanding an 85% cut in the ‘official time’ that employees can use when they participate in grievance meetings and arbitration hearings.” it also said they want to “unilaterally deny employees the right to attend seminars such as today’s Cornell ILR seminar.”

    An NLRB Union spokesman told The Daily Caller that organizers are “asking for the status quo” to be maintained. He explained that “we’re not under the statute that governs private employees — it’s a completely different statute.”

    The programs included in the statute that controls the NLRB Union include flexible work hours under a “flexitime and compressed hours” policy. “It’s not like we don’t have any of that,” the spokesman said. “It’s that we want big improvements because we haven’t had a contract since 2002.”

    The National Labor Relations Board is the agency tasked with supervising union elections and responding to complaints of unfair labor practices.

    But Center for Union Facts managing director Justin Wilson told The Daily Caller that even the NLRB is finding it hard to satisfy its union.
    Ads by Google

    “Unions have had it pretty good for a long period of time,” Wilson said. “NLRB is beginning to push back.”

    “The NLRB understands a lot of the struggles that employers go through with respect to negotiating with unions, and this … is a reflection of that.”

    The unionized segment of America’s private-sector workforce has shrunk in recent years, driving down dues collections and forcing organized labor to do more with less.

    “Public sector unions, for the first time, are grappling with the fact that they don’t have unlimited amounts of money,” Wilson added, “and they’re being forced for the first time in a long time to make concessions to their employer — who is the taxpayer.”

    The NLRB Union spokesman believes that these “are negotiable items left to the two parties.” He said limiting the amount of time employees could spend doing union business instead of performing their core duties would “cripple our ability to really effectively represent our members.”

    The National Labor Relations Board itself declined to comment on what it referred to as an “internal dispute.”

    Read more:

  8. I work for a trucking company as a driver manager. Basically I represent the drivers to the planners and to management. One of the things that I always tell new drivers is that I will not lie to them. They won’t always like what I say but they will know that I am telling them the truth. I also tell them that I won’t make a promise to them that someone else has the power to break. Because I do that my drivers have a great deal of respect for me. If a truck driver respects you, you’ve done something. They are a tough crowd but the only thing that they ask is that you be honest with them.

    Now, if we could find a candidate that would do that, we’d be in high cotton! Unfortunately, I don’t believe that is ever going to happen.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      I do not understand the cowardice in politicians. Whenever they tell the truth, whenever they take on the media for distortions and lies, they soar yet they immediately pull back. Why? Those of us old enough can remember what was done to Barry Goldwater by the media in ’64 and how it was complicit with LBJ in leading us into that little imbroglio in Southeast Asia. Goldwater was however, in many ways, his own worst enemy. Sharp as a tack, but not quick on the uptake.

      The media tried the same in NYC when Buckley ran for Mayor in ’65 and again when Reagan ran both for Governor and then for President. Because of the quality of the two and their ability to swiftly reply, they, the media, fell flat on their collective faces. I wonder how many actually remember that when Reagan challenged Gov. Brown (Sr.) in ’66, there were actual commercials where Brown tried to link Reagan as an actor with John Wilkes Booth also an actor! But, Ronnie was sharp as they come. Like Harry Truman and JFK before him, NOTHING was allowed to get past and the message stayed the same.

      Hey guys, pay attention, TRUTH WORKS!

      • I honestly believe the parties are part of this. When someone shoots too straight, their party leans on them to back off because the truth works, but the truth also hurts. Washington is scared to death of the truth, because they would all lose their power if everyone really knew the truth. If a truthful person gets in there, they are afraid that their own people will be called out, if not by the truth-teller, then by someone on the other side retaliating against the “unspoken rules” being broken. Corrupt people that are all working together have to work very hard at not having the truth come out, and to ensure this, they usually have dirt on each other miles deep. One truthful person could bring the whole thing crashing down. I think the campaign advisors do a lot of this damage control. Even the media is part of it, political journalism has not been burdened with truth in a long time, but that can’t get out either, or they would be discredited as journalists.

    • Stories like that, however, lend strength to the idea that it is possible. The thing keeping us from having a good candidate is the party process, and the supposed class of people “qualified” to be in government. That is what we need to get away from. The only trick will be to be heard by enough people, once that hurdle is handled, the rest is relatively easy. What you told the truckers could be what you say in an election campaign, you might be surprised how well it would work. A lot of people who vote would be swayed, but many would stay with their party. The real power is that a LOT of people who currently don’t vote would vote for such a candidate, tipping the scales overnight.

  9. Good article Jon. Removing parties would also lessen the money impact (which is why the parties would fight like crazy to keep them in existence) of elections.

    • True. Money would still matter, advertising is not free, but there are other means of getting out there. You are also right about how hard the party players would fight tho, it would not be an easy battle. And the real battle would be fought in getting on the ballot and getting in on the debates. Winning the debates, I think, would be easy.

  10. Arlington Texas school teacher reinstated…and rightly so. Teacher Who Made “Go Back to Mexico” Comment Reinstated


    Now to follow up…..Fort Worth, Texas School Board votes…….all 6 weeks exams, semester exams, and final exams are to be in English.

  11. Mathius™ says:
    • takers? takers for what-I will go for slapping the jerk upside the head and his lawyer-and the only question I have is what is in our law that demands a case like this even be heard??

    • Seen some pretty stupid things in my life time…..but this ranks right up there in the “galactically insane”.

      Certainly, this will not even get a hearing. What a waste of time and energy…….no takers here.

    • Someone deserves a dumbass of the year award!!! It would be funny if it wasn’t such racist horseshit!!!

      Like I always say and repeat, you will NEVER get completely rid of racism. It’s just some people’s nature to hate folks different from them.

  12. gmanfortruth says:


    I agree all the way. There is much more to the problem that you are looking at, but it’s a great start.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Is it me or when large numbers of people organize, corruption (or violence) almost always follows? I’m not speaking of short term events like concerts or one day events. Next question, why did the problems in Orlando occur? Do we now have riots over freaking shoes? Are we as a nation being further divided, racially, because of politics? Why do people still watch the Corporate Whore media? Is the only true answer to freedom, Revolution? Do we have time to stop the tyranny without revolt?

      Food for thought!

    • Indeed, and dont think that I believe this will solve all the issues, it runs a lot deeper and broader than this, but the deeper you dig into the foundation of a problem, the better. If we can weaken the parts of the system that help perpetuate the current problems, then it becomes easier to fix. If we are already too far past that point, then we have to overthrow and start over. This is sort of a last ditch effort for me, this government is quickly running out of time and I am quickly running out of patience.

      • “this government is quickly running out of time and I am quickly running out of patience.”

        That’s me also Jon. I just don’t see how we will make it through another 4 years of Obama. And to be honest I think it’s too late already. They have gone too far and spent too much.

        And I damn well know I’m swiftly losing patience with things. I’m starting to believe that there are more morons incapable of thinking on their own than intelligent ones. And even if they do think for themselves, they believe there is nothing wrong with the direction the country is going in. It is beyond belief how many of these there are. What is wrong with The American people? What has happened to our Republic?

        • Actually, 4 more years of Obama is no more scary to me than 4 years of any of the Republican candidates.We aren’t too far gone because of Obama or because of how much we spent this last 3 years. This country has been in decline for decades, and there is enough of it left to continue for even longer, especially since no country out there is really a viable competitor. The process I am talking about of turning things around is a 20 year plan, and it would not start this election.

          What makes me worry is not the money, or the current leaders, even tho both are horrifying and all that. What makes me worry is the culture and mindset of the people. I can deal with only 40% really “getting it”. That many could turn the tide easily within the current system. If I have 25% or so, then its more like revolution, but it would be successful and potentially low on bloodshed. If we are looking at under 20%, then the whole thing has to fall apart first.

          What scares me is that, while a lot of people see that there is a problem, not that many really get the big picture, or have the patience, discipline, and dedication to actually turn things around. It will not be fast, and it will still be frustrating. My hope is that a straight shooting, honest candidate would attract enough attention to get in, and then could rock the boat and expose things enough from the inside to wake people up. If that doesnt fly, then its time to look at a way to change things from outside the system

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I think that most people realize that DC is a totally corrupt mess. We have become a Fascist nation and that really needs to change. As we head towards a total police state, I can say that the checkpoints to “show your papers” will be the final straw. At that point, it’s on! I simply do not have the illusion that this can be fixed at the ballot box. The whole Republican primary has been a scam, I have no faith in our election system that continues to reelect the same people over and over in Congress, despite the fact nobody is happy with them. It’s not terribly hard to see that this problem is unfixable peacefully.

            • Knowing its a mess and knowing what to do about it are two different things. You may well be right about the system already being past the point of no return, I am fully prepared (mentally, working on the rest) for that. I do not, however, underestimate the power of the right leader. Revolutionary leaders in history have seemingly singe-handedly turned the tide if they could just get heard by enough people. I expect the right candidate would have a huge impact, but they will NOT come from any party, not likely even a third party. And they will most likely have multiple attempts on their life if they do what they really have to do once in office. It will not be easy, and it might not work, but there is only that slim chance to turn the tide without war.

          • What worries about Obama getting back in is the fact of how radical he has been the last 4 years and how much money he has spent. The debt has increased more under him than under any other President in 8. We don’r have any more to spend. We cannot contiue to add to the debt. And we cannot continue in the direction we are going.

            We are already into Fascism, and headed towards Progressive Socialism, maybe towards eventual Totaliarism and out right tyranny.

            I am beginning to see things G-man’s way. They ain’t no fixing this peacefully. And that ain’t gonna be NO fun a-tall!

            • I know, but do not underestimate the radicalism of Reagan, who grew the national debt by a much higher percentage than Obama, even if you extrapolate another 4 years. Sure, the numbers are far less, but the percentages are not. FDR, the Bushes, Carter, almost every president since the World Wars has expanded the debt and we are still here. Is it close to a tipping point, but desperation and fear is the favorite trap of those who seek power. Hitler himself was raised to power by a population afraid of economic collapse.

              We are already in tyranny. Some level of it anyway.

              There may be no way of fixing this peacefully, but whether there is or not, it will be no fun, and it will not be fast. It will not be quickly fixed. And trust me, we will not collapse because of 4 more years of Obama. We cannot be fearful, reactionary, or myopic. Think long term. Actually, the key is to at least think. Think, and act, but do not let fear be a part of your thinking or your actions.

  13. Bottom Line says:

  14. Not your everyday Sunday morning church choir!

  15. Wyoming House advances doomsday bill

    By JEREMY PELZER Star-Tribune capital bureau | Posted: Friday, February 24, 2012 6:00 pm | (65) Comments

    CHEYENNE — State representatives on Friday advanced legislation to launch a study into what Wyoming should do in the event of a complete economic or political collapse in the United States.

    House Bill 85 passed on first reading by a voice vote. It would create a state-run government continuity task force, which would study and prepare Wyoming for potential catastrophes, from disruptions in food and energy supplies to a complete meltdown of the federal government.

    The task force would look at the feasibility of

    Wyoming issuing its own alternative currency, if needed. And House members approved an amendment Friday by state Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie, to have the task force also examine conditions under which Wyoming would need to implement its own military draft, raise a standing army, and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.

    The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. David Miller, R-Riverton, has said he doesn’t anticipate any major crises hitting America anytime soon. But with the national debt exceeding $15 trillion and protest movements growing around the country, Miller said Wyoming — which has a comparatively good economy and sound state finances — needs to make sure it’s protected should any unexpected emergency hit the U.S.

    Several House members spoke in favor of the legislation, saying there was no harm in preparing for the worst.

    “I don’t think there’s anyone in this room today what would come up here and say that this country is in good shape, that the world is stable and in good shape — because that is clearly not the case,” state Rep. Lorraine Quarberg, R-Thermopolis, said. “To put your head in the sand and think that nothing bad’s going to happen, and that we have no obligation to the citizens of the state of Wyoming to at least have the discussion, is not healthy.”

    Wyoming’s Department of Homeland Security already has a statewide crisis management plan, but it doesn’t cover what the state should do in the event of an extreme nationwide political or economic collapse. In recent years, lawmakers in at least six states have introduced legislation to create a state currency, all unsuccessfully.

    The task force would include state lawmakers, the director of the Wyoming Department of Homeland Security, the Wyoming attorney general and the Wyoming National Guard’s adjutant general, among others.

    The bill must pass two more House votes before it would head to the Senate for consideration. The original bill appropriated $32,000 for the task force, though the Joint Appropriations Committee slashed that number in half earlier this week.

    University of Wyoming political science professor Jim King said the potential for a complete unraveling of the U.S. government and economy is “astronomically remote” in the foreseeable future.

    But King noted that the federal government set up a Continuity of Government Commission in 2002, of which former U.S. Sen. Al Simpson, R-Wyo., was co-chairman. However, King said he didn’t know of any states that had established a similar board.

    Read more:

  16. VH.. here’s one for ya..
    As the curtain rises, Hannah hesitantly steps onto the stage for her theatrical debut in college. Yet before she can utter her first lines, Hannah—unscripted—collapses in front of the stunned audience.
    After countless medical tests, all signs point to one underlying factor: Hannah’s difficult birth. This revelation is nothing compared to what she then learns from her parents: she was actually adopted … after a failed abortion attempt.

    There’s quite a push from the religious community, around here at least, to organize groups to see the movie. The website is quite extensive. I figured you might find this interesting.

  17. Went to see Acts of Valor….. Worth a look.

  18. NewsBusters reported Friday that Oscars host Billy Crystal intended to mock GOP “idiots” during Sunday’s awards presentation.

    Roughly forty-five minutes in, Crystal was true to his word taking a cheap shot at the Republican presidential candidates (video follows with transcript):

    BILLY CRYSTAL: A dark knight, an American psycho, a charismatic crack addict. You’ll get to choose one on Super Tuesday.

    And of course the audience found it hysterical.

    Read more:

    And they wonder why the Oscars are such a losing proposition ! I personally stopped watching several years ago when they became nothing more than a platform for political pot shots. I think it was Micheal Moore who originally made me turn the channel. I want to be entertained and it’s hard to be entertained by people when you look at their face and feel nothing but the desire to tell them to shut the *&^% up.

    • Hear, hear! 😆 I’m trying to remember the last time I was in a theatre..I’m coming up blank.

      • They really need to come to the realization-we don’t watch or come to many movies because we don’t like them-personally-they may well be great actors but they use their position as an ENTERTAINER wayyyyy to much to tell us -they don’t like or respect us or our opinions.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      It was a quick one-liner…don’t be so sensitive VH! 🙂

  19. Politically Rewarded Behavior: Calif. Lets Single-Occupant Volts Into HOV Lanes

    By Tom Blumer | February 26, 2012 | 21:32

    Silly me. I thought “HOV” when used in connection with expressway traffic meant “High Occupancy Vehicle.” Apparently not, now that California is allowing a 2012 version of the Chevy Volt to use HOV lanes, even by drivers who have no passengers. Maybe the acronym really stands for “Haughty Obama Vehicles.” Or “Hapless Odd Vehicles.” Or “Have-to Offload (these slow-selling) Vehicles.” I’m sure readers can do better.

    As would be expected, no one in the press seems to be noticing (or is pretending not to notice) the irony of letting politically favored driver-only vehicles into lanes which were originally designed to encourage people to carpool. Here are a few paragraphs from one of the longer items on the topic found at

    Story Continues Below Ad ↓

    Read more:

    LOL I guess it’s the least they could do for all those poor people who bought a Really expensive piece of junk.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      If the real purpose of HOV is to encourage people to more conscious in their use of gasoline through car-pooling, then doesn’t it follow to also encourage people to purchase cars that have a higher MPG? The only possible concern I can really see here is rather than limit it to the Volt, set an actual number for MPG that would allow a driver to enter the HOV lane (even if, based on that number, for now, it was only the Volt).

      • NO IT DOESN’T FOLLOW! Last I knew we were a free country! Free to drive whatever we want to drive. Oh!. you mean free as in free food stamps, free rent, free cell phones…..

      • That is NOT the real purpose of the HOV lane Buck. It was supposed to encourage car pooling to reduce overall traffic, minimize congestion and reduce productivity time that is wasted during commuting. It had nothing to do with gas consumption or the EPA until the green movement nuts hi-jacked it. Packing the HOV lane with high MPG, low powered cars with one person a piece in them defeats the real purpose, because it does not reduce congestion. In fact, as you pointed out, it increases it because you get stuck behind some slowpoke with no escape.

        Besides all that, do the math. The average sedan getting 24 mpg highway carrying 3 people still equals less gas usage than three hybrids getting 55mpg apiece. (The east coast HOV lanes permit single drivers in hybrids already, even tho they are worse on gas than a Geo Metro, which does not qualify). As usual, the government makes the problem worse by trying to mess with the market and control environmental impact because they are an incompetent bunch of fools that don’t even try to do actual mathematics, if any of them can perform such a function at all. All this will lead to worse traffic conditions, which means more time idling in traffic, meaning more wasted fuel, more wasted productive time, more cars on the road doing wear and tear, etc, overall more gas used and more emissions in the air. All this to make people more conscious of gas consumption? Bravo nanny state, you always know whats best for us regular people!


  20. Video: Canadian father arrested after child draws a gun in school …
    posted at 3:15 pm on February 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

    Well, to be fair, the local police did find a gun in Jessie Sansone’s house after they arrested, strip-searched, and held him for hours, after which they pressured him to retroactively consent to their ransacking his house without a warrant. It was a toy gun:

    Jessie Sansone and his family are reeling after he was arrested and strip searched by police after his four-year-old daughter drew a picture of a man with a gun in her Kitchener, Ont., kindergarten class.

    The 26-year-old father of four said Saturday the sketch was supposed to be him, getting the bad guys and monsters.

    The school must have thought differently, as after Nevaeh drew it Wednesday, the school contacted Family and Children’s Services and they called police.

    Waterloo Police met Sansone at the school when he tried to pick up his kids he was told he was charged with possession of a firearm. He was then handcuffed and put him in one of the several squad cars waiting outside, he said.

    But hey, this is for the children, right? So this doesn’t matter at all:

    While Sansone was being strip searched at the police station: told to disrobe, lift his testicles and bend over, his wife was home with their 15-month-old daughter.

    “They came to my house, told my wife that I had been charged with possession of firearms, that she would have to come with them, and that Sundae (their infant daughter) would have to go with the social worker,” said Sansone. Stephanie called her Mom who rushed over to take Sundae instead. …

    Sansone said police searched his house and found a plastic toy gun that shoots foam darts.

