Dad’s Day open mic

Been out of town,  several 12 hr days.  First chance to check in and over 500 posts.  My next week looks to be a busy one as well, but it’s better to have too much work than too little.  A funny, true story about a father.  A teenage friend had stayed out late, drinking.  His father never said anything about him coming in late or his condition.  He just woke him up at four AM and said, lets go, need to cut some firewood.  Is there any better way to teach a life lesson than make a young man use a chain-saw all day while suffering from a monster hang-over?


  1. 8)

    • Good morning Flaggy! Wondering if I need to take you and Charlie out to the woodshed? As smart as you are, do you really think you will get Charlie to think things out by insulting him? Not saying I have any answers either. I have to deal with kids who don’t/won’t understand the simplest things, and adults for that matter.

      Reading last night, I noticed Jon had a freat post on the conversations. Will see if I can copy and bring forward.

  2. *0

    • Jon Smith says:

      June 9, 2012 at 12:39 am• Edit

      Before offering any retort or argument let me say that I wish you safety and success on your trip. I hope you return having accomplished what you set out to do.

      I know you do not agree with my theories, nor do I agree with yours. The difference is that I have not really heard any logic or reason or even definition of your theories, not even when I have asked and offered mine. I also have not seen any acknowledgement when I have said anything that disagrees with you, only a repeat of your previous statement as if you did not read anything I said. This is why I question your comprehension.

      I have seen Flag change an argument to fit what he is saying, rather than work within the statements as intended. I have seen him make blanket statements. I have also seen you make blanket statements and change arguments to fit what you want the argument to be. In fact, I have yet to see you accuse him of anything or any argumentative technique that you are not engaging in yourself to the same, or greater, extent. Even the hard-headedness fits you both.

      As for falling in line, that is merely your perception as well. BF gets fought by almost everyone here on things, on a regular basis. When his arguments are respected it is because he backs them with reason. Even if there are errors or missing factors in his thinking or his proofs, there is at least an attempt to use logic and enough evidence (whether conclusive or not) to make his line of thinking at least understandable, even if I (and others) still disagree with it. I have asked for similar logical progression of thought from you and been disappointed.

      Anyway, enjoy your trip, learn well.

      Well said Jon! I have had the same thought before. On my article on the continuing issue of our Native Americans, Charlie would only talk about what was done hundreds of years ago, not what was happening today nor what should we do today to address this injustice. How long and far does ‘collective guilt” go? If my father was a thief, am I obligated to pay all his debts? I never enslave anyone, what debt do I owe African Americans? (and what debt will they collect from the other African tribes that first captured them and sold them to Arabs?)

      What debt must we pay to the Native Americans? Everyone no more than 1/32 Indian must return to Europe? Will they take some 200 million re-immigrants? If not, do we just walk off into the ocean? ( I’d bet several environmentalist would object to us overfeeding the damn fish)

      • I do have to admit tho, Charlie has not been around this site as long as BF. Some of the real knock-down-drag-out debates between BF and me or BF and others here Charlie has not witnessed, so I am sure it looks like BF gets a pass. I took a sabatical from the site myself, so I might have missed some of Charlie’s earlier explanations of things. Who knows. I know I like reasonable debate. For that to exist there must be reason, but there must also be disagreement, else there would be no debate. 🙂

  3. LOI, When I was young, hangovers did not exist, like when I got older (they suck now, so I don’t have them). As a rule, the young can handle it better than anyone our age 🙂 As a note, Fathers Day is next weekend, no tomorrow!

    • Oooops…Didn’t have a calander where I was working,,,But why have I been getting all these Father’s Day sales ad’s? FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY? I felt a little panic when I deleted without ordering anything.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      I know of someone with a mere $10,000 in cash in pocket who went to a bank to get pre-approval for a loan. The bank told this person not to put the cash in the bank or they would have to fill out a currency transaction report (helps prevent money laundering, crime….) “and possibly explain where they got the cash”.
      I recall a couple cases from years ago of cash seizure. One of a black man waiting at the airport with cash for trees for a his nursery. The other of a black woman driving with cash in a sock in her car to spend at the lumber store. And many more I don’t remember. As recently mentioned on SUFA, the courts have already ruled that these seizures are legal. Almost any law enforcement who wants funding for new equipment or whatever can simply seize some cash and declare it tainted by his suspicion of a crime, with NO criminal charges ever filed against the now cashless victim.
      Anyway, back to the bank story. So if one trys purchasing real estate property at least in part with cash, maybe they should think twice about the risk of seizure. Gotta be carefull!
      It can make it hard to avoid business with a bank.
      A form must also be filed by any business or trade involved in a cash transaction of $10,000 or more. Also scary are the “suspicious acvtivity reports”

      Later, time to go fishing!