    Just remember — the Nanny State will give you “rights” only when it pleases them to do so. When it suspects you may have committed a random act of freedom, they’ll toss any government-granted rights out the window in order to Protect the Children®. God help you if you’re stockpiling Nerf guns and your daughter has a creative streak in class.

    Sounds like a family that may be choosing to home-school in the future, eh?

    Oy vey

    • For real. It’s like they’re purposely stirring the pot to get some shit started. Another plus for homeschooling!

    • It is hard to believe that this actually happened……but you know what scares me more than this issue……was the fact that in this interview, it was brought out that under Canadian Law…that you give up the right to warrant for search of your premise, as a registered gun owner. The police, without notice and without warrant, has a right to search your home and check your weapons.

      Does anybody other than me find this to be more scary?

      • Buck the Wala says:

        It is a bit scary, but its Canadia. Though two thoughs:

        1) It is a voluntary waiver of your right (not saying it makes sense or something we should look to adopt here)
        2) I wonder if there is any limit as to the scope of the search absent the warrant or what can be used from such a search?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          two thoughTs….sigh.

        • The only way you can not Voluntarily waive this right -is to break the law or lose the right to own a gun. What is voluntary about that?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Voluntary in the sense that by choosing to own a gun, you waive the right. No one is forcing you to own a gun.

            However, I never said it made sense or was a good idea.

            • Buck , you spend to much time justifying-it’s all that weird reasoning people keep telling me about 🙂 -bottom line common sense-you ARE being forced!!!!!

              • True it is force, and must be considered such if it is a condition placed on exercising a right.

                Altho, I would not mind if such a condition were used in another way. Like, for instance, if I eat at McDonalds, I wave the right to government health care. Then I get out of their little scam, and all it cost me was a $1 nasty cheeseburger. 🙂

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Yes, in the US, it may be considered as placing an undue condition on exercising a constitutional right. But again, this is Canadia!

        • You are correct…as a condition of gun ownership you are voluntarily giving up your right…..(Does that make it voluntary?)

          AND…..great question to limit of the scope of no warrant…..great question. Theoretically, you could be smoking a joint, I guess, in the privacy of your own home…naked…and the police come in looking at your weapons and arresting you for smoking the weed and being naked at the same time they were there violating some law on nudity probably….lol

          The points are endless. (I had this sudden mental picture of Mathius sitting naked in front of his tv with the weed and a RB……scary picture) SHUDDER!!!!!

          • Buck the Wala says:

            oh god no!!! I did NOT need that image, especially not before lunch!

            With the scope, my thinking is that perhaps such a warrantless search can only be used for evidence relating to the gun ownership, crimes committed with the gun, etc. In that case, the naked pot smoker could not be charged with possession/use of the pot, nor for nakedness (which, in Mathius’ situation, would be a crime even if in the privacy of his own home!)

            • Heh heh…….wonder where Mathius is? He is not defending himself….perhaps DPM kidnapped him…..tied him up and is pouring all of his RB down the drain…. cruel and unusual punishment.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Perhaps we hurt his feelings? Maybe you should send out a team of raptors to check up on him.

  21. Dang! Another Columbine going on in Ohio right now! :evil:. Sounds like it’s under control after 4 students were shot..shooter is in custody. Homeschool rocks!

  22. 22 Carnival cruise ship passengers robbed at gunpoint in Mexico

    Read more:

    This is happening with more regularity now. It has now happened in Acupulco, Cancun, Tulum, and Cabo. Now it is Puerto Vallarta. I remember two years ago, people and government agents were saying that the drug gangs and the cartel members would leave Mexico’s vaunted tourist industry alone. I remember people on this blog telling me how safe Mexico was/is. Spring break is coming up and you can get reservations to this very day at Cancun……used to be they were booked for years in advance.

    On a weekly basis, we see gunfights and hear gunshots from the border. The other day, a pedestrian in El Paso was hit in the leg while shopping on the US side. The border towns in Mexico are war zones and the violence is spreading across Mexico. They are hitting tourist buses, restaurants, and dive tours. Children cannot play in the playgrounds nor walk the hiking and biking trails along the river on the US side…..especially at night. What a sad commentary for the US. Border. Crossings in Texas are at an all time low….because Texas patrols its own borders. But Arizona and California, border crossings and violence are on the rise.

    Five Federal Lands in Arizona Have Travel Warnings in Place

    Read more:

    This is an actual closure notice on a Federal Park in Southern Arizona.

    “The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge has been adversely affected by border-related activities. The international border with Mexico has also become increasingly violent. Assaults on law enforcement officers and violence against migrants have escalated. Violence on the Refuge associated with smugglers and border bandits has been well documented. Many of these activities are concentrated at, or near, the border. The concentration of illegal activity, surveillance and law enforcement interdictions make these zones dangerous. Closure is in effect until further notice.” Where is the Federal Government?

    Most of the problem areas are located in southern Arizona and are annually visited by thousands of unsuspecting people. In an effort to protect the public, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has posted warnings at various parks, including the Sonoran Desert National Monument, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and Coronado National Forest. What is next….another sign?

    But…….the only answer I hear from the government and the left……..legalize drugs and it disappears. You cannot use the Army, that is inhumane. We pay millions to have National Parks and we cannot use them. Open the borders….it will be just fine.

    First legalizing drugs will NOT stop the problem. Legalizing prostitution will not stop the problem. Drugs are just 1/5 of the problem. Prostitution is 1/5 of the problem. And even then, with drugs….it is not just marijuana. Prostitution? Sure, let’s legalize it, as if that stops the slave trading…it will not because the bulk of the prostitutes are under the age of 17 and kidnapped from Central America…unless, of course, you wish to legalize prostitution lower than the consent age of 18. I guess we could lower the consent age to say…….5 years of age. That should cover it,

    Forget the fact that money laundering from other sources than drugs and prostitution is rampant. Forget the fact that the open border is just 189 miles from 3 known training camps for Middle East recruits. Yes, the cartels make money this way as well. Stolen vehicles is also 1/5 of the problem in Mexico……I know…..out law driving. Obama would like that.

    But wait…here is the answer to the Nationa Parks…..other than posting warnings……keep the United States citizens out…Yes…that is it.

    Oh…want to know one of the other 1/5? Pirated music and CD’s and DVD’s….almost as large as the drug trafficking. We stop trucks loaded with pirated music and movies all the time. I know…….I have the answer…..stop the music and movie making…..yes, that is it.

    What is amazing is that the Mexican Government is no longer concerned with the touristt industry… does not pay as much any more. It is more profitable to deal in drugs, prostitution, stolen vehicles, pirated items, and guns.

    But I know how to handle this.Do it the Texas way……..arm the border. It is working here. As an example, let me cite this.

    “A U.S.-Mexico border crossing in Texas’ Big Bend National Park that was once popular among U.S. tourists and Mexican shoppers will re-open in April 2012. It will link the area to the town of Boquillas del Carmen across the Rio Grande River. The unmanned port of entry will be monitored by officials hundreds of miles away. U.S. citizens will scan their passports and the identity of Mexican nationals will be biometrically confirmed. It is hoped that this becomes an International Park at some point.”

    Let me point out that the Big Bend area once opened to rafters and hikers is to be re-opened. No more snipers in the river and no more gangs in the parks area. WHY? Because Texas is doing its own thing. We have armed the ranchers with weapons and SATCOM. We have reopened the old 1800’s Forts along the river and are staffed with Texas National Guard troops. As part of training,our Texas National Guard troops patrol the Big Bend area. We use drones and aircraft. We use Bradley fighting vehicles. We have set up STATE run check points outside the US exclusionary zone. We have trained and increased awareness with all law enforcement agencies from the DPS to local police and have them tied in through SATCOM.

    Is it not amazing that you do not see this in the MSM…..that Texas has reduced its illegal border crossings by 83%. What gets through now is sparse but there is some that still gets through…..IS it not amazing that the Obama administration stripped Texas of the bulk of Federal funds but since we are using state troops….we provide our own funding. Texas is not to be used as a training model because we are, according to Mr. Dodd,……prehistoric in our methods.

    Ok my rant is over for awhile……remember, I am part of Texas border security and see this on a regular basis. Have to get it off my chest occasionally. (Oh, and for you gun guys, I do not carry the law enforcement Glock 40. I carry a Walther 308. a Browning 9mm high power for long shots, and an old WWII Colt 45 automatic for the up close and personal meetings. Note: the Walther is a boot weapon just in case. Never have drawn it yet except for target shooting (paper targets)..

    Have a great day all.

    • Colonel, the more I hear about Texas, the more tempted I am to move there! Not being sarcastic. I would love to live in a state that can take care of it’s self and doesn’t require the federal government to bail it out.

      • It is kinda nice, but others would say not……we do balance our budget but at a cost…..there are not many freebies available…and everything we do is pay as you go…..fee basis…….but the detractors say otherwise. But….being the 12th largest economy in the world gives us some leverage, I guess.

        We are often ridiculed for not providing a lot of what some feel are entitlements. We actually expect you to work here. And, it is very rare, that we have sub freezing weather….sometimes we get a range of cold for four or five days, but our growing season in North Texas is 10 months and year ’round in South Texas. All in all a great state….but we are an independent minded people. (to some independent minded = arrogance)…

        Come on down. 🙂

        • We will even let Buck come in here….but there are caveats for him. He must be conservative fiscally and a social moderate. He must pledge allegiance to the Republic of Texas, drink DP, eat fajitas with real Jalapeno, apply for a Texas Passport, AND be baptized in the Brazos River. He must keep Mathius on a short leash. He will receive an honorary stetson, gun belt with guns, and pair of Hoot Gibson Cowboy boots.

          • Buck the Wala says:


            I’ll tell you what, I’ll come over as a somewhat fiscally conservative (let’s say moderate) and a social liberal. I won’t pledge allegiance to Texas, but I’ll eat your fajitas with Jalapeno; I also won’t be baptized in the Brazos River, but will be glad to go tubing with a case of beer in the river. Heck, I’ll even bring a case for the Colonel!

            • Oohhh…a counter offer……can’t tube on the Brazos…BUT the Guadalupe is for tubing. Have to think about the Liberal moniker though….”them’s shooting words here.”

          • Dang, I thought you said no freebies, I’d move there just for the hat guns and boots!

        • Oh, I forgot,,,he must also understand that the term ya’ll…is singular and plural.

        • On a serious note, what is the job market like there? I am a dispatcher/driver manager and would like to continue in that profession.

          • Lots of trucking companies here because of the proximity to Mexico. I know the Owners and Presidents of quite a few. USW has my email…and he will give it to you….drop me a line there.

            (Note to CM: Got yours also)

            • Thanks Colonel, I’ll do that. I live in Florida now and the trucking industry here is NOT what it used to be!

            • Common Man says:


              Looking forward to our future communications.

              -Can we were Resistols insead of Stetson’s?
              -Ya’ll still got Perl or Lone Star beer?
              -Is it still legal to have 1 open beer while you drive; especially in the summer?
              -I have no problem with the Fajitas and Jalapeno’s, but really love Texas beef ribs with red beans and corn bread (home made of course, none of the Jiffy stuff)


  23. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    Anybody out there catch this in the last few days? Came and went very quickly. Not a single comment regarding the epicenter of the hammer blows on the tombstones. Of course it is our fault and there are no extremists except us Kwazy Kwistians!

  24. 👿

    Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions‘ as Newborns ’Are Not Persons’

    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:38pm by Liz Klimas Liz Klimas

    Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions

    Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.
    Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions

    Alberto Giubilini (Photo:

    Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

    The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

    The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

    This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

    The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:

    Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.


    Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

    Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

    The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

    And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

    The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.

    The National Catholic Register thinks that these authors are right — once you accept their ideas on personhood. The Register states that the argument made by the ethicists is almost pro-life in that it “highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument”:

    The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

    First Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn’t mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth abortions in future medical procedures, arguments such as “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious” began in much the same way in bioethics journals.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Ahh, we have become too smart for our own good. Time for the big meteor to strike and start the whole thing up all over again. Maybe it will work the next time. Is there anyone left out there who can be publicly allowed to say the words, sin, evil, devil?

      • What’s really scary is that people will say this is silly and it won’t happen here-but once these evil ass people decide it is safe to discuss this type of unacceptable evil-the battle is already half way lost. 😦

      • Nope. Not allowed to say those words. The (free) speech police will tar and feather you for discrimination. How dare you pass judgement?

        This is why we fear progressivism… and Naked Thursdays!!!

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          If you want to think about something that’s really weird, about 100 years ago, Germany kicked off a war which led to the 20th century being the bloodiest on record. After a 20 year time-out, they did it again. Everybody thought they lost. With the current financial bailouts going on in Europe and Germany being the ‘Strong man”, it is obvious that they won by other means. In 1945 we thought that we had defeated and buried the Nazi’s and their views on eugenics. Wrong again.

          I really liked the part about adoption causing “stress” to the mother. Esom, there is no limit. One can come up with a wacko justification for anything today and it is taken seriously by people who rally should get a job doing something with their lives besides screwing up other people.

          As I was reminding my son the other day, sometimes giving someone a punch in the mouth is the only answer. Sort of the equivalent of the Arkansas method of getting the attention of a mule with a 2 X 4.

    • If this is so, then exactly WHEN does it become murder? 1 month old? 6? A year? Will murder just become Abortion of Life? Sounds ridiculous. Does it?

      Experts are already agreeing more and more that lifw begins at conception, yet abortion is still legal. So how much will it contiue to be stretched out before it becomes illegal in the future.

      That has to be the most outrageous article I have EVER read on abortion. 👿

      • Abortion and euthanasia is just the beginning game-the wholesale devaluing of life is the purpose, so that society can pretend they are “morally” deciding who lives and who dies based on a mathamatical calculation or simply because it is easier. Hopefully, there is a limit to how much people can be taught to justify and a big enough number who will disagree-because many will agree that to kill these people is the compassionate thing to do.

        • I posted the article on my facebook page because I have to say I am about as outraged by this as anything I have ever read. I want ALL my friends and family to see this!

          I don’t see how this can be defended by anyone, but I’m sure someone will try. If not, it wouldn’t have been stated to begin with. This is as bad as it gets with abortion.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Esom, I don’t know how much you have studied the Eugenics crowd, but this is no surprise coming from them at all. They cam only pick on the innocent because they can’t do it to grown ups. Cowards, all of them.

            • Yeah G. But when will they get around to the OLD folks who can’t contribute to society either? That seems the logical conclusion to this “kill the newborn” bullshit.


    Okay, this is just dangerous and talk about violation of privacy!!!!!

  26. In the line at the store, the cashier told an older woman that she
    should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren’t good for the environment.

    The woman apologized to her and explained, “We didn’t have the green thing back in my day.”

    The clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment.”

    She was right — our generation didn’t have the green thing in its day.

    Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to
    the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and
    sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and
    over. So they really were recycled.

    But we didn’t have the green thing back in our day.

    We walked up stairs, because we didn’t have an escalator in every
    store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t
    climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

    But she was right. We didn’t have the green thing in our day.

    Back then, we washed the baby’s diapers because we didn’t have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy
    gobbling machine burning up 220 volts — wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that old lady is right; we didn’t have the green thing back in our day.

    Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.

    In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us.

    When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

    Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut
    the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

    But she’s right; we didn’t have the green thing back then.

    We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water.

    We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

    But we didn’t have the green thing back then.

    Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their
    bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service.

    We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets
    to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

    But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old
    folks were just because we didn’t have the green thing back then?

    Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a
    lesson in conservation from a smartass young person.

  27. Just wanted to point out that the following is an OXYMORON.

    “Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions‘ as Newborns ’Are Not Persons’”

    In addition it is simply MORONIC.

    • It may be an oxymoron and moronic but I thought and still think the abortion arguments are moronic. This is just a new extended definition. A new slant on what it takes to be considered a “person” because being human isn’t good enough anymore. Here’s the definition, I’m certain that at one time or the other in many people’s adult life they would fit this definition for one reason or another. And if you read further one doesn’t even have to be sick, simply a problem for their family or the state.

      “We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.


      Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life”

      Please take note that the crazies have been working for years to take away our unalienable Rights- LIFE, Liberty, and Property.

  28. Embalming Fluid-Soaked Marijuana:
    New High or New Guise for PCP?

  29. Okay, military people-is this true??? My understanding is that regular military gets paid very little.

    Obama Pushing ObamaCare on Troops, Forcing Them to Pay at Least Triple for Care

    Katie Pavlich
    News Editor, Townhall

    Feb 28, 2012 07:55 AM EST

    President Obama has already gutted the Army in favor of out of control entitlement programs and now, he’s going after military medical benefits in order to get more people on his ObamaCare rolls. In Obama’s latest budget, military families will be forced to pay substantially more for medical care through the military while civilian defense union workers will continue receiving the same benefits.

    The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

    The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

    The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

    It seems as if Obama is trying to make joining the military so unenjoyable in order to decrease sign up numbers. First, he reduces their force to a level his own defense secretary says is ridiculous and dangerous, which means military members are spread even thinner for deployments and other duties. Second, his budget would force military members to pay more for medical benefits than their civilian counterparts. Why be a soldier when you can be a defense worker?

    The administration is also pushing for more expensive Tricare payments for military members in order to force them onto ObamaCare, just like they are doing with private insurance plans. It’s all part of the move toward single payer healthcare.

    Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

    And just how much more will military have to pay?

    Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.

    According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.

    The military disapproves of the push:

    Military personnel from several of the armed services voiced their opposition to a means-tested tier system for Tricare, prompting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey to issue a statement Feb. 21.

    Dempsey said the military is making tough choices in cutting defense spending. In addition to the $487 billion over 10 years, the Pentagon is facing automatic cuts that could push the total reductions to $1 trillion.

    “I want those of you who serve and who have served to know that we’ve heard your concerns, in particular your concern about the tiered enrollment fee structure for Tricare in retirement,” Dempsey said. “You have our commitment that we will continue to review our health care system to make it as responsive, as affordable, and as equitable as possible.”

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      I’m sure that the Colonel has better numbers but the Officer Corps in particular is paid pretty well. While salary may look lower there are the benefits. In the NY Metro/Philly/Jersey area if you choose to live off base (preferred by the guys I know) the non-taxable housing allowance is somewhere around $ 2,500 per month for a Captain (O-3 rank). In addition there is a small monthly food allowance. Salary is probably around $ 60,000 for a captain with four years in. Enlisted salaries are not anywhere near as generous. A staff Sgt. (E-6) probably rates half the salary but close to the same in housing. A brand new private (E-1) makes about $ 18,000 per year, considerably better than my $ 89.00 per mo. in ’69. The downside is that cigarettes are no longer $ 2.00 per carton and booze no longer $ 2.00 a fifth.

      You can probably pull this stuff off the internet.