  4. Happy Sunday Everyone 🙂

    THis article may explain why the last few days have been less about debates and more about name calling. Here’s a quote from the article:
    Dr. Schicklgruber was confident, however, that the procedure would be upheld by the courts since there is a growing body of scientific evidence that liberal and progressivism are mental disorders.

    Read more:

    • In the mean time, maybe some enterprising pharmacist can find a fee radical to attach to the liberal gene and neutralize it. Better living through chemistry.

  5. Good Morning SUFA 🙂

    With rumors swirling that Obama may use airstrikes againt Syria, what is the opinion here on such an action? Should Obama get the OK from Congress?

    • Absolutely. Congress is supposed to be in charge of declarations of war, even tho the president is commander in chief. The BS of using military action in or against another country without Congressional approval needs to stop. Calling it a police action or some other sort of excercize to avoid it being officially a declaration of war is just smoke and mirrors and word games. Military action in or against another country is an act of war, no act of war should be engaged in without a Congressional declaration of war. This crap has been going on since Korea, and has yet to end well for the US.

      There is a reason Congress was given the authority to decide if we were going to war. It was designed to prevent rash military action and and to make sure support was widespread. Situations should be a serious threat to us before we get involved, and once we get involved, action should be swift, decisive, and comprehensive. No gradual escalation, no drawn out “peace keeping” or “police action”, no nation building. Get it, win, get out. The reason we have a commander in chief is to help make military decisions that are quick and decisive, something Congress could never accomplish. The decision to commit to military action, however, should never be quick and decisive.

    • Naten53 says:

      If he didn’t do it for Libia, what makes you think he cares what congress might think this time?

  6. Very interesting report on the real deal on Wisconsin. With all the hoopla over Wisconsin, you would have thought that it just devastated the unions……when it did not.

    1) Not one union person was laid off. No one lost their job.
    2) One BILLION saved in property taxes.
    3) Three hundred union jobs were saved because there were to be cuts that would have laid off immediately 300 people.
    4) There is now a surplus…..

    So, what was the recall really over if it was not union power? Nothing. It was all about power. So, the union lost some bargaining rights…..not over wages and benefits, nor working conditions, because those rights are still there…..

    So what was stripped exactly? As far as I can read it…..the issue of taxes and and budgetary items are no longer subject to collective bargaining. In the past, the unions had a seat on the budgetary committees and had a say so in the day to day operations of the state budget. In other words, the unions could unilaterally demand raises in pay and benefits and have 100% paid for health insurance on the backs of the tax payers and the issue of raising taxes was a subject of bargaining. It no longer is….and rightly so. the public unions could sit on and have a say so in budgetary items that affected their pay and had voting power to divert funds.

    Number one, shame on Wisconsin for allowing budgetary items and fund raising being a part of collective bargaining in the first place. Over the years, union friendly lawmakers allowed certain items that are not normal collective bargaining items into the contracts which made them a bargaining point. It was a grand scheme that went unchecked for years. The public unions would bargain their increases and simply pass it on to the public through….supposedly collective bargaining…theoretically under the guise of striking if taxes were not raised. The governor comes in and says no longer are budgetary items and tax revenues a part of collective bargaining and stripped those rights. Now, the unions have no say so how the money raised and that is rightly so……they should not. The State should have a budget and the budget allocated my lawmakers and the negotiations must be limited to the budget.

    Now, as a proponent of collective bargaining, where collective bargaining has been agreed to already, perhaps the governor should have made that a part of the bargaining process when the contracts were up….and not just unilaterally stopping it. But even when he stopped the process, it must have passed muster with the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) because there was NO unfair labor practice filed….to my knowledge. ( I cannot find one ). So, it boils down to procedure…….

    As it is stands today, the public employees union can still bargain for their wages and benefits…..not the method in which the money is raised nor allocated. They have no say in how the money is allocated in administrative state functions…and that is correct. They must bargain within the framework of the money that is budgeted and available.