      We had a funny experience about 8 years ago where an old teacher of my eldest was whining about how she was supporting her two grandchildren while both parents were deployed. Both were West Pointers and Lt. Colonels. She was shocked when Steve told her that between them they did better than $ 150,000 per year back then. I never did find out if she sent them a bill.

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        There is of course a caveat. One, you can get shot at or blown up and two, much more likely, you work 70 hour weeks.

    • Why doesn’t the Sonofabitch force his freakin’ Obamacare on The Presidency and Congress??????

      Why is it good enough for everyone but our Federal Representatives?


    The Great Forgetting, by Mr. Natelson.

    I urge everyone to read this and then chase after the links. Please check out the Georgia Law Review article on Privileges and Immunities. Starts on page 1130. Kind of raises serious reservations about the SCOTUS view of the 14th Amendment. Especially as it relates to “Gay Marriage”.

  31. Contract Law-wow-never thought about this-okay people what say ye?

    Does the ObamaCare individual mandate make contracts unenforceable?
    posted at 11:00 am on February 28, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

    I must admit that until I heard this argument from the Institute for Justice, I never considered the implications of ObamaCare requiring individuals to sign contracts for insurance coverage. In any other context, signing a contract under threat of force constitutes duress, which negates the contract under centuries-old legal standards. What happens when government applies the threat of force, through fines and
    presumably an eventual jail sentence for non-compliance? IJ has filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court asking this very question, and constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley explains that the individual mandate violates the principle of mutual assent:

    Constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley, who is the executive director of the Institute’s Florida Chapter and who co-authored IJ’s brief, said, “The individual mandate violates a cardinal rule of contract law—to be enforceable, all agreements must be voluntary. The Framers understood this, and would never have given the federal government the power to force individuals into lifelong contracts of insurance. The Court should not allow the government to exercise this unprecedented and dangerous power.”

    As IJ’s brief shows, the principle of mutual assent, under which both parties must consent for a contract to be valid, is a fundamental principle of contract law that was well understood during the Founding era and is still a cornerstone of contract law today. Indeed, contracts entered under duress have long been held to be invalid. Yet the mandate forces individuals to enter into contracts of insurance that would never be valid under this longstanding principle. (For a copy of IJ’s brief, visit:

    If the U.S. Supreme Court fails to strike down the individual mandate, there will be nothing to stop Congress from forcing people into other contracts against their will—employment contracts or union membership, for example. If we still have a constitutional republic in which the federal government’s powers are limited, then the Court should strike down this law.

    The Institute for Justice’s brief is the only amicus brief filed with the Court that examines this case in the context of the history of contract law. The brief illustrates how the Supreme Court has recognized the principle of consent in commercial relations in its Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment cases, and it explains why the U.S. Supreme Court has a key role in acting as a check against this unconstitutional power grab by the federal government.

    Bart Hinkle at the Richmond Times-Dispatch extends the background on the amicus claim:

    From Hugo Grotius in the 17th century through William Story in the 19th and up to the present, legal doctrine has held that contracts are not valid unless they are entered into by mutual assent. If one party signs a contract as the result of fraud or under duress, it cannot be valid. But if Congress compels people to buy insurance policies — not as a precondition of exercising a privilege such as driving, but as a consequence of having been born — then, the institute argues, this would undermine centuries of contract law.

    Supporters of the Affordable Care Act are apt to say overturning it would amount to judicial activism — that the judiciary ought to defer to the political branches. But the institute’s Clark Neily and Dick Carpenter show in their September study, “Government Unchecked,” that the courts have been, if anything, too deferential. They find that during the past half-century the Supreme Court has struck down only 103 out of the 15,817 laws passed by Congress, and less than one-twentieth of 1 percent of the more than 1 million state laws passed during the same period. In any given year, the Supremes will strike down only three out of every 5,000 laws enacted around the country.

    Foley’s point in the video is well taken. If the individual mandate passes muster because duress does not apply when the federal government applies it, then the courts will have given carte blanche to tyranny. Where does that power end? Buying cars certainly implicates interstate commerce; will the government have the power to force us to sign purchase contracts for Chevy Volts? What would be the difference between that and health insurance? Thanks to the bailouts, the government has an enduring stake in GM, and at some point in time every person needs transportation, even if they are perfectly satisfied with riding a bike or hailing a cab now.

    Here’s an even more interesting question. If coercion negates these contracts, as it should, then the insurance company won’t be under any obligation to pay for your health care, either. After all, ObamaCare forces them to accept all applicants now, regardless of pre-existing conditions, so they too are under duress. Americans might be buying a lot of vaporware in 2014 if a later court decides to stay on the side of centuries of precedent.

    • Mathius™ says:

      That’s hilarious!

      It’s cute how hard some people are trying, though 🙂

      • Just curious Matt-you still sitting on that fence or have you made a decision yet-are you for or against Obamacare?

        • Mathius™ says:

          Nope. Still sitting on the fence (and the pickets are starting to really hurt, if you get my drift).

          • For a man who seems to have very strong convictions and ideas about most things-I find it odd you haven’t made a decision. What if I may ask, information do you lack that is causing you not to make a decision?

            • Mathius™ says:

              I don’t know what the law says.

              I know what it’s supporters say it says.

              I know what it’s detractors say it says.

              But I haven’t read the 200,000,000 page bill, so I have no idea what it actually says.

              Further, I have no idea how it will be implemented. And, beyond implementation, I have no idea what the downstream effects will be. And I have no idea how it will be changed/altered/weakened/strengthened/expanded/or shrunk in the coming months and years.

              I know what it’s supporters say the downstream effects will be.

              I know what it’s detractors say the downstream effects will be.

              But all evidence to the contrary, I am not actually psychic.

              So, maybe it will be good, maybe it will be bad, maybe it will be neutral. Most likely it will be, as with so much else, some good some bad, but I have no idea how much of each. Maybe it will establish exchanges and improve access and bring down costs. Maybe it will require Rahm Emanuel’s brother to forcibly euthanize my grandmother because she broker her arm and isn’t worth the money to fix according to the death panel. I just don’t know. There’s too much noise, too much hyperbolic cheer-leading and fear-mongering, respectively, for me to get a sense of the truth without wasting more time than I care to.

              • Forgive me Matt-but that sounds like a cop out. You have an opinion, you lean one way or the other. You either can’t state the laws nuts because it would make you have to seriously consider not voting democrat 🙂 Or you think the possible benefits are worth the risk.
                Cheer-leading or fear-mongering is true about almost every issue we talk about. And I’m not sure anyone knows everything that’s in the bill, heck that alone is enough reason to throw it out and start over.

                I just find it interesting that neither you nor Buck will defend Obamacare.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Hey, I’ve defended it as being overall better than what we have now; of doing a lot of good things that should (and need to) be done.

                That being said, I’ve also conceded that there are flaws in the bill.

                My biggest criticism though is that Obamacare does not go far enough — as I’ve said and argued here before, I support moving to a single payer system.

              • Actually Buck, no offense, but I think what you are defending, a single payer system, doesn’t exist. The parts you do support as far as I can tell has been proven to be un -doable economically and the rest of it-isn’t paid for either.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I know Obamacare doesn’t set up a single payer system. It doesn’t come close. And this failure is where my biggest criticism of Obamacare lies.

              • I’m not meaning to be a pain Buck or make too fine a point here-but nothing I have heard you defend or criticize is based on anything that is actually in Obamacare. So do you support the actual bill as written?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Not trying to be a pain either. Do I support it as written? Yes and no. There are many elements I wholeheartedly support (e.g., preexisting conditions). Also, the majority of my criticism comes from the ‘left’ – not that it is unconstitutional noe infringes on freedom, but that it doesn’t go far enough. Obamacare doesn’t move us towards a single payer system; hell, it doesn’t even provide for a strong public option!

              • Buck, can you do a list of advantages or reasons a single payer system is better? I know you have said a variety of things, just wondering if I can get a consolidated set of reasons/reasoning.

              • Buck the Wala says:


                The major advantages to a single payer system are really three-fold:

                1) Universal coverage
                2) Reduces health care costs
                3) Business certainty

                It’s good for individuals, good for employers, and good for the overall economy.

                Here’s a link to a site that goes into some of these issues in more detail:

                To be clear though, I don’t necessarily support a pure single-payer system as the only solution.

    • Actually. I have been so caught up in the fact that it violates the Constitution that I have thought about it that way. It does make sense though. It certainly would invalidate all contracts though. It would damn sure be unde duress when I had to sign the insurance contract.

      I wonder how they will get around this? Because I know good and damn well they will find some way around it.

  32. Went to vote depressing. I vote right at city hall in the busiest precinct. When I was there at noon I was the 13th voter! WTH? Hopefully the numbers will improve through the day..and hopefully there are lots of absentee voters..Cmon Michigan…Stand Up For America! 👿

    • I’m thinking a lot of people have no idea which of these guys they want to vote for-the primary has been so negative it’s hard to like any of them-so maybe they have just thrown up their hands in frustration and decided just to vote for whichever republican wins the primary. At least I hope their gonna vote for whichever one wins and not just stay home when it comes to the general. I’m not sure what these guys will do but I know what Obama will do-and that alone is enough reason to vote for any of them.

  33. From listening to this, it seems to me the Judge is saying that the man wasn’t guilty of harrasment because the plaintiff didn’t prove that he was attacked in the manner the plaintiff stated-not based on the defendant’s intent to stop a crime. That this guy dressing up as a religious figure made his actions almost reach ethnic intimidation was a little scary coming from a judge. Even if the zombie’s actions are stupid, repugnant, and childish. I can see looking at his reasons when deciding punishment but not in deciding guilt. His intent was to assault-which causes alarm and the only excuse he has for his actions is ignorance of the law.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Channeling Andy Rooney here, “Didja ever seem to notice how there is never talk of “responsibility” under the 1st amendment when somebody is burning a flag or when homosexual protestors make fun of Jesus or religious priests and nuns. Nary a word of protest at the NYC Halloween parade where all sorts of anti-religion bigotry takes place. Just wondering.”

      • Here’s one man’s justification-what ya think? I’m personally offended but mostly sad-but I do feel threatened!

        BBC Director Admits Anti-Christian Shows Acceptable, While Anti-Muslim Shows Seem Like Child Porn

        By Tim Graham | February 28, 2012 | 22:53

        Via Don Surber, we learn the London Daily Mail reported that BBC director-general Mark Thompson said that mockery of Christianity on British television was acceptable because Christianity was “an established part of our cultural-built landscape” which meant it was “a pretty broad-shouldered religion.”

        Thompson made these remarks after large Christian protests of the 2005 BBC2 broadcast of “Jerry Springer: The Opera.” He conceded that the British broadcaster would never have aired a similar show about Mohammed because it could have had the same impact as a piece of “grotesque child pornography.” Let’s review just how badly the Springer show mocked Jesus, Mary, and God:

        Brent Bozell explained in a 2008 column the Christianity-trashing plot points:

        1. Springer is shot by accident by Ku Klux Klansmen dancing around a burning cross, and he’s then transported to Hell to do a Springer show. A disclaimer is shown that reads in part, “It may not be suitable for viewers without a strong grasp of Judeo-Christian mythology.”

        2. Jerry reads one of Satan’s cue cards to introduce the next guest. Jerry hesitatingly reads that the guest is, “The hypocrite son of the fascist tyrant on high, Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus is fat, effeminate, and wearing a diaper.

        3. Satan sings, “So he turned the water into wine, oooh! So he walked across the freaking seas, oooh! So you got yourself crucified. Here’s a little biscuit from me.” Satan holds up an off-white cookie that resembles the Eucharist. Jesus then grabs the biscuit from Satan and holds it above his head before throwing it down as he sings: “I am Jesus, son of man, son of Mary, son of God. So do not, do not, do not f— with me. I do not want your biscuit. I want your love and your respect, for I am love and I love all mankind.”

        4. The chorus then sings, “Jesus is gay, Jesus is gay.” Jesus yells at the choir to stop, but then admits, “Actually, I am a bit gay.”

        5. Eve sings to Jesus that she shouldn’t have been cast out of the garden for one simple mistake. Jesus responds that Eve had her chance, and she blew it.

        6. Eve reaches under Christ’s diaper and fondles his genitals. Jesus sings that he was crucified and Eve didn’t even care. Eve and Jesus continue arguing and come to physical blows.

        7. Springer introduces Mary, and the choir sings, “Raped by an angel, raped by an angel, raped by an angel, raped by God!” The Blessed Mother enters. She is angry and pointing at Jesus. She sings a song to him asking things like, “Where were you when I was getting old? Where were you when the children cried?” Satan sings back, “Jesus wasn’t there. He didn’t care.”

        This same BBC director-general Mark Thompson objected when one newspaper counted the number of swear words and multiplied by the number of cast members who proclaimed them, and came up with 8,000. Thompson claimed the profanity wasn’t offensive because it symbolized the “moral and linguistic poverty” of Springer’s universe. “It certainly didn’t feel gratuitous.”

        All this was acceptable for British TV because Christianity is a “broad-shouldered” religion. Mr Thompson said: ‘Without question, “I complain in the strongest possible terms”, is different from, “I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK-47 as I write”. This definitely raises the stakes.’ He elaborated:

        “The point is that for a Muslim, a depiction, particularly a comic or demeaning depiction, of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.

        ‘One of the mistakes secularists make is not to understand the character of what blasphemy feels like to someone who is a realist in their religious belief.’

        When asked by his interviewer, the historian Timothy Garton Ash, if it was the case that the BBC wouldn’t dream of airing something ‘comparably satirical’ as Jerry Springer: The Opera about Mohammed, he said:

        ‘Essentially the answer to that question is yes.’

        He added: ‘The idea you might want to… think quite carefully about whether something done, in quotes, in the name of freedom of expression, might to the Jew, or the Sikh, or the Hindu, or the Muslim, who receives it, feel threatening, isolating and so forth, I think those are meaningful considerations.’

        This is, in short, the media discriminating against tolerant religions and favoring violent ones. How that makes liberalism look right or just is anyone’s guess.
        Share this

        Read more:

  34. Interpol Arrests 25 Suspected Anonymous Hackers

    Updated: Tuesday, 28 Feb 2012, 6:17 PM EST
    Published : Tuesday, 28 Feb 2012, 6:17 PM EST

    LYON, France – Interpol has arrested 25 suspected members of the Anonymous hackers group in a swoop covering more than a dozen cities in Europe and Latin America, the global police body said Tuesday.

    “Operation Unmask was launched in mid-February following a series of coordinated cyber-attacks originating from Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Spain,” Interpol said.

    The statement cited attacks on the websites of the Colombian Ministry of Defense and the presidency, as well as on Chile’s Endesa electricity company and its National Library, among others.

    The operation was carried out by police from Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Spain, the statement said, with 250 items of computer equipment and cell phones seized in raids on 40 premises in 15 cities.

    Police also seized credit cards and cash from the suspects, aged 17 to 40.

    “This operation shows that crime in the virtual world does have real consequences for those involved, and that the Internet cannot be seen as a safe haven for criminal activity,” said Bernd Rossbach, acting director of police services at Interpol, which is in the French city of Lyon.

    However, it was not clear what evidence there was to prove those arrested were part of Anonymous, an extremely loose-knit international movement of online activists, or “hacktivists.”

    Spanish police said earlier they had arrested four suspected hackers accused of sabotaging websites and publishing confidential data on the internet.

    They were accused of hacking the websites of political parties and companies and adding fangs to the faces of leaders in photographs online, and publishing data identifying top officials’ security guards, Spanish police said.

    The operation, carried out after trawling through computer logs in order to trace IP addresses, also netted 10 suspects in Argentina, six in Chile and five in Colombia, Spanish police said.

    Anonymous has in recent weeks targeted the websites of a series of police organizations, with subgroup Antisec vandalizing the website of a major US prison contractor last Friday.

    Anonymous took credit Thursday for an online raid on the Los Angeles Police Canine Association and previously attacked websites of the CIA and FBI.

    Read more:

  35. You have to be kidding me-A religious exemption for Individuals when it comes to buying insurance but no real religious exemption for individuals at all when it comes to having a conscience objection to just one or two items in an insurance policy.

    The new Obamacare legislation that was forced on unwilling Americans this week specifically mandates that we all purchase health insurance. That is, unless you don’t believe in that sort of thing. That’s right, the current health care bill contains a clause which exempts certain individuals form the requirements and penalties set forth in it.


    —In the case of an individual who is seeking an exemption certificate under section 1311(d)(4)(H) from any requirement or penalty imposed by section 5000A, the following information:

    In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individual’s status as a
    member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry, as an Indian,
    or as an individual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary shall prescribe.”

    Senate Bill, H.R. 3590, pages 273-274

    There are several reasons why an individual could claim exemption, being a member of a religion that does not believe in insurance is one of them. Islam is one of those religions. Muslims believe that health insurance is “haraam”, or forbidden; because they liken the ambiguity and probability of insurance to gambling. This belief excludes them from any of the requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in the bill. Other excluded groups include Amish, American Indians, and Christian Scientists.

    So, is it that easy? Is simply being a member of an “recognized religious sect” enough to exempt an individual from Obamacare? Not quite…the information provided by each individual must first be verified against the records of the Social Security Administration, and possibly Homeland Security, in order to prove citizenship and religious status. If the records are found to be consistent with the information for the individual applying for exemption, only then are they eligible. If the records are found to inconsistent with such information, the individual applying for exemption is given 90 days to clear up any possible errors with the reporting agencies. That 90 day period can be extended upon the discretion of the Secretary of applicable agencies. If, by the end of this period, the information is still not cleared up, the individual can then apply for an appeal. Whereby exemption can be decided, or reevaluated on a periodic basis, by the individual agencies in question. The appeals process is determined by the individual agencies involved

    In short, each individual applying for exemption must verify that they are citizens and that they are actually members of a “recognized religious sect.”

    If the individual can make it through all of the bureaucracy involved in this process, they can then obtain exemption. Trust me the federal government doesn’t want to make it easy for anyone to get out of participating in the system.

    The real question is, ”which religions qualify for exemption?” It’s easy to argue that Muslims, Christian Scientists, and the Amish will be “recognized,” because they have a moral conflict with insurance. However, what argument will Christians be able to make for exemption? Will they be able to claim exemption due to a moral conflict with publicly funded abortions? Not likely.

    • Sure, VH….it will be easy to do. Simply join a church that believes this way. It does not mean that you have to show up………there is no way that the government. yet, is going to put police on the doorstep. I am sure that if Obama does win a second term…that will be next but for now, simply join a church. It is impossible to enforce.