  7. I’ve been incredibly busy lately (an infant will do that to you), so I haven’t been able to follow a lot of the discussion here. I did come across this item today and I was curious what sort of reaction it would get.

    It seems that insurance companies can do the right thing after all. Hopefully this trend will continue.

    As a warning for those of you out there considering having children in the near future (or with family members who may), we recently discovered a rather disturbing facet of the health insurance industry. My wife and I used fertility treatments last year after a year without success of trying to have a baby. We only used it for a few months and then got off of it because of a trip (and then got pregnant… go figure). This year, my wife is switching to a part time job in order to take care of the baby. We tried to get her private health insurance since she would lose her coverage from her old job…


    If you have used ANY fertility treatment at all within the past two years, you will be flat out denied coverage by Anthem. No exceptions. I wish we had known this. We may not have ended up using the treatment…


    • Good luck with your situation JB. Congrats on the child tho, I know you and your wife must be very happy. 🙂

      • Thanks, Jon. We’ll make it work.

        We certainly are very happy. There is nothing better than coming home from a hard day’s work and seeing your baby smile when she sees your face! All the troubles in the world can’t stand up to a smiling baby!

        • Thats awesome. That should be a poster, a smiling baby face that says “All the troubles in the world can’t stand up to a smiling baby!”

  8. I would like some feedback on EO’s signed by Obama. It is my opinion that any action taken as a result of an EO, that violates Constitutional rights, would be an act of war on the people. EO’s are not laws, the question is, will their use be deemed as such?

    THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Obama has signed 923 Executive Orders in 40 months!

    What did Congress do in those 40 months?

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates theof all persons. Postmaster General to operate a national registration

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

    Feel free to verify the “executive orders” at will… and these are just the major ones…

    • -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

      Would someone explain why Obama thinks he needs this power? Relocating communities is a huge issue, what could possible cause that to happen? Or is this Agenda 21 in disguise?

    • This is insanity, and it has gotten NO coverage, and very little even from the “conservative media”. I knew it was bad, did not know they were this bad. I thought your statement of “act of war against the people” was a little strong, but after reading the EOs in your list, I am inclined to agree. There is no reason any of this should be done, it is completely unjustifiable, even in terms of those who fear even the most unlikely of emergencies.

      • Some of these are old and just resigned. But, if one reads the Food Safety and Modernization Act, is repeats the relocation stuff. It makes me wonder if there will be a biological attack concerning food that would push this into reality!

    • Common Man says:


      The Executive Order which has been in place since 1789 is one of the most destructive laws (or deligation of authority) in the history of the US. No one person should possess the authority to decree or make binding any rules on or over the citizens. To do so is a violation of Constitutional rights, as well as natural rights.

      Congress does have the authority to shoot down an Executive Order, or refuse funding to support it, but the rarely do so. Also, any seated President can repeal an existing order, but most rarely do.

      The corrupt have used this ability to get those agendas they can not or could not garner through due course of legislation.

      It was dangerous in 1789 and it is even more so now.

      The US was designed as a Republic and the Executive Order is a direct violation of the principles of a Republic.

      BTW: For those who did not know State Governor’s as well as Mayor’s can execute an Executive Order as well, but only within their jurisdiction.

      The Executive Order should be struck down. There is no reason for it in a Free Society.


  9. President Barack Obama wants his 2012 re-election campaign to focus on Gov. Mitt Romney’s private-sector record, but his own private-sector history shows that he promoted and profited from the nation’s disastrous real-estate bubble. One striking example comes from the president’s 1995 housing-discrimination class action lawsuit: It provided him with legal fees, greased his political donations and boosted his role in Chicago politics.

    While he made personal gains, his lead African-American client, Selma Buycks-Roberson, declared bankruptcy in 2001 — and again in 2008 as she received a home foreclosure notice, according to unpublicized federal and city records obtained by The Daily Caller.

    Buycks-Roberson is still likely underwater on her mortgage, owing more to her home lender than the property is worth. Her house has dropped in value by 30 percent since 2010. Its 2011 assessed value for tax purposes was $97,520, well below her 2006 mortgage of $112,400. Meanwhile, the online real-estate database Zillow estimates that home is worth just $69,400 today.

    Buycks-Roberson’s story is not an anomaly. It can be found repeatedly throughout Obama’s Chicago.

    By 2012, the average home equity in Chicago’s African-American neighborhoods had shriveled to $6,800, according to a March report from the Woodstock Institute, a liberal Chicago housing advocacy group. The average equity in homes in the city’s white neighborhoods is $108,000.