  36. Check this video out folks. Since Blaming Bush doesn’t work anymore, Obama has found some new people to blame. The Founding Fathers of the Nation are to blame for him not being able to “Fundamentally Transform America”.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Not quite what he is saying, though not surprised to see Fox take a quote out of context. Obama seems to be saying that some people are frustrated with Obama’s inability to push through his agenda. He is making the argument that the reason he has been unable to simply push through everything he would like is because of the constitutional system of checks and balances, of the role of the executive vs legislative branches we have. It is a respect for the constitution that has slowed down Obama’s agenda and perhaps frustrated some on the left who have been frustrated by the lack of progress in seeing some of his agenda be enacted into law. I don’t get the impression he is blaming anyone or anything, but more explaining the system we have.

      • Yeah Buck. He’s having to explain how that pesky Constitution keeps getting in his way. It’s funny though how when he wants to, he can just use it to wipe his ass, and if it’s convenient for him, he can blame someone OR something for stopping him.

        But it’s not ever his fault! 🙂 And Fox didn’t take it out of context. The words came out of his mouth. I understood exactly what he was explaining, and to who. It’s still playing the blame game.

        And saying Fox is taking something out of context is really saying something when you see how often the MSM does it and nobody ever has a problem with it then.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Sorry, but I don’t feel the word ‘blaming’ is an apt description of Obama’s comments here.

          It isn’t about blaming the founding fathers nor the constitution; the statement was more along the lines of discussing the constitutional system to those who criticize the president for not doing more than he has. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard past presidents make similar statements when faced with a similar type of criticism.

      • Uh oh,,,,counselor… are using double speak (second year law school, right?) My neighbor is an attorney….his words.

        • Buck the Wala says:


          • And the foundation for your objection is?????????????? Good morning, my barrister friend from Left World……how are you? Had your morning cup o Joe yet?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Finishing up my first cup and about to head down the hall for a second (I’m really useless before my second cup). But even absent a second cup, I object on the grounds of hearsay!

              Doing good today, a bit tired, but good. How do you find yourself out there in Texas Country?

              • Hearsay…..of course, how daft of me….repeating what was told to me…..ok….that means that I have to put put him on the stand to elicit first hand testimony.

                Things are well in the land of The Republic. Still too cold for my Texas thin blood….but that is the way of the world.

                I fear that we have alienated friend Mathius,….. it is not like him to let us go unchallenged…..and after all the changes I made in living arrangements for him…..sigh.

          • Sustained!

            • Buck the Wala says:


            • SUSTAINED? That is all you can say? SUSTAINED? And after I imported the dreaded “Rapto-mese Dragon Fly” to help with the mosquito problem? After I changed my marching habits to the far side of my house? Replaced my Punji sticks? Redesigned the Canal so the firing of DPM’s cannon salute does not wake you @ 0200 after his binge drinking? And this is the thanks that I get? SUSTAINED?

              My GOD MAN…….have you no respect?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Colonel, you wouldn’t be trying the bribe the esteemed honorable justice of the court, would you???

              • I’m sorry. Past favors cannot be allowed to color the court’s future rulings. I must be fair and impartial – and that is why I sustain Buck’s objections 99.9% of the time.

                But, again, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to refrain from practicing your rifle drills in the buff on the front lawn. All your neighbors do as well.

              • PS: If you don’t quit shooting my Raptor patrol in their collective butts with your composite slingshot and ceramic ball bearings ( yes, we caught you on infra-red sneaky camera)…I will NOT be responsible for the outcome. Do you know how expensive it is to outfit a raptor with Kevlar body armor?

              • Just a little bit of harmless sport….

                I imagine the problem isn’t the cost of acquiring the armor: I wouldn’t want to be the one to try to put it on them..

              • @ Mathius….yes, it gets a little testy getting that armor on….however, with enough grog (stolen form your vaults) anything is possible. What DO you put into that stuff.

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                I cook it up myself. Back when I was trapped in that basement (thanks for that, by the way!), Mathius had me cooking up vats for him:

                Ingredients (scale as needed):
                8 oz Dread Pirate Mathius’s Select Pirate Rum™ (do NOT use substitutions)
                2 oz Bacardi® light rum
                2 oz Bacardi® gold rum
                2 oz Bacardi® dark rum
                2 oz Grand Marnier® orange liqueur
                2 oz grapefruit juice
                2 oz orange juice
                2 oz pineapple juice
                4 oz Chilled Water
                8 Sugar Cubes (brown)
                6 Cloves

                Wait for a full moon.
                Combine rums in large jug. Write XXX on jug. Mix well. Take one hardy swig.
                Pour Grand Mariner into fine crystal glass. Hurl glass at the nearest wall. Take one hardy swig from the jug.
                Add grapefruit juice. Add orange juice. Shake well. Take one hardy swig.
                Add pineapple juice. Shake gently. Take one hardy swig.
                Leave the chilled water where it is. This is PIRATE GROG, we don’t water it down! AAARGH!
                Add sugar cubes. Add cloves. Stir with peg leg. Take one hardy swig.
                Season to taste with extra cloves and/or Dread Pirate Mathius’s Select Pirate Rum™. Take one hardy swig.
                Take one more hardy swig. Add stopper to jug.

                Give it to your assistant wench to store for a fortnight in a cool dark place.

                Mix well before serving. Serve at room temperature or super cooled in liquid nitrogen.

              • THIS IS NOT FOR THE YOUNG!!!……..whoa… wonder I can get that armor on.

                And the chilled water? For looks? Faking out the LCB?

              • @ Mathius…you say “But, again, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to refrain from practicing your rifle drills in the buff on the front lawn. All your neighbors do as well.”

                D13 inquires: Why do you not protest the single blond lady across the street doing her rifle drills in the buff in her front yard? After all we were thinking of forming a drill team…

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                no wonder I can get that armor on.

                Don’t forget, Dread Pirate Mathius’s Select Pirate Rum™ is 350 proof (that’s not a typo), made using secret ancient techniques I won’t share here.

                That’ll put some hair on your chest.

                Not available for sale in all locations, but Texans can stop by the Thor’s Hammer and pick up a bottle.

  37. gmanfortruth says:

    Interesting video. While the message is clear, who is truly behind it is not.

    • Interesting-I find it chilling-I have heard this before-the last lines were “We do not Forgive” “We do do forget”.

      I may agree with some of their complaints but their method and their end game is unacceptable-a Socialist form of Anarchy that is somehow supposed to lead to freedom-I don’t believe this is possible . I’m not even sure it is their REAL end game.

  38. Anybody here on TriCare? If so, have you received your letter yet?

  39. @ Buck…..”Colonel, you wouldn’t be trying the bribe the esteemed honorable justice of the court, would you???”

    Of course I am and the problem with this is? I just have not found the right combination yet to sway him….it is there…I just have to find it. However, he is still a little miffed at DPM’s departure from his basement to Laguna Madre.

  40. @ BF…….keeping an eye on that Euro? Getting interesting…. Germany now thinking about devaluation like China….nice effect on the Euro…surely they would not be that stupid.

    • “One of the main causes for the monetary union’s crisis is the grave difference in the competitiveness of the 17 member states,” the German Chancellor told reporters. “If we don’t manage to achieve a process of adjustment, we won’t be able to stabilize the euro area permanently.” Germany has been one of the most outspoken countries on this issue, arguing in favor of budget austerity and economic reform instead of providing more money to countries weighed down by high debt burdens.”- Chancellor Merkel.

      • Note to Obama: “budget austerity and economic reform instead of providing more money “. Get the picture Doofus?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          But Sir, That would interfere with Doofus’s Cloward-Pivan plan. He would never change that at this point, it has almost worked. Just a few short months and it will have worked perfectly.

  41. What a selective memory this president has. In his campaign speech to the auto workers he couldn’t say enough how great his bailout plan was. Here Michelle helps him out a little with, “with the rest of the details”.

  42. Buck,
    I get the arguments for universal coverage (I do not think it is necessary, but I understand the sentiment. I also can agree somewhat with the business certainty aspect, since they do not have to concern themselves as much with whether they will lose an employee or work hours due to untreated illness or injury. If the payments are made by taxes then there is also a certainty that costs will not rise on the business itself.

    However, there remains the potential for lost work hours or lost employees due to illness or injury, just not complications caused by no treatment. Health care does not guarantee health.

    The one I really have an issue with is the reduced costs. Single payer systems have NEVER reduced costs, and even supporters of single payer often admit that costs inevitably go up. They go up partly from competition, but mostly because people are covered that were not before, and will take advantage of free health care to do unneeded things. The overall economic impact is an increased cost, thus is a negative. Even with so-called reduced administration costs, the totals go up. Can you point to a case where it has not? Besides that, it ends up very much like the education system. Very crappy, with the wealthy paying extra for better quality, private versions. The state of the education system should be a massive warning sign of the future state of health care in a single payer system.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      There are mixed studies on the cost issue. Most studies I have found show that yes, costs will continue to rise, though at a much slower rate than what is expected under the current system.

      Remember, there may be more costs as more people go to the doctor for check-ups, screening, etc., but these preventative costs (and the resulting treatment costs) are much lower than the costs involved for treatment at a much later stage when discovered.

      • Buck

        So it fails to accomplish the primary goal but the left continues to support it. Just brilliant.

        Preventive Care DOES NOT reduce high Medical Costs. Recent studies and comments from REAL Doctors have confirmed this fact. Its effect is on the margins and associated with those things where early detection can reduce treatment costs. That is NOT the major cost of medical care in this country.

        The ONLY thing that will reduce Medical Costs is for people to die before they become expensive.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          It doesn’t fail to accomplish the primary goal.

          Wait, what is the primary goal? To me, it is univeral coverage, but that’s my own primary goal. If your primary goal is cost containment, single payer has been successful in this area. First, single-payer doesn’t have the same administrative costs that private insurance has. Second, preventive care and early treatment is cheaper than later treatment. Third, under single-payer systems, costs have risen at a slower pace than under our current system.

          • Buck

            So now your economic theory is that a MONOPOLY “reduces costs”.

            But of course, YOUR monopoly is somehow righteous and the others are not.

            You rationalize your theory which flies in the face of economic reality by using FORCE to reduce price. Then you declare your MONOPOLY OF THE USE OF FORCE as a SUCCESS.

            Preventive care DOES NOT reduce future medical care costs Buck. It is a Freakin FALLACY. A LIE being spread by those with a vested interest in shoving this concept down out throats. NO TREATMENT is far cheaper than early treatment. And of course it provides the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number in the Long Run.

            • True, preventative care is only cheaper in cases where a cancer or other progressive disease was caught early. Testing for heart disease, etc. has not been shown to reduce costs, it has only been shown to reduce risks to an individual. Overall, testing and preventative care, because it is done on everyone, tends to be a net increase in costs and workload on the health care system. Preventative care is BS, the only real preventative care is living healthy, and that is not part of health care, that is lifestyle.

          • The only cases I have seen where costs rise slower than our current system was in places with a slower population growth and in a period that did not include a rapidly aging “baby boom” population. Apples to apples your cost containment is a dismal failure. Besides all that, most of those places also include an additional private care market, the costs of which are not factored into the numbers shown. Its all BS.

          • Curiosity, counselor ( now that you have had your JOE ) You said “First, single-payer doesn’t have the same administrative costs that private insurance has.”…Do you have a rationale for this? I have NEVER seen administrative costs cheaper in government run anything…and I have dealt with government budgets where admin costs are eliminated.,,,,,,purposely,,,,ti justify budgets.

            • d13

              Colonel, they consider PROFIT as an overhead expense.

              So the industry avg profit margin of 6% if taken over by Govt represents a 6% reduction in long term projections. Of course that is using TODAY.

              Once it is implemented and you run the analysis you can not use the “profit” anymore. Basic rules of economic analysis. Meaning of course that the annual avg price increase of 10% to 12% will resume immediately.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Well, yes, profit is one overhead in this context. In a single-payer system any profit would go back into health care costs.

                But allow me to repeat what I just told the Colonel:

                “Again, as I’ve said, I’m not entirely convinced a pure single-payer system is the best approach, and I know it is not the only approach, but from everything I’ve read it is certainly preferable to what we have now.”

            • Buck the Wala says:

              From one study I came across: Single-payer system “would save at least $150 billion annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private, investor-owned insurance industry and reducing spending for marketing and other satellite services.” Not sure exactly how they calculated that number, but it meshes with what I’ve read in other studies, articles, etc. I’ll have to do more research on it.

              Again, as I’ve said, I’m not entirely convinced a pure single-payer system is the best approach, and I know it is not the only approach, but from everything I’ve read it is certainly preferable to what we have now.

              • Understand your position…was just wondering……I was responsible at times for creating budgets for the military in specific areas….(ie.My command authority) but was specifically told not to put administrative costs into the budgets.

              • Buck

                “Health Spending and Public and Private Spending:
                While the United States has had above average total spending, its public expenditures are in line with other countries. At 7.4%, of GDP public expenditures in the U.S. on health are only 0.2% above the 15-country average (Exhibit 9). Conversely, the United States has much more private sector spending as a percentage of GDP. Exhibit 10 illustrates the proportion of public and private spending among the 15 countries. Private health spending accounts for 8.5% of the U.S.’ GDP, 4 percentage points more than Switzerland (4.4%), the next largest private sector spender.”

                So, lets recap. The “public” sector already accounts for almost half of all health care expenditures in the USA. Yet the Cost of the Public sector has increased just as fast as the “Private Sector”. Proving that Public Run health care is no more effective at controlling costs. Unless you impose Govt Quotas like the other countries.

                Second, if you reduce health care costs by 15% you will CREATE a RECESSION in this Country.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                JAC: “The ‘public’ sector already accounts for almost half of all health care expenditures in the USA”

                What constitutes the ‘public sector’? What demographic comprises the majority of this sector in terms of health care? I’m going to take a wild stab and say the elderly (higher costs than the average population), the disabled (higher costs than the average population) and those in poverty (higher costs than the average population). Now I can be mistaken here, as I’m not entirely sure in the numbers you are providing what constitutes ‘public’ vs. ‘private’ — can you provide some additional info?

                Also, while costs are a huge issue with any health care system, whether private or public, it is not the only issue. There is something to be said about ensuring everyone has access to quality, affordable health care.

            • The NHS admin in Britain in comparison to the US are 5 cents from every dollar spent. In the US it is 30 cents for every dollar.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Thank you for that additional bit of info! (And thanks for sharing the story about your wife’s grandmother).

                Perhaps if you have the time you could provide a bit more info on the issue of single-payer and the advantages of that system as you see it.

              • Bob

                Which means our Govt run programs are grossly inefficient.

                I don’t buy your numbers Bob. I am sure they come from some “group” but they just don’t add up, unless the Govt Overhead is far greater than our lefties claim it is.

              • They come from the government JAC, I assure you that every single penny is accounted for as the present government would like nothing more than to get rid of the NHS.

                When I lived in the States, the doctors surgery I went to had an assistant just to sort out the billing. That role does not exist in the UK, there is one point of billing so there is no need. When you are dealing with multiple insurance companies complexity increases. You then have the costs of the staff in the multiple insurance companies, its not difficult to imagine why the admin costs are so high.

              • “Perhaps if you have the time you could provide a bit more info on the issue of single-payer and the advantages of that system as you see it.”

                The main thing that overrides pretty much everything else is cost, I pay less than I was paying in the US and what my friends are still paying there.
                Quality of care is another one, there seems to be an impression from some in the States, if we are too ill you we are left in the woods to die. I have no problems getting doctors appointments and when I have been to the hospital I have had wonderful care. When my six week old son was found to have liver problems, I will forever thank the liver specialist who spotted the 0.5mm tube running from his liver to his bile duct on his third Ultrasound. If she hadn’t spotted it he would have gone into surgery 2 weeks later and cut open.

                Those are my personal experiences, I could share some more anecdotes but it would take a while. I have private insurance with my job (BUPA coverage) but I never use it. Everything is not rainbows and butterflies though. There are problems with the NHS, we spend half of what a person in the US is spending and in some areas it shows. Waiting times are not always good for some procedures and some cancer drugs for example have been classed as too expensive. France and Germany seem to have the best health systems and I would prefer it if we moved more in their direction. If I had a choice between the US system and the NHS, it would be the NHS in most circumstances.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I feel the biggest misconception in the “fight against universal coverage” here in the US is the issue of quality of care. I know quite a few people in/from the UK who have all had generally positive experiences and always had the care they needed. I know there are some issues with waiting times for certain procedures, but that is not necessarily the case with every procedure in the UK nor with every single-payer type system out there (as you point to France).

          • Buck the Wala

            Public = Government. I don’t know all the ingredients that make up the numbers I got them from a summary of OECD data/reports.

            1980 to 2008 The change in costs, as % of GDP, increased 3.7% for Public and 3.2% for Private. This is essentially the same rate of increase.

            Here is the summary report for your consideration. As with virtually all of these types of reports, it never addresses the real questions. Like So What? and of course What is the Cause?


          • Kristian says:

            If by single payer you mean a system such as Medicaid, if you think costs are bad now, put a system like that into place nation wide as Obamacare is attempting to do and the medical industry will go out of business. Medicaid doesn’t pay now, what in the world makes you think that Obamacare is going to be any better?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Sorry, but Obamacare is not attempting to put the Medicaid system in place nationwide. I would agree with you though that simply extending Medicaid to cover all (although arguably the simplest way of imposing a single-payer type system here in the US) would probably not be the best solution.

        • My wifes 80 year old Grandmother always used to complain about having headaches and she never went to the doctor about it. Well she collapsed one day and after four lots of brain surgery she is fully recovered. A cheap pill taken everyday would most likely have prevented this. I can assure you the cost of four lots of brain surgery is a lot more expensive than the pill she could have taken.

          • You know Bob-you could talk to us about more issues than just heath insurance 🙂

            • I doubt anyone would like to hear an Englishman’s view on American politics but there was a bit of misinformation that went on regarding health care systems around the world that I wanted to help straighten out.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Keep it up Bob!

              • Actually, I very much like to hear it, tho, having heard from others, I can assure you that there is as much variety of opinion as there is here. I have heard plenty in Britain who rail against the NHS as wasteful and lousy quality. There is a private health care system in Britain for a reason, and many who afford it do actually use it, unlike yourself, that could be a matter of preference or of health and the types of care needed, or even based on anecdotal/personal experience. I have also heard of many who come to the US for high-end or innovative care, things that fall outside of what the government there pays for, and the private care system here being more extensive, the right specialist is often easier to find.

                Still, while you mention it is not all roses, I can admit that it is not all bad. Like many things there are good and bad aspects. My issue is more philosophical than economical, but in the end, I think the economics fail as well. Europe is suffering financially, their spending far outpacing their earnings at the government level. The EU delayed the inevitable, and the fact that the US has handled most military burden in worldwide affairs (something I am not a fan of) has meant that the European governments have overspent without the excuse of a wasteful or hawkish military. The system can only last so long before it falls. Most of the numbers, including the ones you presented, do not show the whole picture. Your NHS numbers are comparing to the US private industry numbers. But what if you combined or averaged the NHS and your private health care system numbers and then did the comparison? Like it or not, if you want to compare apples to apples, you have to include all of the apples.

              • There are some who dislike the NHS but I assure you nobody but private insurance executives and certain politicians would want to move to a US style system. Private insurance here will not cover certain procedures because of costs, in some cases you have to use the NHS whether you like it or not.

                True some come to the States for treatment but please remember you have ten times the amount of people leaving the States to get procedures done in other countries. Most bang for your buck is India at the moment, they have better surgery results than the US and the UK.

                This is one argument I have never understood from people in the states, that of cost. Costs are rising yes, but we spend half of what you do (yes that includes private and public spending) per person. I would rather be using a system now where costs are rising steadily instead of the rocket projected line that is happening in the US. US spending is far outpacing that of all other Western nations. I have spoken with people from the US before and they said the UK should use a system like that in the US and I always say “Why would I want to start paying more for my health care?”. If the US had a cheaper system I could understand your argument about cost, but it is a bloated monster compared to other health care systems and in most cases looking at the stats you are getting worse results.

                Also yes, Europe is suffering financially at the moment and things look pretty dire but rest assured as soon as things are settled in the EU (for better or worse) eyes will turn to the US and that’s where the real fun begins

              • Bob, you have to understand that the cost argument is not so much from a perspective of health care costs, but of government costs, and of what health care will cost those who pay taxes. There are a lot of people in the states who pay little to no taxes, meaning that the rest of us bear the brunt of the costs. The young and healthy are not interested in paying for the infirm, and the middle class is sick of paying for the lower class. A single payer system will cost me a great deal more than my current situation does. I suppose we just don’t have enough of a collectivist/greater good mentality.

              • Well thats the joke, you are already paying for everyone anyway. When someone without insurance ends up in the ER and is unable to pay, who bears the cost? Does the hospital just shrug their shoulders and forget about it? Nope the hospital is a business and it will pass the money they lost onto the insurance companies? Do you think the insurance companies shrug their shoulds and forget about it? No they are a business, so they then pass the cost onto the consumer, i.e. you. That is one of the many reasons for the escalation of costs in the US.

                I struggle to see any economic benefit (well it benefits some people, a small number of people) at all to the American people with the system you have. Its not a collectivist/greater good mentality its just good economic sense. Every single Western country in the world has a form of UHC, every single one of them is vastly cheaper than the US system.

                Also wanted to raise a point you said above “I have heard plenty in Britain who rail against the NHS”. I was in a rush when I replied so I missed it. The vast, vast majority of people in the UK like the NHS, we are a nation of complainers but if the NHS was taken away, there would be riots. There are already protests outside government offices and the government have not even decided if they are doing anything to it yet!

  43. Anita

    What happened to the Michigan turn out?

    Your read on the mood.

    And by the way, how did you vote yesterday?

    My commentary: Santorum got 51% of the votes from those who placed “Outlawing Abortion” as their primary issue. Now while the media is using this to show how he “beat” Romney with the “evangelicals”, etc, I see a different story. Of those who have this as their “Number One” issue, the issue that makes or breaks a candidate, he ONLY got 51%.

    That means that 49% voted for somebody else. This indicates a contradiction in what they claim is their “primary issue” and their actual vote.

    • Agreed…..wonder what gives up there? I also noticed a pretty high Democratic turnout…..nothing unusual, I guess. We have the same thing in Texas. I have voted in many a democratic primary to vote for the BEST democrat…(yes, I said that)….for example, I voted for Hillary Clinton over Obama in the democratic primary.

      • Oh, sorry JAC…did not mean a snub….How are ya sir?

        • d13

          Good morning Colonel. Doing well as I sit here watching slush/snow fall from the sky. Going to get down to 26 tonight.

          How about things in yer neck of the woods?

          I saw some data last night indicating that Santorum’s attempt to get out the Dem vote backfired. Those making their final decision on election day broke for Romney. Although it was closer than some other categories.

          Bottom line: The Republicans have screwed themselves with the “proportional” allocation of delegates this year. Seems more “representative” and consistent with “Republican Govt” principles, but it is going to cost them against Mr. Obama.

          • d13

            P.S. Just heard on the radio a report that we Westerners sleep better than those of ya from the rest of the country. Especially the South.

            The goofball reading the report assumed it was because we are more laid back.

            My theory: It is all about Cool Nights.

    • I posted yesterday afternoon that I voted around noon. I was disappointed to see that I was only the 13th voter and I vote in the 3rd busiest precinct, right at city hall! 👿 I voted for Ron Paul. A few things I gathered:

      The ghetto (SE Mich, where I live) voted Romney as did the upper Lower Peninsula. Santorum captured the rest of the state, including the entire UP.
      We had a mini Operation Chaos going on with the Ds urging votes for Santorum..we’re an open primary state this year.
      Less than one million votes were cast.
      Can’t prove this..just a feeling..but the retirees and business owners went with Romney..the regular folk went for age group(just from speaking with neighbors & friends) went with Paul or just plain didn’t vote. I really think Mich could go red in November.
      I didn’t personally hear any discussions of social issues, but I have been hearing more and more discussions of ‘too big’ government and ‘get the old timers out’
      Signs were posted loud and clear that picture ID was required.
      Speaking with some election workers… they were not shy about trying to recruit me as a worker for further elections. They readily offered that they are paid $175 tax free for working the polls on that day and that they need plenty of help. Seriously considering taking the offer.

      • Was also told that we get primary Round Two in August. Whatsupwiththat? If a candidate gets enough delegates before then..what’s the point. No one could answer but a second primary is in the works. ?????????

  44. These ZoNation clips are great! Blow, Baby, Blow!

    • Hee Hee Hee 🙂

      vaginal ultrasounds are rape-transvaginal ultrasounds should be required by the medical community based on ethics, for the protection of the MOTHER!!!!!!

      The new chemical abortions are especially dangerous without the needed information. Stopping the egg from implanting into the wall of the uterus make estopic pregnancies much more likely-that is why most abortion clinics-which aren’t just totally abortion mills -already do them before and after a chemical abortion.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        But to make it mandatory as a matter of law!?

        • You tell me Buck-when I go to the doctor for any type of surgery-they run tests, they do ex-rays, mri’s and all sorts of things that help to insure my safety. Are these laws? If they aren’t laws are they ethical guidelines that a doctor can be prosecuted for not following if the medical community finds his not doing so amounts to malpractice.

          “They” are more than willing to allow abortions to stop back alley abortions but any type of regulating of the abortion industry which will help stop legal clinic preformed back alley abortions are out of line. It is clear that we have many clinics that are run totally without any attempt at being ethical -so YES. a law would be fine by me, it will not affect the ethically run clinic and it would help put an end to the unethical. So what is your problem with a law that protects the Mother?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I don’t know. I don’t believe they are LAWS, but medical guidelines that doctors follow. Off the top of my head I cannot think of any other medical procedure where we are looking to make a preliminary procedure mandatory as a matter of law.

            • Buck

              Would they not be essentially “regulations” if they are included in a Board’s required treatments, when said Board is established by Govt?

            • Well, I can’t think of another procedure that is as divisive or has the power of politics protecting it from the regular controls used for health facilities.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Forget about the divisiveness of the procedure itself and you are left with the government stepping into the doctor-patient relationship and mandating a specific procedure be performed regardless of the doctor’s or the patient’s wishes. Are you ok with this?

              • Yes, I am-because you cannot forget about the political affect brought about because of the divisiveness of the procedure and there is not a reasonable reason to not preform some type of ultrasound-unless someone wants to argue that the doctor should go in blind to preform an abortion-or dispense abortion pills without knowing whether or not the woman is actually pregnant, how pregnant, or if there are any other unknown problems. If the doctor-patient relationship is being used to further the unethical-which can hurt a patient and that any respectable doctor would insist on doing-I have no problem with there being a LAW that will demand prosecution if they choose to do the unethical.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Sorry, V, I have to stop you there… this is BS, total and utter.

                because you cannot forget about the political affect brought about because of the divisiveness of the procedure It doesn’t matter how divisive the procedure is. It’s none of your business. Period. Don’t want one, don’t have one. But just because you find it divisive doesn’t give you the right to meddle with the relationship between a doctor and a patient. If I find liposuction to be divisive, that wouldn’t give me the right to meddle with someone’s decision to have one, or to force the doctor to perform a medically unnecessary and highly invasive and uncomfortable procedure first. It’s none of my business.

                there is not a reasonable reason to not preform some type of ultrasound-unless someone wants to argue that the doctor should go in blind to preform an abortion More BS. Sorry, this is nonsense. If/when the doctor provides the abortion, he will use the medically necessary technology. If this includes and ultrasound, so be it, but you are suggesting that it is always necessary and that’s not always the case. If it were, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion because they would always be doing it anyway.

                But that’s not really the point now is it. The point is that they must insert this probe, then put the image up on a screen facing the pregnant woman to look at. Then to play, out loud, the heartbeat for her to listen to. Further, to be blunt, the point of this type of law is to make it more difficult and emotional for the pregnant woman, having seen the embryo or fetus, to decide to abort it. The goal is to force her to look at it, listen to a heartbeat, and think of it as her child rather than a small cluster of cells, using the mother’s own maternal instinct and biology against her, to manipulate her according to the will of the lawmakers. It’d be as if they required to you to submit to an invasive cancer screening then be forced to review scans of your lung damage every time you want to buy a pack of cigarettes. How would you feel about that?

                or dispense abortion pills without knowing whether or not the woman is actually pregnant Who is asking for abortion pills who isn’t pregnant? Is this a problem that women are faking pregnancy to get pills which are medically dangerous and, as I hear, extremely unpleasant to use? And, further, does this make a difference in terms of your right to interfere with their PRIVATE medical situation?

                how pregnant Huh? Last I checked, this was a binary situation. Pregnant or not pregnant. I am unaware of a “somewhat pregnant” condition.

                or if there are any other unknown problems If the DOCTOR decides that there are other problems to be alert for, he may at his own discretion advise that an ultrasound is necessary. But that is between him and his patient, not between a law maker and a patient. Since when do we think that politicians know more about medicine than the doctors to the point where they have to legislate how they do things. One of them went to a very expensive school to earn a medical degree while the other did not. Yet you defer to Joe Politician? Why? Since when?

                If the doctor-patient relationship is being used to further the unethical you consider this to be unethical. The politicians consider it unethical. None of this has any bearing on the situation because you and the politicians are not involved. Butt out.

                I remember when they passed a law (Kansas?) where the doctors are required to read a prepared script before performing an abortion. The script, written and mandated by the legislature, is simply medically inaccurate. But the doctors still have to read it word for word. The doctors are required to inform the patient that there is a high likelihood of sterility (false), chronic depression (false), etc, and to refer to the fetus/embryo (medically accurate terms) as a baby. Now, where does the government get off forcing doctors to lie to their patients or tugging at their heartstrings to manipulate their emotions to conform? If you didn’t agree with the politicians’ stance that abortion is murder, then you would be screaming from the mountaintops about the invasiveness of this kind of practice.


              • Buck the Wala says:

                Mathius: “More BS. Sorry, this is nonsense.”

                I wasn’t even going to get into the fact that this procedure is just simply not medically necessary in many instances. Thanks for covering that.

              • No, it isn’t BS Matt-you simply won’t separate the two issues-

                1. people screaming for abortion on demand and doing everything in their power to push their agenda -no matter the danger to the women involved. And people wanting the practice stopped and calling for laws to force their opinions.

                2. the actual medical dangers and what is actually BEST for the woman.

                Now I will gladly discuss my opinion on how or why some of these laws should be passed based on number 1.

                But the medical necessity of an ultrasound is indisputable.

                How pregnant, means “how many weeks pregnant” why wasn’t that clear to you 🙂 One can only use a chemical abortion pill upto 7 weeks of pregnancy-some have tried upto 9 weeks but it has caused complications and heavy bleeding. So an intravaginal ultrasound is the only way to be sure.

                And NO, I’m certain that women don’t fake a pregnancy for the pleasure of an abortion but I do believe they can think they are pregnant when they are not. And I don’t think any woman wants to have an unnessasary one.

                And yes, in the case of abortion -I might well back up laws I would normally frown upon-but then in most issues with laws-the personhood of a fellow human isn’t in dispute. What you call force-I call allowing the other human PERSON in the equation to use the only Voice they have. MINE and people like me and their own heart beat and human body. You think that’s too hard or cruel on the LOVING mother -too friggin bad.

              • Okay, Buck-tell me-When is it not necessary?

              • The only BS in this whole discussion-is you, are anyone else believing they have the right to decide when a human being has the right to life. We may discuss when we as fellow humans have a right to deny someone this right.But that isn’t the conversation anymore-Now the premise is human beings don’t have a right to life, unless we meet the definition society has temporarily decided on-and if you cannot see how dangerous and evil that proposition is-I give up.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Actually VH, I haven’t come across a single thing that demonstrates a trans-vaginal ultrasound IS a medical necessity.

                The entire thing stinks — it is nothing more than a bare-assed move to humiliate and punish women who choose to have an abortion. Alternatively, and this is putting in the best light possible, it is nothing more than a bare-assed move to try to convince a women who has already decided to have an abortion not to; an utterly paternalistic move.

              • Then you Buck are in denial.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                There is a ton of misinformation out there on this subject, but everything I am coming across is indicating that a trans-vaginal ultrasound is not medically necessary prior to having an abortion. I’m not in denial — I’ve been trying to get to the bottom of the matter since first reading of the VA bill.

                From one report:
                “The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a professional association of more than 55,000 doctors, has general standards for ultrasonography in pregnancy, including when it is appropriate to administer a trans-vaginal ultrasound versus a trans-abdominal ultrasound, i.e., the “jelly on the belly” ultrasound typically seen in movies. In 2009, ACOG published a “practice bulletin” developed collaboratively with the American College of Radiology and the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. For first-trimester ultrasound scanning, ACOG recommends trans-vaginal or trans-perineal scanning if the trans-abdominal exam is not definitive. ACOG offers a list of 12 “indications” for doing this type of scan, which include attempts to confirm a suspected ectopic pregnancy, to assess for fetal anomalies, to evaluate vaginal bleeding or pelvic pain, or to estimate gestational age. ACOG spokesperson Amanda Hall pointed out to The American Independent that abortion is not on the list of indications for a trans-vaginal sonogram.”

                Please prove that it is medically necessary.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                To add, from one provider:

                “Rose Codding, director of patient services at Falls Church Healthcare Center, an OB/GYN and abortion clinic in Falls Church, Va., told TAI that she thinks the new law is burdensome to low-income women or women who live far away from the closest abortion provider. A woman wanting an abortion will now have to make an extra appointment with her physician, she said, and depending on the circumstance, either she or her insurance company would have to pay for the appointment and the ultrasound. Codding said at her clinic, ultrasounds are used in the case of abortion at the doctor’s judgment or if a patient requests it. “All practices should be patient-focused,” she said.

              • I already have-they do abdominal ultrasounds when they are doing surgical abortions to guide them-they use vaginal ultrasounds mostly because of the introduction of chemical abortions- Because they are now doing abortions much earlier in the pregnancy(4 1/2 to 6 1/2 weeks) when it is impossible to even confirm pregnancy without one-to help determine the age of the fetus because the abdominal ultrasound is useless before about 8 weeks and iffy before approximately 9 weeks of pregnancy and the abortion pill is dangerous to the woman if used after 7 weeks pregnancy They also do this to make sure the woman doesn’t have an estopic pregnancy, to see where the fetus is in the womb, it is basically their eyes. They are also doing vaginal ultrasounds about 10 days after the abortion by pill, to make sure that the whole fetus was expelled because it is very dangerous if it isn’t.

              • If you look at Rose Codding’s words-she is not saying the ultrasound isn’t necessary-she is complaining about the 24 hr. waiting period. The ultrasound would always have to be paid for by somebody.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                You have more work to do; you have still not proven that it is medically necessary. Based on your argument, it seems that the procedure is often done for any one of a number of factors. But that doesn’t make it necessary. Everything I have come across is pointing the other direction. ACOG’s own standards (which I will defer to on this topic, thank you very much) does not list abortion as one of the 12 factors for which a trans-vaginal ultrasound should be performed.

                Yet you still argue for having the law step in to the doctor-patient relationship and mandate a specific procedure be done in all cases regardless of the wishes of the doctor or the patient.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Look VH, ‘medically necessary’ is a pretty high standard to meet. Whether or not a trans-vaginal ultrasound is done in most cases prior to an abortion is not the issue. The issue is having a bunch of legislators step in and mandate that this is done in all cases, regardless of individual circumstances, regardless of the doctor’s/patient’s wishes, regardless of whether or not it is even necessary (if it is ever necessary) in that specific case. From what I’m reading, it seems that the procedure is warranted in many cases, and is often done. But you are looking to go a step further, to make it required as a matter of law in every single case.

                To add to that, what do you think about the corollary requirement under many of these proposed laws to force the woman to view the ultrasound, listen to the heartbeat, or be read a bunch of medically inaccurate ‘facts’?

              • Yes, I agree it is a high standard to meet-but like I said before-this isn’t a regular situation.

  45. @ DPM: Requesting permission to add 2oz Jalapeno juice (fresh squeezed, of course,,,no sissy pickled juice) to your recipe. Just for you and Texans of course….no one else could handle it….NOT EVEN Mathius’ friend in lawyer land. I think his moniker is Buck the Walla…..

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      If you’re so inclined, I might suggest substituting Dread Pirate Mathius’s Select Pirate Rum™ with Dread Pirate Mathius’s Spiced Pirate Rum™. It is made with real Kraken tears. They’re tough to harvest, but they sure do pack a bite.

      Disclaimer: May be hazardous to your health. May cause spontaneous combustion. May cause cause coma. May cause, er, uncomfortable bowel movements. May cause permanent paralysis. May cause blindness. May cause temporary uncontrollable pirate speak. Seek help or ask your doctor if you have an erection lasting longer than 5 hours (4 hours is perfectly normal). May cause insanity, hallucinations, fever dreams, night sweats, night terrors, or levitation. May cause you to think you are the Key Master – but you are not.

      Please drink responsibly. Never drink and sail.