    Fully 44 percent of homes in Chicago are underwater, compared to a national average of 31 percent, according to a Zillow-generated map.

    The zip code located five blocks south of Obama’s house at 5046 S. Greenwood Avenue has an underwater-mortgage rate of 56 percent, slightly above Detroit’s famously depressed 55 percent rate. Zillow’s map shows that the wealthier neighborhood just four blocks north of Obama’s has an even more stunning rate of underwater mortgages — 72 percent – one percentage point above that of worst-in-the-nation Las Vegas.

    In Buycks-Roberson’s inland neighborhood, 57 percent of homes are underwater.

    Reporters have aggressively sought more information from Romney about his business record, but there is no sign that a single reporter has ever asked Obama about his role in Chicago’s housing disaster.

    The closest Obama has ever come to admitting his role in the scandal came in a September 2007 speech to a Wall Street audience.

    “Subprime lending started off as a good idea: helping Americans buy homes who couldn’t previously afford to,” he said. (RELATED: Daily Caller coverage of home mortgages and foreclosures)

    But “as certain lenders and brokers began to see how much money could be made,” he said, “they began to lower their standards. … Most everyone knew that some of these deals were just too good to be true, but all that money flowing in made it tempting to look the other way and ignore the unscrupulous practice of some bad actors.”

    “Turning a blind eye to the cronyism in our midst can put us all in jeopardy … and we cannot accept that in the United States of America.”

    Read more:

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    Black Flag and Peter B.

    OK boys, comments please!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      This paper claims the ocean warming over the past 50 years is 0.1 degrees C, and then claims that man is definitely responsible. Hogwash on several levels.

      First of all, we can’t calculate ocean warming in the past 50 years to within 0.1 degrees C, the error bars on any true analysis would be higher than that.

      Secondly, to take just one portion of the ocean as an example, in just a few short years, the ENSO region of the Pacific can go from La Nina conditions to El Nino conditions and the temperature in that region will vary by 2.5 degrees C in a mere 3 years or so, and even climate scientists admit (at least so far) that human beings have no impact at all on the La Nina/El Nino cycles.

      The crap that passes for “science” in certain fields these days is frankly embarrassing. I am almost ashamed to be a scientist.

      • Here I sit, testing the wireless network, on top of the world’s largest dump truck – fully loaded weighing in over 1.5 MILLION pounds, with 1 million pounds of oil sand (worth about 100 barrels of oil) 🙂 — can ya tell I am having fun on my new contract! ….

        …and wholly agreeing with Peter’s assessment.

        It is utterly bunk that humans influence global climate.

        ’nuff said… the truck needs to go back to work….

  11. Lawmakers are working to block an unprecedented power grab by the Environmental Protection Agency to use the Clean Water Act (CWA) and control land alongside ditches, gullies and other ephemeral spots by claiming the sources are part of navigable waterways.

    These temporary water sources are often created by rain or snowmelt, and would make it harder for private property owners to build in their own backyards, grow crops, raise livestock and conduct other activities on their own land, lawmakers say.

    “Never in the history of the CWA has federal regulation defined ditches and other upland features as ‘waters of the United States,’” said Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), the ranking committee member, and Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

    “This is without a doubt an expansion of federal jurisdiction,” the lawmakers said in a May 31 letter to House colleagues.

    The unusual alliance of the powerful House Republicans and Democrat to jointly sponsor legislation to overturn the new guidelines signals a willingness on Capitol Hill to rein in the formidable agency.

    “The Obama administration is doing everything in its power to increase costs and regulatory burdens for American businesses, farmers and individual property owners,” Mica said in a statement to Human Events. “This federal jurisdiction grab has been opposed by Congress for years, and now the administration and its agencies are ignoring law and rulemaking procedures in order to tighten their regulatory grip over every water body in the country.”

  12. The DOW tanks at the end of the day……and everyone wonders why? Everyone was all excited about the bailout of Spanish Banks hailing it as the only thing that they could do? 120 Billion to Spain, which was gone in one day and now the others are saying where is mine…..all told it will take over 900 billion to bailout everybody that claims they need it and it will be only a short term fix……ahhhh……the European Model everyone loves.

    The investors are selling off stocks because it is the only thing to do as the Euro becomes more worthless. Bailouts do not work and the investors know this. The bailout did not work here and it will not work there. Sigh.