  46. @ Buck……I really wonder at how costs are allocated. I know that there is a mindset that if an administration asset is already in place and that can handle whatever “extra duty” it is… considered cost free. Meaning that the costs are already covered. I do not subscribe to this theory. When comparing the costs……you cannot claim that administrative costs are already covered. This is a smoke screen in comparisons. This same theory is prevalent in business. They call it downsizing or consolidation. This is pure BS when costs are allocated. There is nothing cost free…even if the asset is in place. So, I wonder how to compare single payer to insurance. As Bob pointed out, his numbers show a 5 cent vs 30 cents. I have to discount that. I think it is much higher but that certain costs are “deemed” to be already covered.

  47. Some people you just can’t reason with. Here is some of my give and take from an article titled “The Warren Buffett Haters Club”

    Stupid people hate him. Why shouldn’t he speak out about a system that is broken even though he benefits from the fact it’s broken? There’s nothing wrong with speaking up for others even if it’s not to your benefit. Some of you could learn from his deeds.

    No “Stupid people” are those that believe you can pay off the national debt by increasing a “rich” persons taxes by 15 or 20% when in fact if you took everything that those making over $1 million had it would not pay it off.

    That’s not the point, the system is broken and he’s pointing it out by SHOWING YOU HOW. We can’t pay off the debt until we stop spending more than we have. First stop, defense…cut it in half that would do the trick.

    “That’s not the point”


    “First stop, defense…cut it in half that would do the trick.”

    Defense is about one quarter of the budget. What part of $15 trillion do you not understand? If you spend $1 a second it will take 32,000 years to spend 1 trillion.

    His point is not that if you tax rich people more you will pay off the debt, his point is that the system is broken when someone who earns what he does pays LESS of a percentage of their income in taxes than someone who earns $50K a year. That’s the point. Do you not get that?? Further, letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the top two tax brackets would raise $700 billion each year.

    “As part of a law passed late last year, the Bush-era tax cuts for the richest Americans were extended for two years. The estimated cost to the government of that portion of the tax deal, $42 billion this fiscal year”
    Even the lefty Huff Post disagrees with your numbers.

    “That’s the point. Do you not get that??”

    If we are not paying off the debt why should anyone pay more?

    SIGH, just not worth the effort sometimes.

  48. In Memoriam: Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)
    by Larry Solov

    With a terrible feeling of pain and loss we announce the passing of Andrew Breitbart.

    Andrew passed away unexpectedly from natural causes shortly after midnight this morning in Los Angeles.

    We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior.

    Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love.

    Andrew recently wrote a new conclusion to his book, Righteous Indignation:

    I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and—famously—I enjoy making enemies.

    Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I’ve lost friends, perhaps dozens. But I’ve gained hundreds, thousands—who knows?—of allies. At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night.

    Andrew is at rest, yet the happy warrior lives on, in each of us.

    • Wow! This comes from way out in left field. RIP. Hopefully the website will continue.

    • Of “natural” causes at age 43??? BS! Big BS! Call me a conspiracy theorist – this has the fingerprints of the radical left all over it. Now will people wake up and realize what is going on? Those against liberty and freedom will stop at nothing, including snuffing out voices of truth, to get their agenda in place.

      • Mathius™ says:

        I was wondering how long it would take people to jump to that conclusion..

        • Along with you too apparently….

          • Mathius™ says:

            I always feel badly for friends and family when someone dies. So, to that end, I’m sorry he’s dead.

            But with regards to his “contribution” to the political discourse in this country, good riddance.

            And, no, I don’t think anyone killed him. These things just happen. Lots of people die suddenly at 43, whether they are average Joe’s or whether they are frauds who doctor up deceptively edited videos in order to discredit legitimate organizations.

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              Matt, from personal knowledge, I can tell you that ACORN was not legitimate. I stumbled over them in NYC three times in three different roles including public official. You cannot talk about them with authority unless you have been a recipient of their shake down tactics. I was in that spot twice. The first time they won and won big, the second did not work out as well for them. Happy to elaborate on my dealings with Bill Kuntsler and Bertha Lewis if you would like.

        • JUMP? There was no jumping with this lass….she ran head on…..however, I wonder why she thinks this….I did ask her.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Come now Mathius, I’m sure Kathy was just being sarcastic. You know sarcasm doesn’t always come off successfully in the written form.

      • Out of curiosity, Kathy……….why do you think this?

  49. SUFA-ites: Leaving for the frontier (border) this afternoon for a couple of days hunting druggies and slave traders. USW has an article that I wrote that I am sure will raise some hackles but will try to check in when time allows. Cleaning the equipment and the weapons today…Browning 9mm Hi Power with Black Talon Hollow points for the shoulder holster, Colt 45 cal auto for the hip, and a Walther PPK 308 for the boot and my ever loving MP5, three pair of dry wool socks, NVG’s, and a rolled up nifty Jack Sparrow hat for those frisky times under fire. Anyway, will check in……have great day all…..

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Have a safe trip down there Colonel.

      • Thanks, Counselor……will be careful. There is a dramatic increase in human trafficking of under age girls being brought up from Central America…I do not know what bothers me the most…..the slave traders or the demand for this age. By under age, I am referring to 10 yoa to 15 yoa…..I cannot believe that there is this type of demand.

    • And remember, NEVER….NEVER..stand down wind from a Raptor after feeding them frijoles and jalapenos……….

  50. Mathius™ says:

    I do not believe that I would vote for this individual.

    • Yea, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Also, those who favor the bad parts will orchestrate repeating them. Scary dude.

    • Yep.

      Huff Po featured this guy yesterday in an obvious attempt to TIE him to the Republican Party mainstream.

      Watched Debbie W.-Shultz this morning. The media training was hitting on all cylinders as she managed to get every invective included in a single statement.

      “Romney has to cower to the Radical, Conservative, Right Wing, Tea Party base of the Republican party”. Note: My paraphrase but the key words were all used in the sentence.

      And of course the Brain Dead MSNBC lady interviewing her just “smirked” and “nodded” in agreement.

      • How exactly do people get on the republican ballot-because someone really screwed up?

        • V.H.

          Not sure you were asking a real question but if so I will answer.

          All you have to do to run as a Dem or a Repub or a Libertarian, or a whatever, is to sign up to run for an office and declare you are “whatever”.

          The PARTY has no say in what you call yourself. They can later claim you are a fraud. But they can not force you to remove your self declaration.

          That is how Harry Reid got HIS candidate to run in the Republican Primary in Nevada, for example.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I dunno JAC, seems to me that Romney has been cowering to the far right elements of the party lately too.

        • You need to explain that statement!

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Have you been watching the debates? Listening to Romney’s statements?

            First off, he’s all over the place.

            Secondly, there’s been a clear march to the right, and then further to the right, and then even further. But hey, what do you expect, he is running for president after all.

            • I realize that Romney is trying to firm up his base-the objection was to your statement following these words “Romney has to cower to the Radical, Conservative, Right Wing, Tea Party base of the Republican party” When we are talking about a man who is a Nazi loving socialist piece of crap(at least according to this article-I am assuming it is a truthful article).

              So I kinda want to know just what part of those quoted words you agree with.

            • Sorry V..have to go with Buck on this one. :::crash..bang..thud..shit! ::: .. I hate when I have to do that. He said he’s conservative so many times at CPAC that I wanted to punch him. He’s trying to convince people but he says it so much that it’s like he’s trying to convince himself…I’m not buying it! Then the way he was drooling over the trees and streets in Michigan..WTH??? If it doesn’t must….not vote for him!!!

              • Mathius™ says:

                Hey! The trees are the right height. That’s important!

                Also, there was that great Golden Jubilee which Romney time traveled to.

              • Anita

                I don’t agree his is moving to the far right, but you assessment in general is dead on.

                Kind of reminds you of someone who is dying to be loved by everybody at the party. But everybody is not the same, so he looks completely “out of his element” or “uncomfortable” if you will.

                He needs to stop trying to “connect at the personal level” as the pundits say he needs to do, and just be the damn Executive Leader he knows how to be.

                That would help eliminate many of the “stupid” and “awkward” moments.

              • I’ve tried to respond twice and my post just keeps going to who knows where land-maybe they will show up sometime. But I’m not disagreeing that Romney isn’t really conservative or playing to the base. I’m just a little troubled by Buck bringing up the republican base, following Debbie S. quote implying conservatives and tea partiers are nazi loving socialist.

              • Test

              • Matt..saw that clip too! Here’s some more ammo for Buck…..I really hate myself now:


              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Matt, you think it possible that he, being the son of the Governor of the auto state who also was CEO of American Motors might have just possibly gone to an auto event and confused it with the Golden Jubilee? Back when I was a little tyke and Dad took me to the car show at the NY coliseum, I thought it must have been the biggest thing I ever saw.

                Not quite up there with being named after Sir Edmund Hillary or marching with MLK or winning the Medal of Honor wouldn’t you say. As a matter of fact it was a sort of piddling mistake. If you are going to attack Romney, you can just stick with the two Cadillac comment or “I like to fire people”. Those will work fine.

            • Your statement followed these words “Romney has to cower to the Radical, Conservative, Right Wing, Tea Party base of the Republican party”

              Because-let’s see-I’m a conservative, I’m a tea partier, am I far right-yep I’m sure my Christianity puts me in that catagory-radical, hmmm matter of opinion.

              So I guess I want to know just what part of those words you agree with. Just who in the above catagories do you believe are nazi loving socialist?

            • Buck

              Please provide ACTUAL examples of his positions that you view as “far right”.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Well let’s take the latest example du jour: Romney’s support of the Blunt Amendment.

                But as Anita points out, Romney’s position on practically every single topic has changed in the lead up to this primary run, moving himself further and further to the right.

                I dont’ think my comment was off topic — part of your post was about the statement made about Romney. I chose to respond to that portion of your post. Try to keep up there buddy!

              • Buck the Wala says:

                By the way Anita: Welcome to the dark side! mwahahahahahah

              • Oh hell no! NEVER! We’ll just say you owe me one big time!

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Hmm…if I owe you, you’re gonna be pretty upset with my ruling in favor of Mathius down below…

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                I see Romney’s conservative positions as the choice of wearing a Grey suit and blue tie instead of red.

            • Buck the Wala

              Re Romney moving positions.

              Sorry there Buck but we are discussing changes THIS YEAR.

              You can’t argue he is moving because of the Tea Party when he changed views in 2007, BEFORE the Tea Party.

              The changes Anita posted were made prior to his last run for President.

              How can you say that supporting the Blunt amendment is Right Wing or Radical in anyway?

              Or is protection of Religious Liberty now considered only a Radical Right Wing virtue?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Yes, he moved rightward in 2007 for that presidential run; that is true and that is before the Tea Party. However, he has moved further rightward in 2011-12 for this presidential run.

                The Blunt Amendment is pretty darn radical; I dont’ really see how you can argue that it’s not. So I ask: How is it that allowing any employer to deny coverage to any employee for any procedure/treatment/drug/etc. the employer has a moral objection to is not radical??

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          Fortuitously, he is not running as the Republican nominee. I assume that he managed to fool enough people into signing a petition to get on the ballot.

          Us far right elements tend to dislike Nazis at best. We find them antithetical to freedom. After all they are “The National Socialist Democratic Workers Party (NSDAP)”. I remember that they were very fond of things like National Health Care and selective abortion. Only now are our progressives catching up to their “progressive” ideas on Euthanasia of the 1920’s and 1930’s and even those post birth abortions we were debating the other day!

          I tend to dislike the fact that when folks feel they either can’t win the argument or have no argument, they tend to move into the guilt by association mode, ie: Nazi=Far Right=Republican. Notice how I carefully refrain from using Commie-Pinko-Dupe-Fellow Traveler even when I think it may have some merit.

        • Buck

          By the way. Your comment was OFF the topic.

          Try to keep up there my lefty lawyer friend.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Fortuitously, he is not the Republican nominee but merely a jerk who I guess got enough signatures to be on the ballot. Mr. Buck, us far right elements are not and never have been Nazi’s. We tend to dislike them. They are antithetical to freedom and tend to have a Socialist perspective. Hence the name, “National Socialist Democratic Workers Party (NSDAP)”. Last I looked they loved National Health Care and selective abortion. When it comes to Euthanasia, our left is catching up to their progressive 1920’s-1930’s ideas.

      I dislike it when, if you tend to disagree with someone’s principles, you, without proof, tend to use guilt by association ie: Nazi’s=Far Right=Republicans. It is very McCarthylike. But, what the hell, if you cannot win an argument, call the guy a Nazi. I believe Gore Vidal and Bill Buckley went around the block on that one.

      This is why I refrain from using Commie-Pinko-dupe-Fellow Traveler, even though I would really like to use it.

  51. I keep trying to reply-but they just go away-so this is a test-if they are lost in moderation-please delete a couple and post ONE of them, please 🙂

  52. Abortion, Buck style.

    The many comments between Buck and I (and others) have presented Buck’s base theory that abortion will not lead to a general redefinition of “person” or “non-person” to such a degree that anyone may be arbitrarliy designanated as non-human, and then killed.

    He denies the slippery slope.

    Well, Buck, you are wrong -again-

    Medical Journalists Call for ‘After-Birth Abortions’, Say Infants ‘Aren’t People’
    Anthony Gucciardi, Contributing Writer

    Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions.

    The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.”

    Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.

    Study authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, both from the University of Melbourne, state in their paper that “after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” They go on to say that while it is infanticide, they prefer not to call it that. Instead, they prefer the term ‘after-birth abortion’ — a term that avoids the true labeling of the proposed technique.

    Authors of the paper write that simply being a human isn’t something that grants ‘a right to life’. It appears the paper authors believe that they are the ones who are to determine whether or not a human can live or die. Under this train of thought, then these ‘after-birth’ abortions are not limited to infants.

    As I’ve argued from the beginning, once you agree that killing innocent human beings is “ok” in “this specific, small circumstance” – it will take almost no time before that agreement you made is used to justify killing you.

    • Mathius™ says:

      1. Do you have a link? I’d like to read this.

      2. Can you please respond to my questions from the other day clarifying your stance? You told me I was wrong, so I was hoping you could clarify my mistake so I can do better in the future.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      They prefer the term ‘after-birth abortion’; I prefer the term ‘infanticide’.

      To say that this is the inevitable conclusion from my argument to allow abortion is utter nonsense BF.

      • Buck

        But it is the inevitable conclusion, as I have already demonstrated!

        You arbitrarily pick a point in development of a human to justify its killing – I argued that such an argument means anyone can arbitrarily pick any point in development of a human to justify its killing – you denied it, and yet !!! Here it is…. others are doing exactly what I stated would happen, completely contrary to your claim.

        The nonsense, sir, was that you thought this would not happen.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          BF, you have demonstrated no such thing.

          • Hahahha

            Of course I have, Buck – I provided the link….

            after-birth abortion’ should be permissible in all the cases including cases where the [person] is not disabled.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              And I again state that this is not the inevitable conclusion drawn from the arguments for abortion. This is a stand-alone study by two ethicists making an argument. I could just as easily take an argument you or anyone else makes and draw it to an illogical end.

              • Buck

                And I again state that this is not the inevitable conclusion drawn from the arguments for abortion

                None so blind as those that poke their own eyes out.

                Buck, you claimed no slippery slope. You said it did not exist.

                Here it is, right in front of your face – where abortion is now justified after birth.

                You refused to imagine such a thing would happen a month ago.

                Now, here it is.

                Now you refuse to imagine that such a thing will be expanded to …………………. >>>> over here – yet – the crossing of the Rubicon happened …………………..<<<<<<<< way back here.

                Your position on this matter has always been irrational and your arguments empty emotionalism. Your arguments have been a good example of the vast majority of those supporting abortion.

                And the consequences of such an irrational position – as all irrational positons eventually reach – massive slaughter of human beings.

                This is the trial balloon of the expansion of "abortion" toward the continued expansion of arbitrarily killing of people.

                All small, incremental steps:
                1) Killing the zygotic
                2) Killing the fetus
                3) Killing the near-born
                4) Killing the post-born
                5) Killing the child
                6) Killing the adolescent
                7) Killing the adult

                ……… think you can stop it at any stage…. but you have justified every stage by your arbitrary argument.

  53. Mathius™ says:


    “Just curious Matt-you still sitting on that fence or have you made a decision yet-are you for or against Obamacare?”

    I’ve been mulling it over and mulling it over..

    Still mulling…

    A question for you: When Puritan was the victim of a wild fire a while back (I think it was him?), his home was saved by emergency workers including fire fighters. These men, their services, tools, equipment, supplies, training, etc, were funded by the municipality and state as well as, presumably, federal funding as well. In other worlds, the damage of a natural disaster – in this case, a wild fire – was mitigated by a socialized cost sharing, despite asymmetric risk (that is, not everyone lives in brush country, but they still paid). How do you feel about this?

    • Objection! sorry to BUTT in here but….

      Why do you always have to compare things? Why can’t you argue the issue itself instead of always bringing other things into it? I have never understood this about you or others for that matter. You ALWAYS end up off topic and never answer the question directly.. that’s why we never get anywhere. If you want to talk about PLAINLY’S ( 🙂 ) situation, fine but that’s not what V asked you…. just sayin

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Overruled! Let’s see where Counselor is going with this.

        Sorry Anita.

        • Objection

          Analogy was irrelevant and your ruling is a display of personal bias.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Oftentimes the court will allow a counselor some additional time to see where he is going with his line of questioning. That is what I am doing here – nothing more, nothing less. No personal bias whatsoever.

        • Darn.

          sidebar: can’t we establish some SUFA rules of answer the question? (besides you owed me one)

          • Mathius™ says:

            Yes. The rule is Buck, as the only lawyer in these parts, acts a judge.

            And he overruled you.

            Now, will the court please instruct the witness to answer the question?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Witness (that would be VH for those of you following along at home), your Counselor (Anita) was overruled in her objection to Mathius’ line of questioning. You are accordingly directed to answer the question.

              • First off Judge Buck-on what grounds was I required to come to court.
                Second-don’t mean to sound whiny -but if Matt can Mull-why can’t I. 🙂

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Mathius had you subpoenaed as a material witness. Please feel free to have your attorney mull as much as she wants on cross examination!

              • I’m just Attorney in Name Only..V argues much better than I do.. I just object..which I don’t seem to be very good at either….

      • Mathius™ says:

        If the court will please indulge me a little longer, I do have a point here.

        • With budgets tighter than ever, cities across America are increasingly looking for more free labor. Nowhere is that trend more evident than Yakima, Wash.

          “More and more every year, a large part of what we do is volunteers,” says Archie Matthews, Yakima’s director of neighborhood development services, “It saves us a ton of money.”

          Matthews says begging for volunteers is not beneath him. And to his surprise, he usually gets them. Once signed up, they do a variety of tasks, including construction work for low-income housing, painting over gang graffiti and keeping senior centers from having to close their doors.

          Mary Lizotte, 74, volunteers eight hours a week at a senior center, where the paid staff has been trimmed to just three employees.

          “We’ve been faced with cuts in the budget and threatened to be closed down a couple of days a week,” Lizotte said. “It’s not only good for them, it’s good for us volunteers.” The center is able to stay open seven days a week with volunteers doing everything from clerical work to preparing and serving the food.

          According to a Volunteering in America study, last year 63 million Americans volunteered more than eight billion hours. When you calculate average wages and benefits for city employees, local governments saved $173 billion.

          In many places churches are leading the way. “We’re at a time when, as citizens we need to be giving ourselves away freely to serve our communities,” says Dave Edler, pastor at Yakima’s Foursquare Church which held a park cleanup with several hundred volunteers recently.

          But not everyone is thrilled about the civic spirit. Some unions are pushing back, fearing volunteers are cutting into their territory. “They’re eroding the number of hours for our people,” says Ian Gordon of Laborer’s Union 1239 in Seattle. “It’s of great concern that they might be doing further work that we would normally do.”

          Gordon’s union represent 900 city employees, nearly half of them maintenance workers in the Parks Department, which cut staff by 14 percent. He’s met with city officials over the volunteer issue and insisted on a significant roadblock. Volunteers are not allowed to drive work trucks or use power equipment of any kind. No lawnmowers, no weed whackers, no leaf blowers.

          Len Gilroy of the Reason Institute says it’s about protecting their turf. “Unions see a threat to jobs and lavish benefits that they’ve secured for their employees,” says Gilroy.

          Ian Gordon won’t dispute that. “I need to be concerned about our people, who have lives, families and who need to make a living wage,” says Gordon.

          Some unions don’t have a problem. The Police Guild in Redlands, Calif., has welcomed a big spike in volunteer cops even after 21 paid officers were laid off. The city now has nearly four times as many volunteer officers as full-time, paid cops. Many of the volunteers do everything their paid counterparts do, from chasing down suspects to making arrests. “It’s essential for us,” says Redlands Police Chief Mark Garcia, “especially in tough financial times.”

          City officials admit there is a balancing act. They want to keep city services going in the wake of cutbacks. The only way to do that is with volunteers. The trick, they say, is to tap into a growing pool of free labor without angering their organized labor.

          Read more:

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            The Unions call these people “Scabs”. I know when I was an auxiliary cop in NY that is what I was called by the PBA rep in public on the 1st floor of the precinct. Had the Sgt. not stepped in, it would have been an interesting brawl.

          • Yeah, remember reading a few years back that a school district recruited volunteers for crossing guards to save $$. Union said no way. Of course, “it’s for the children” as they say.

      • Mathius™ says:


        To save time, I’ll go ahead and make my point.

        Everyone, everywhere, is susceptible to a natural disaster. Given a long enough timeline, we would all be killed by one. California? Earthquakes. Texas? Fires. Utah? Raptors. New York? Snow storms. Florida? Hurricanes. Kansas? Tornadoes. Alaska? Polar bear attacks. Mississippi? Flood. Arizona? Drought. Somewhere else? You can still be hit by a falling meteorite.

        As a society, we pool money (by means of taxes) to provide for services such as fires. But we are not all at equal risk of disaster. The north east is pretty safe, generally speaking, whereas Florida gets whacked once or twice a year. Yet we all pay into the pot, socialize the risk, and then use that money to mitigate the disasters. And even at the state level, there is a big difference between different areas of the same state, or even different areas of the same city – one part may be at risk while the other isn’t.

        A) the disaster can happen to anyone
        B) it can happen for a variety of reasons
        C) you can make yourself more or less likely to be harmed by proper action
        D) everyone pays in what is needed
        E) everyone gets out what they need
        F) eventually, you will be a victim
        G) if you choose to make yourself vulnerable (for example, living in brush country), you are still protected
        H) the damage can be minor or severe

        Why does this sound eerily similar to single payer heath care?
        A) a health problem can happen to anyone
        B) it can happen for a variety of reasons
        C) you can make yourself more or less likely to be harmed by proper action
        D) everyone pays in what is needed
        E) everyone gets out what they need
        F) eventually, you will be a victim
        G) if you choose to make yourself vulnerable (for example, by smoking), you are still protected
        H) the damage can be minor or severe

        So, getting at last to my point, the question is this: If we are ok with the first, why is the second so evil?

        • Anita

          I await your shredding of this argument. Time to see what you have learned.

          Hint: The comparison itself is an illusion.

          • Appropriately shredded for you JAC..although you probably have better reasons than mine…and although I think the same as you I can not spit it out quite so eloquently…

            Shredded because.. We cannot control Mother Nature or freak accidents.. and things like fire depts are for the greater good. Your health has no greater good affect on me…you can control much of what your health problems are, therefore I am not responsible for your health..and if you cannot afford your health care..that’s your problem to seek out family, friends or charities to help you. Further, the amount of people you wish to insure from my pocket because of no other reason than your “obligation” to help is far outweighed by the amount of a) fraud, b) abuse(overuse of service) c)flat out waste and inefficient practices by a central overseer. You are totally free to adopt an indigent to have and to hold til death does he part…For a cost/benefit type of guy..I can’t see where the cost of this ACA has any benefit to you..since it’s going to (or already has) affected your premiums as it is already. ….and whatever else JACs reasons are.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              “You can control much of what your health problems are” — not necessarily true at all; a lot you can’t control and crappy things (i.e., accidents) do happen

              “if you cannot afford your health care…that’s your problem to seek out family, friends or chairites” — that’s a bit cold-hearted, but I guess I can say the same thing for all of my money going to help people and communities ransacked by Mother Nature; why should I care? that’s the problem of those affected by the disaster…

              • It’s cold hearted to ask friends and family for help? Since when?

                When Mother Nature strikes..she doesn’t play. A call for help goes out around the country and millions are collected in one day.. A one time voluntary donation..not a mandatory cost forever and ever til you’re dead.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                No, its cold hearted to make someone depend on family and friends to be able to cover their catastrophic health care costs in the event of an emergency or some life threatening illness.

                When Mother Nature strikes, sure a call goes out around the country and millions are collected. But what about the millions that come from the government?

              • What about it? I didn’t have a problem with that part 🙂 I do have a problem with paying trillions to insure millions ( of which several million can get help elsewhere)

        • Firstly, Matthius, who says we are ok with the first? FEMA and other so-called disaster relief divisions at the national level have been demonstrably incompetent and corrupt. Point E has proven to be both undefinable and easily abused. Most people have their costs offset, not by federal assistance, but by private insurance, which does, in fact, vary its premiums based upon risk. Meaning, you live in a high risk area, then you pay more, or you go without coverage. As recently as Hoover’s presidency we saw major disasters that surpassed Katrina in damage based both on volume and how widespread it was. The solution? Encouragement by the government for local and national private businesses and charity to chip in. The response was faster, more efficient, and more equitable. The results were a faster recovery and superior preparedness to future disaster during the rebuild. Your analogy is a good one, it explains why national health care is a really, really bad idea and far inferior to a private system.

    • 1) Those guys were not federal
      2) Rescue is to emergency room as homeowners/renters insurance is to health care coverage. In other words, your correlation of emergency workers is equivalent to emergency room services, which are already in place. The comparable portion to comprehensive health care would be any monies for rebuilding/replacement that comes from one’s insurance if one has insurance at all.
      3) I stand by the position that even the taxes/funding for emergency services should be voluntary, meaning you can opt out, but you will have no right to services unless you pay out of pocket for the full cost of said response.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Excellent. Emergency disaster work, such as fire fighting, is analogous to emergency care. Great.

        But what about preparatory work. Say, when they do controlled burns?

        Or how they mandate building codes in anticipation of earthquakes?

        • Prepatory work, equivalent to vaccines. A variety of government supported things are in place for this. Again, there are arguments supporting this being a local matter, not best done at a federal level. Both medical, and even more so with emergency services and related operations.

          Building codes, equivalent to the FDA, which in previous conversations you, yourself came up with a very decent plan for transitioning to a private solution, or at least private option. In the case of building codes, those are decidedly local, and would be a dismal failure any other way. Federal controls do a bad job of being flexible and adjusting to specific needs. Snow load codes are a waste in Arizona, as are beach foundation depth codes on the shores of Lake Michigan, or earthquake construction codes in the upper midwest or even New York. In health care, the same issues would arise from one-size-fits-all approaches. Not only that, but the insurance AND buildings are paid for by the persons building or buying property in their respective areas. NOT by everyone equally.

          In fact, your analogies have served very well to show how, at most, government involvement in health care should be local only. Evidence of corruption and waste exists in all of your examples. Further, they have opened the door to the arguments supporting the government involvement you classify as acceptable, when, in fact, that too is over-reaching.

    • The question Matt-isn’t what I think about these two situations or whether I think we should help people-the question- Is it necessary for the Federal Government to be involved.

      Is there any reason that the States can’t handle these problems?

      Can these problems be handled through charities or private industry?

      Is it handing too much power to the government?

      I have never really lived in a world(when I was old enough to notice) where the Federal government wasn’t front and center and involved in almost everything. I just woke up one day and realized that-their involvement was growing-I couldn’t do anything of substance without finding some government regulation or fee-blocking my avenues for success, taking my money, my time, and more of my freedom and usually for something totally stupid and unnecessary.

      Every time we allow the government to save someone-WE are making a trade-we are giving away more and more of our freedoms. Now I look at Obamacare-it isn’t what anyone wants-yet we have it. More and more of the things which are in it are being shown not to work-the Class Act-undoeable-the mandate to buy insurance-I don’t care if it’s Constitutional or not-it expands the governments power even further. 1099, which was supposed to help pay for it-will cost more than it would bring in-undoable. The agency set up to oversee it-really one woman should have this much power. A panel, ONE panel, decides for all of us what is and isn’t okay.

      WE are going to give up more freedom for this. I can’t see it-I don’t even see where it will even do what it was supposed to be doing. Much like so many of the welfare programs-I see where they help in the short term but in the long run-they have proven to hurt more than they help.

      So yea, I can see the need for us to step in and help in certain situations, I can see the need to make sure people don’t die in the street-but I simply don’t believe the Federal government has to be involved and that they already have too much power.

      • Take a look at this. I had not heard about it until today but for some it may be old news. 500,000 people were evacuated from lower Manhattan in 9 hrs on 9/11. It was not done by government. At best the Coast Guard served as traffic cops.

        I grew up in tornado country in the Midwest. I still have family back there. Should a tornado hit family members, I have always planned to pack up my camping gear, tools and as much food as I can carry and head back there to help. I figure that within 4 weeks, we could have the shell of a house up sufficient to habitable and get family members in out of the weather. In 8 weeks it would be done. Much of what I see in many of these disasters is people waiting for government to act. As time goes on, government at all levels is becoming more hide bound and cannot act swiftly to remedy disasters. As a history lesson go back and look at the disaster cleanups after the Chicago fire and the San Francisco quake. Once the fires were out in SF (days not weeks) the cleanup began with organized work gangs clearing streets of debris. Dumping sites (the Marina District) were quickly identified. Today it takes weeks or months just to figure out what to do with the debris.

        As is often quoted, “The Lord helps them that help themselves.” In a disaster, I would never wait for FEMA or any government body to come to my aid.

  54. Mathius,

    Uh oh, Black Flag.. Google never forgets…

    Mathius: If you[r] neighbor is beating his child, do you not have a right or obligation duty to intervene?

    Black Flag: I have NO right to intervene – be very clear about that. It is not my rights being violated.
    I ONLY have a right to intervene when the child requests it – that is, delegates their right to self-defense TO ME.

    M: And what, if anything, can be done on behalf of a child whose parent(s) seems unable or unwilling to abide by such a standard.

    BF: The most powerful tool society has – non-violent enforcement of its aggregate of moral code.


    “I have no right to interfere, even if I think it’s wrong. Freedom has it’s price. What I can do is ostracize that parent, and force them through peaceful moral economic and social pressure to behave correctly. But, as I have explicitly argued in the past, even if a parent is beating his unconscious child to death on the front lawn directly in front of me, I can’t morally act because it is not my child, and it is not my right to do so.


    You suffer from a disease called “Failure to disclose your argument”

    You point to a objective moral theory – that is, I cannot impose the exercise of YOUR rights in front of your own choice to exercise (or not) YOUR own rights – by exampling an assault ….where you hide the further circumstances that the individual is unconscious, and unable to exercise his choices

    Instead of arguing the point: a person cannot exercise someone else’s rights without consent – you irrationally skid sideways and present dialogues regarding a state of unconsciousness vs consciousness.

    When you are ready to dialogue the subject appropriately, let me know.

    • Mathius™ says:

      where you hide the further circumstances that the individual is unconscious, and unable to exercise his choices I did no such thing. It was right out there in the open. I explicitly said it. In fact, I was very careful to include it for exactly that reason.

      You are the one adding to the scenario in your own head that you would attain power to act by a conference of that right by the child, but it is you who created this inference, not I. You just went ahead and assumed something that wasn’t there, and then you fault me for beating you to the punch by including something to prohibits your inference from applying.


      Let’s be clearer then, shall we, and return to the matter at hand.

      As with an unconscious child, we can safely state that a fetus is incapable of assigning it’s rights (assuming any such rights exist in the first place), correct?

      That said, if a pregnant woman were inclined to abort (or murder, if you prefer the term) said fetus, since it has not given you the right to protect it, you can do nothing to stop the procedure, correct?

      Now, from here, I don’t care how you feel about the actions, it is established that you have no grounds to interfere, correct?

      So, though you do not believe in government intervention in any way, insofar as such does exists, you would agree that an outside legislative or executive body has no grounds to force a pregnant woman to carry a fetus to term by the same logic that the fetus has conferred upon them no such rights, correct?

      Going further, you would agree that they have no right to mandate an ultrasound (and especially not a physically invasive trans-vaginal ultrasound), correct?

      And further, you would agree that they have no right to mandate that the pregnant woman view the ultrasound or listen to a heartbeat, correct?

      And further still, you would agree that they have no right to require a doctor to read a medically inaccurate script to a pregnant woman in order to scare her and manipulate her, correct?

      Assuming all these are correct, would you opine that the supporters of laws such as these (mandated ultrasounds, etc) would be appalled at the invasiveness and unjustified intrusions into otherwise private interactions with physicians if they did not happen to believe that abortion is murder? Put another way, would you agree that otherwise conservative/libertarian individuals are taking an ends-justify-the-means approach to coerce women to behave in a desired manner?

      • No sir, you did not.

        You raised an old post and presented it — and applied it deceptively to a specific circumstance where a person is incapable of making their choice.

        Nowhere in that old post of mine will you find the word “unconscious” – but that word is fundamental in your specific example.

        I ain’t interested in your deceptive argument style –

        The principle still stands:
        You have no right to exercise the rights of another person.

      • Fallacy of “changing the argument”:

        “……….it is established that you have no grounds to interfere, correct?”

        The proposition was about RIGHTS, not the matter of “no grounds”.

        Now you can resume your argument.

      • I have a question, Matt. Why do you think it is coercive to force a woman to carry a baby to term? Didn’t she make the decisions that lead to becoming pregnant? Wasn’t it her choice to begin with?

        Is it coercive for the government to force parents to use proper car seats? Feed them? Clothe them? Aren’t these all based along the same lines, the protection of the child?

        As I stated below, proponents of this and similar laws are not trying to “scare” and “manipulate” women, they are trying to force the woman to understand exactly what it is she is killing. While I generally shudder at government intrusion into personal liberty, I think it is the fundamental job of the government to protect human life. Don’t you think?

        • Mathius™ says:

          have a question, Matt. Why do you think it is coercive to force a woman to carry a baby to term? Didn’t she make the decisions that lead to becoming pregnant? Wasn’t it her choice to begin with? Firstly, it wasn’t necessarily her choice. Rick Santorum has been clear that he would not permit abortions even in the case or rape.

          Is it coercive for the government to force parents to use proper car seats? Feed them? Clothe them? Aren’t these all based along the same lines, the protection of the child? It is.

          While I generally shudder at government intrusion into personal liberty, I think it is the fundamental job of the government to protect human life. Don’t you think? Not really. Maybe. I generally think the job of government is preservation of society. It has been my experience that government isn’t very good at preserving life. It has been pretty good at preserving a society, civil order, domestic tranquility, etc.

          As I stated below, proponents of this and similar laws are not trying to “scare” and “manipulate” women, they are trying to force the woman to understand exactly what it is she is killing How very parternalistic of you. Yes, you’re just using government to make a woman who wants to have a private medical procedure allow the insertion of a probe into her vagina and, depending on the state, listen to a medically inaccurate script.. and this is ok, because you know better than her, and you’re just trying to force her to understand. Got it.

          Because your head wouldn’t explode if they pulled something like this for any other reason. If you’re going to go with this argument, that’s fine, but I’ll come back to haunt you. All you have to do is say “the ends justify the means.”

          • As a matter of fact, Matt, I don’t really approve of the “probing” bill. I know I haven’t stated that yet, so there it is. I just wanted to point out the fact that so many pro-abortion people ascribe the most sinister motives to the other side. I think you are partially guilty of this.

            Now, I am all for severely limiting abortions. I don’t call that coercion, I call it protecting life.

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

          • Yes, you’re just using government to make a woman who wants to have a private medical procedure kill a baby allow the insertion of a probe medical device that is used very commonly in pregnancy into her vagina and, depending on the state, listen to a medically inaccurate script.. and this is ok, because you know better than her killing people is wrong, and you’re just trying to force her to understand. Got it.

            Funny how you can slant things by applying ulterior motives…

  55. Any of you pro-abortion folks seen this?

    According to the two “ethicists,” while unborn and newborn children “certainly are human beings,” neither is actually a “‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’… Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.”

    Looks like they shoot your “it’s not really a human” argument in the foot…

    For the life of me, I just can’t understand abortion. Killing a human being (I don’t care what vague definition you want to use, it is absolutely a human being) is abominable. The laws that are being considered like the ultrasound one in VA are not an attempt to insult or belittle women. Restricting abortion is not about the state “regulating under my skirt.” It’s about protecting human life from people who wish to destroy it. If you can’t even admit that, you are deluding yourself.

    • Whoops, BF beat me to it….

    • Buck the Wala says:


      “Looks like they shoot your ‘it’s not really a human’ argument in the foot…”

      Not really — they are making a very different argument; they are arguing about what characteristics must a human have to have a ‘right to life’, not over what is a human to begin with.