  13. Father Catches Man Molesting Daughter, Father Beats Man To Death

    SHINER, TX — A man in Texas caught another man in the process of molesting his 4-year-old daughter and proceeded to beat the man to death.

    Police say they received a call from the father late Saturday afternoon who told them he attacked a man he caught trying to sexually assault his daughter. When police arrived at the location, they found a 47-year-old man dead at the scene.

    According to police, the father and daughter were with other members of the family tending to horses, when the 47-year-old victim, known for his horse-grooming abilities, arrived at the family’s rural ranch with several others. Reports are that the man was not well-known to the father or his daughter.

    At some point, the group heard the father’s daughter screaming from behind a barn. When the girl’s father ran to check on her, he witnessed the the man assaulting his daughter. After pulling the man off, the father then punched the man in the head repeatedly, killing him.

    So far no charges have been filed. “You have a right to defend your daughter,” Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon said. “He acted in defense of his third person. Once the investigation is completed we will submit it to the district attorney who then submits it to the grand jury, who will decide if they will indict him.”

    The Sheriff re-iterated that there is no jury in Texas that would ever convict a man for protecting his daughter no matter how long he beat him. When asked about the number of times the man slammed the perpetrators head into his knee, the Sheriff responded, “Worse case of suicide I ever saw.”

    Ahhhhhh…you gotta love Texas.

    • I’d do it too. A guy pushed one of my kids off his little tricycle one day. Don’t know where I got the strength but I had him on his ass in about 1/2 second! Boom Bam..he was down!

    • Naten53 says:

      I saw the article title and was thinking, “please let it be texas” otherwise the father would be in bigtime trouble for doing what everyone would want to do.

  14. Oh Charlie, Here’s why your beloved Baracky didn’t meander into Wisconsin to help your big labor guys – he was busy with responsibiities and stuff. Keep talking and burying yourself O!

    • Good job against the regime. They were unwilling to listen to him though. Why did they invite him to begin with? So now what? Madame Chair in Yellow said it was an informative hearing..but what will come of it? Nothing.

  15. Florida and Texas walking in lock step against the DOJ. The Department of Homeland Security has refused to turn over data base so Texas and Florida can check against illegal voters. Failure to do that puts the responsibility in the hands of the State and have told Holder and the DOJ to take a hike. They refuse to abide by the directive. Id’s will be checked.Between the two States, they have identified over 200,000 illegal voters so far.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Potentially illegal. Until the checks are done it is not certain.

      • Perhaps, JAC, but there is no choice in the matter. In the last local election in Houston alone there were two districts decided by leas than 100 votes with over 20,000 voters registered that did not exist.

        Texas has said, it makes no difference what the DOH says or does. They cannot stop it and Texas and apparently Florida is calling their bluff.

        • One other thing JAC…..Texas has identified over 5,000 dead people….CERTIFIED dead….and the DOJ says…you cannot take those off either….even if someone voted under their name. This is bullshit and it is Democratic bullshit….we will not stand for it and the backlash is going to be worse than if the DOJ would release the date. It is a voting conspiracy from the Obama administration…there is no other answer.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I hope Texas finds this all true and that it is exposed……..all over the DOJ’s face.

            Unfortunately I don’t think the Florida situation is as clear cut as Texas. And we may not find out thanks to the Supervisors refusing to comply with the State orders.

          • THis President and his Administration is the absolute worse I have ever seen. Anybody who voted for this moron should be ashamed 🙂

          • D-13

            Seems to me that in my misspent youth I heard rumors to the effect that that is how LBJ delivered Texas to JFK. Ditto for Mayor Daley in Chicago. As a 13 year old Kennedy supporter at the time, this began my disillusionment with the Democratic Party, the Kennedy’s, LBJ and “illibrals” in general. By the time ’64 rolled around it was Barry G all the way. The whole damn Baby boom goes one way, and I go the other.

            Au H2 O – ’64

    • Common Man says:


      How has the heat been so far? From what I have seen ya’ll have gotten your share of rain. I do remember the summers in and around Houston…moist and warm.

      Wife went to get the new Enhanced Michigan Drivers License yesterday and took with her SS Card, Voter ID Card, current Drivers License, Birth Certificate and Marriage License. When she arrived the clerk told her the Birth Certificate, issued by the hospital, was not good enough. They required a county or state issued Birth Certificate. She then called the county clerks office where she was born and they told her all she had to do to get a certified copy of a county birth certificate was fill out the on-line form and mail it with $13.00 and a copy of her Drivers License. The Certified copy of her county Birth Certificate would be mailed back to her the same day.

      I guess it would have been much easier had she been an illegal.

      Also, My buddy Dave and I stopped into the local liquor store this past Saturday to purchase a keg of beer for the Kegerator in the barn. It was Dave’s turn to buy, so we hauled the empty keg in and told the clerk to fetch us another one. When Dave went to pay the clerk handed him a form and a pen indicating that he would have to supply his SS #, Drivers license #, address and phone number in order to purchase the keg. Apparently the State set up a new law requiring any and all private citizens to register the purchase, and at the same time they increased the deposit from $10. to $30. The excuse for the deposit increase was that people were taking the empty kegs to the scrap yard and getting more for them than the $10. depost. The clerk and manager of the liquor store told us that because the beer distributors were claiming loses from people scrapping their kegs the kegs now needed to be registered. Interesting, you would think just increasing the deposit would solve that problem, why did the state need to get involved?

      Stay strong


      • Naten53 says:

        $10 deposit? been around $50 here for a while.

      • Howdy, CM…….Finally got warm enough….I like hot….not cold. I had to get a couple of birth certificates….recently…really easy. A trip to the county courthouse and ten bucks….got me certified BC’s Texas will not take a BC from anybody unless it is certified.

        Also, took my dad to a Department of Texas Transportation office ( he has macular degeneration and cannot get a DL )….got a state picture ID free of charge. This crap of disenfranchisement is just that…..crap.

        Hope you and yours are doing well….have not forgot you.

        • Common Man says:


          Everybody doing well. Wife is happy to be out of school for the summer. even though she loves teaching, she looks forward to her summer’s. She too is of reptile blood and hates the cold. Was breezy and 75 yesterday, but she was wearing a sweatshirt. I suppose if she added some weight (she is 5′ 7″ and 115 LB’s) she wouldn’t need the sweatshirt, but I would rather she stay slender.

          I am working 65-70 hours a week and then my weekends are filled with chores and duties suited for a Grandfather of a 4 year old energy filled boy, who wants to spend as much time in the woods and water as possible. Not a bad thing by any means. Already knows how to catch gills and crawdads for bait for bass. He and I are looking forward to his first Bass.

          Life is good, but would be better if the government would suddenly go belly up.


  16. I can’t resist 🙂

    At the recent “ATM Withdrawal Fest” for Obama in California on June 7th, hundreds voiced their support for the President. Here–in their own words–are the top ten reasons to re-elect Obama:

    (1) He has a nice voice (very important when all you do is talk);
    (2) He’s likeable (unless you are in the crosshairs of one of his drone attacks);
    (3) He’s black (and, as the post-racial President, only He can cure our racist nation of its racist ills);
    (4) He’s the first Black American (what?);
    (5) He stopped the wars (and stemmed the rise of the oceans);
    (6) He put an end to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (and has evolved from supporting gay marriage to campaigning for traditional marriage to embracing Gay Marriage, one of the most heinous civil rights violations in our time);
    (7) He…I don’t know (that’s probably the only accurate response yet);
    (8) He’s awesome (when using his nice voice to sing Al Green songs and attend over 150 fundraisers…while Rome burns);
    (9) He’ll tax the G-D rich and make those selfish people pay their fair share (until he runs out of other people’s money. Hey, Michelle! How about another $2,000 sundress, $500 pair of gardening shoes or $400,000 vacation with 40 of your BFFs?);
    (10) He needs four more years to…put it all together (because he messed up so badly during the first four years–during his practice round as President).

  17. Manure could prove farmers’ carbon cash cow

    Updated June 12, 2012 13:38:58
    Dairy cows in an enclosure Photo: Big emitters: destroying dairy cow manure could earn carbon credits. (ABC: ABC)

    It is a far cry from traditional farming techniques, but dairy farmers are being encouraged to earn carbon credits from the Federal Government by destroying cow manure.

    Under the Carbon Farming Initiative, the Government says dairy producers will be able to earn carbon credits if they capture and destroy methane and other greenhouse gasses emitted by manure.

    Farmers who participate in the program will cover manure ponds, then have the choice of burning and destroying the captured gas, or using it to fuel internal combustion engines to produce electricity.