      That being said, I came across an interesting article written in the early 1970s regarding abortion. The gist of the argument was that, even if we all agreed that life began at conception, that the fetus in its very earliest stages is a distinct and unique human being, abortion should still be legal as the needs/desires of the mother must necessarily trump those of the fetus because the mother has a right to decide what occurs in and to her own body. The author used a weird analogy — she argued that let’s say, in the middle of the night, a world renowned violinst who was in need of a kidney transplant, was tied to you so that he may go on living for a few months until the transplant could occur. There was no adverse effect of having the violinist strapped to you on your own life, except that you needed to carry him around, strapped to your back as it were, for that time period. Were you to ‘disconnect’ the violinist, the violinist would die. Surely you could not be forced to carry this violinist around for the next few months!

      • Objection!

        Arguments must be based in Reality not Analogy

        • Buck the Wala says:


          Counselor – you do not get to object to the Court! I should send you back to law school to retake Civ Pro I. (coincidentally, this is actually something a judge made an attorney do at some point!)

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        An absurd comparison and I am old enough to remember it!

        Seems to me at the time that my answer was 90 plus percent of pregnancies could be prevented by either practicing contraception or using the aspirin method. The remaining less than 10 percent would include rape, incest or a defective baby. Those are the hard ones.

        Same hold true for aids. We all know how it is spread, medicine has done an excellent job of preventing accidental infection which leaves IV drug users, and people practicing unsafe sex as the bulk of victims which I would refine by calling self-inflicted victims. The hard ones are the rape cases and the accidents that could not be prevented.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          At first I thought it was a bit absurd — definitely weird and provocative — but it definitely made me think. Let’s apply the violinist analogy to the case of rape then…

      • What argument they are making is irrelevant. The argument I see so often from pro-abortion groups is that a baby is not really a human. This group, while fully supporting abortion, admits that a baby is a human. Therefore, they do harm to the previously stated argument.

        A more accurate analogy would be if you attached yourself to the violinist intentionally, but even that fails a true comparison since you didn’t cause the kidney failure.

        Honestly, guys, I can’t understand the pro-abortion argument. If you engage in an activity that creates a human life and you do so, you must bear the consequences of your actions. The fact that it is a burden or inconvenient or whatever does not give you the right to kill your child. That’s all there is to it. Everything else, like redefining the word “human”, is smoke and mirrors.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          JB, I understand where you’re coming from and going with this. But for once let’s move past the so-called ‘easy’ argument (consensual sex) and on to the ‘hard’ argument (rape). Now the violinist was attached to you absent anything that can be deemed to be attributed as a consensual act by you. What say you now?

          • Oh, I suppose I should have stated that. I’m ok with abortion after rape as long as it is immediate. I understand why others think otherwise, but I don’t think anyone should be forced to have a baby if they do not consent (consensual sex).

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Can you define ‘immediately’?

              Though it seems we’re getting somewhere now. So, if it’s ok for rape, how about those situations where there is consensual sex, but safe sex is practiced? And what about those situations where it is determined that the pregnancy poses a danger to the mother?

              • Immediately = morning after pill
                Immediately != after 1rst trimester

                Consensual sex, no matter the safety measures carries the possibility of pregnancy. It says so right on the box of condoms or the pill information or whatever. If you engage in sex, protected or not, you accept the responsibility of the creation of a human life.

                If the mother’s life is in danger, abortion is ok.

                I’m a reasonable person, am I not?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’ve never accused you of being unreasonable.

              • Haha. Buck, that sounds like a dodge! 😉

          • Buck

            But for once let’s move past the so-called ‘easy’ argument (consensual sex) and on to the ‘hard’ argument (rape). Now the violinist was attached to you absent anything that can be deemed to be attributed as a consensual act by you. What say you now?

            I say you cannot move past the easy argument, because you still have not resolved the easy argument!

            You want to move on to discussion regarding calculus, but haven’t yet learned how to multiply or divide!

            Get the easy one right first, then the complex issues can actually be addressed.
            But as long as you are confused about the easy ones, it is utterly pointless to dialogue over the complex ones.

      • Buck

        The author used a weird analogy — she argued that let’s say, in the middle of the night, a world renowned violinst who was in need of a kidney transplant, was tied to you so that he may go on living for a few months until the transplant could occur. There was no adverse effect of having the violinist strapped to you on your own life, except that you needed to carry him around, strapped to your back as it were, for that time period. Were you to ‘disconnect’ the violinist, the violinist would die. Surely you could not be forced to carry this violinist around for the next few months!

        It is horrible analogy as it does not at all describe the issue.

        I did nothing – committed no act – to deserve the consequences of the violinist – you merely arbitrarily decided to do that to me – I had no choice.

        But a mother committed an act by her own choice, that resulted in a consequence of her own making.

        To believe that these two circumstances are somehow the same is bizarre.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Which is why I said lets move on and apply the analogy to rape.

          I know you feel we can’t discuss rape because I don’t understand the ‘easy’ situation; that isn’t the case – I just don’t agree with you.

          • The only reason you want to move on to rape and why you always talk about accidental pregnancy-is because you want to try and show that the people are being responsible or they’re not responsible. Which by the way is true-if one opposes abortion purely on the bases of the person not being responsible.

            I don’t think people realize that when they are talked into abortion is okay because the woman was raped -what they are really doing is saying the abortion debate is about nothing more than responsibility and not about LIFE. Because if a woman is free to abort a baby because the pregnancy isn’t her fault-what difference does it make if she has an abortion just because. It isn’t any of my business if a woman is irresponsible but it sure is my business when she is committing a murder.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Actually, that’s not why I move on to rape — I don’t do it to make any larger point on responsibility/irresponsibility nor to change the debate. I do it because I’m always interested to learn how people who oppose abortion (likening it to murder) approach the issue where the woman was raped.

              • Why-what is it you are trying to find out-how do you process the information. You must feel that different answers mean different things or you wouldn’t ask?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Just trying to understand your thought process in applying abortion as murder to the situation of rape and concluding that, in that case, it is ok. It intrigues me, nothing more and nothing less.

              • Okay Buck, if that’s your answer-so be it-but believe me there is Method and Purpose behind these arguments. And anyone who agrees-weakens the fight to stop the taking of innocent life.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Wait, want to make sure I’m following you here — anyone who agrees that abortion is ok in the case of rape, is wrong and is weakening the fight?

                Forgive me if I am confusing you for someone else, but haven’t you in the past said you are ok with abortion in the case of rape?

              • NO, I am okay with abortion only when carrying the baby to term will kill the mother.

              • Mathius™ says:

                You never know 100% that it will kill the mother. Is 99% likelihood sufficient?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Ok, sorry for the confusion and thanks for the clarification.

              • If the motive is to save both-than the % shouldn’t present a problem. Now if the motive is to unjustly kill…………

            • Mathius™ says:

              What if the mother is worried, and the odds are 51%, is it ok then? The motive is to save the mother pregnant woman’s life..

              • Mathius

                Your arguments, examples, are as usual arbitrary and absurd.

                If you know anything about medicine you know that a specific percentage can not be applied to any such thing.

                So stick with the general concept. You are just diluting your arguments.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Actually, I’m just having fun here. The assertion that it’s ok to save a mother’s life is impossible to support because you can never be completely sure that it’s the case. You can be very confident, but you can always be wrong. So, essentially, she’s supporting “killing a baby” on the grounds that she “thinks” it “probably” will kill the mother. In other words, she’s ok with killing a baby based on an opinion.

                Slippery slopes are, well, slippery.

              • No, Matt-I’m saying two lives are involved and both need to be protected. It isn’t a slippery slope until or unless evil intent enters the equation. Go do a little research Matt-very few abortions- where the intent, the purpose is to intentionally kill the baby are necessary to protect the mothers life. The babies death in MOST cases is just an unfortunate consequence of saving the mother.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                But VH, aren’t you necessarily saying that, yes two lives are at stake, but when push comes to shove, the mother’s life trumps the fetus’ life?

              • Actually, that is not an uncommon decision. The mother can choose to sacrifice herself for the child, or save herself, as the cognizant party. It is not dissimilar to a rescue of an unconscious drowning person, if you cannot go on, without one of you dying, you can make a decision legitimately. In the case of rescue personel, they are trained to take care of themselves first. They also, at times, have to decide between victims. The mother is the most likely to survive, since, in life threatening cases, even if the mother sacrifices the child does not always make it.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                That’s a fair point.

                What about where the woman’s life may not be in danger (very slim change of dying), but there is a serious threat to her overall health and well-being?

  56. I see-I’ve missed a lot today-where oh where do I start 🙂 Hmmm, I guess I better start with the dishes -but I’ll be back.

  57. Mathius™ says:

    No, sir. I do not think I am a fan of this.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Nor should you be. The end is not nigh, it is here already. The politicians are afraid of the people. Anybody who voted for this thing should be turned out.

    • Don’t believe I’m a fan of that either.

    • 😯 Did you read the link labeled ‘signing statement’? They better quit talking while they’re to speak.

    • Mathius

      This is what you get when you don’t have solid foundational principles.

      Remember past discussions about how our “rights” or our “freedoms” are subject to the “greater good”? That they can be ignored when the Govt can “show a compelling interest”, as determined by 9 people in black robes?

      Well, the Govt has a compelling interest to protect itself from criticism and obnoxious verbal attacks. You know, those freakazoid Tea Party people who “spit” on Congressmen. Got to stop them now.

      As has been repeated here ad nauseum, contradictions in the core principles, the failure to complete a logical defense will get you bad results, eventually.

      • Mathius™ says:

        That they [our rights] can be ignored when the Govt can “show a compelling interest”, as determined by 9 people in black robes? Yes. One could make this argument. But to do so, you’d have to accept that this is true. Do you accept that this is true?

        • Mathius

          It is YOUR principles that are in question here Matt. It is YOUR arguments that are in contradiction then you act surprised when something like this comes along.

          Do YOU accept the principle that our rights are subject to Govt “interpretation”?

  58. Want to watch and listen to some great comedy? Look for the Georgetown law student’s testimony in front of congress about how the poor co-eds can’t afford to pay for contraception. How the hell have we gotten to this point? I’m just plain embarrassed for her.

    Then, the best part, is listening to Rush’s follow-up. Apparently yesterday he made the charge that since this woman Fluk wanted to be paid for having sex, she was really a prostitute – tongue in cheek analogy to get the masses fired up like he often does.

    Whoa, did he get the liberal women howling – hilarious! He plays clips from a few “outraged” lib women on this horrific thing he has done, including one from the ever intelligent Sheila Jackson Lee.

    Watched it earlier, but I’ll look again for the links.

    • I saw it on his website. Funny as heck! A couple snippets:

      I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want.

      Is it any wonder, Clinton wanted to go to this law school and why Hillary went to Wellesley?

      FLUKE: When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage.
      RUSH: Prove it! Stop the tape. Prove it! What is “on their faces”? Acne? What is it, acne? Zits? What’s on their faces that tells you? Seriously!

      Did you notice in that sound bite Sheila Jackson Lee or Maria Cantwell or one of them talked about the strength that Sandra Fluke had to go before Congress, which is amazing. She’s having so much sex it’s amazing she can still walk, but she made it up there.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      This is funny to the two of you!?

      You do realize that the pill does have medical purposes other than preventing pregnancy, don’t you?

      For Limbaugh to go after this woman, calling her a slut, is absolutely disgusting.

      • Cry me a river Buck. This girl is being used by the left to advance their agenda and she..a student of Georgetown? willing to let it happen. Did you listen to the clip? She’s paying 60k a year for room and board (sex not included) and wants us to pay for her to play around? It’s not about contraception anyway’s about control. And that’s what the joke is….

        • Buck the Wala says:

          One more thing on this point — Fluke is not paying $60K a year; she is on a scholarship. And she is not wanting you to pay for her to ‘play around’.

          • Actually she is wanting us to pay. I’m not sure how every insurance works but mine comes with a prescription card-the most I have to pay for any prescription is $50 dollars. So even though birth control pills are covered-I still have to pay the full cost. These people don’t just want contraceptives covered(which in most cases, maybe all-they still have to pay for them in full) they want to force a private business to pay for the pills.

        • You got it Anita. And once again, the left is appalled by a …… commentator! It’s Faux News, the Koch Bros., Limbaugh….

          Enough already. It’s about control and this dimwit lawyer wanna-be (ooops, was that mean of me?) agreed to be their stooge. “I have married friends who can no longer afford birth control and they have no other choices.” OMG! Really?

      • The ridiculous sensationalism surrounding this case is regrettable, but the case itself is pretty ridiculous.

        How much do you want to bet this girl has a cell phone. Such plans easily cost $60 plus per month, right?

        “The Pill usually costs between $15 and $50 a month, depending on the type. Many health and family planning clinics (such as Planned Parenthood) sell birth control pills for less. In addition, birth control pills and doctor visits are covered by many health insurance plans.”

        This seems to be a recurrent issue. I can’t afford health insurance… But I can afford cable tv, cell phones, eating out, renting movies, internet, computers…

        • Buck the Wala says:

          That may well be, and that may be a valid issue to address and something worth discussing.

          But I stand by my statement: “For Limbaugh to go after this woman, calling her a slut, is absolutely disgusting.”

          • Agreed.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              So its settled…Limbaugh is a blowhard!

              Look at that, reaching agreement before my first cup of joe! Today is going to be a good day! 🙂

              • Woot!

              • Mathius™ says:

                How did you like what he said about Danika Patrick the other day in response to her statement in support of birth control availability? “What do you expect from a woman driver?”

                Seriously, how does this guy still have a show on the air?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Absolutely disgusting.

                There really is no other way to describe it.

              • Personally, I’d like to kick Limbaugh in the butt, right now-I actually understand the ridicule-her statement was ridiculous. But he hasn’t helped anyone with this line of crap. He went too far using words like slut and prostitute.

                But just a little reminder-Sara Palin’s children and they weren’t even in college yet. But the “left” they had no problem with that.

              • Mathius™ says:


                Show me where someone PROMINENT on the left talked about Palin’s kids like this. Not just some yahoo with a blog (no offense to USW, our illustrious long-lost leader, yahoo with a blog). I never saw anything like that. It’s entirely possible I missed it, but I’d be surprised. Maybe Bill Maher would be your best bet, though to be fair he’s a comedian not a pundit. But I’ll wait and see.. I’m very interested.

                Because I always see this “both sides” thing, but it just doesn’t seem to be true from where I’m sitting.

              • Seriously give me a break Matt-Sara Palins children were savaged and no one on the left did anything to try a stop it. And you are real good at being selective about which people count. Who you decide doesn’t represent the left all the sudden and who does represent the right.

              • Mathius™ says:


                Give me a link. I’ll argue with you if I think it’s just some random guy blogging from his parents’ basement, but if it’s someone big, I’d love to see it. I honestly don’t remember people really attacking the kids at all. There was some hay made from the fact that one got pregnant following Palin’s big abstinence-only push, but they never really attacked the kids themselves. Did Rachael Maddow call Bristol a slut? Did I miss that somewhere? Did Nancy Pelosi call Willow derogatory names? Show me. I’m honestly interested. Did Obama make fun of the girls’ abilities to drive because they’re women?

                You can’t really argue that Limbaugh, with 15 million listeners, is not a powerful voice on the right. And he says stuff like this all the time.

              • No, Matt-I neither have the time today or the desire to research what I know is true -if it bothers you-dismiss it or go research it yourself.

              • ooops , meant to put a smiley with the above- so here goes 🙂

      • IF she was using contraception for other medical reasons, she would have mentioned that. In fact, that has been suspiciously missing from this whole debate. There are medical reasons for some to take the pill that have nothing to do with contraception, but those cases are rare enough that the argument is not even being used. Also, the costs presented by this girl are quite high, there are cheaper options, again, unless she has specific medical reasoning. IF, however, she does, then she should mention that as part of the whole “women’s health” argument. It has been rarely mentioned because it is quite rare. In fact, the whole “health” argument is pretty flimsy. Most female contraceptives are less effective with STD prevention, as well as chemically interfering with the female system. Healthy is not what I would call it in the majority of cases. Besides, does not the use of depo or the pill encourage not using condoms? Thus, the cost is put on the girl instead, and the risk of STD increases.

        The whole “health” part of this debate is suspect at best. Its a crock. Not to mention that the people with an issue about this for the most part have no problem with contraception, just with government mandating it or paying for it. This stuff gets twisted all the time. If government offerred to provide basic transportation for everyone, I would be against that, but that does not mean I am “opposed to transportation”. Its ridiculous how stuff gets twisted, and how easily the one’s getting it twisted on them lose sight of reality and allow it to happen. Does no one know how to explain their positions in this country?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          In her remarks she discussed a number of cases where the woman in question was using the pill for other medical reasons. I don’t believe this has been absent from the debate at all.

          • Buck

            True, it has not been absent. But it is irrelevant.

            Nobody has proposed prohibiting these women from getting medication needed for medical reasons.

            This is a typical stunt. Identify the few exceptions and then focus on those. Then create a false narrative to enrage the target audience.

  59. Mathius™ says:
  60. LOL! Read the rest of the “disgusted” comments.

    Do you listen to Rush? He’s getting exactly what he was going for here with you two. He asked, “what do you call someone that wants to get paid to have sex?” Then went off this to come up with words that would describe such a person. It was all tongue and cheek and he knew exactly what he was doing. And it worked!

    You have no problem with rights and freedom being trampled on, but hurtful words used by a commentator are just so wrong and mean spirited and how does he still have a job and wah, wah.

    Comedy gold.

    • Kathy

      I heard Limbaugh’s routine live the other day and it was Provocative and Funny as hell. You knew immediately what he was hoping for and got it in spades.

      Buck, Mathius: This is nothing more than Comedic Sarcasm intended to Ridicule the “ridiculous” testimony and argument being presented by the dim wits on the left. On an issue, I might add, that THEY created.

      I’ve heard similar stuff come from Stewart and Colbert and Mahr.

      • Mathius™ says:

        I’ve heard similar stuff come from Stewart

        [citation needed]

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I disagree with your assertion that the left created this issue.

        I also disagree with your assertion that Limbaugh (an obnoxious, unfunny, blowhard of a pundit) is the same as Stewart (an extremely funny comedian).

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          You don’t listen enough. You hear the snippets or let Sheila Jackson Lee filter it for you. The man is a master.

        • Buck

          Then please identify the Republican that proposed banning contraception at the Federal level.

          Please identify the person who FIRST raised the question of Banning Contraception during the Republican debates.

%d bloggers like this: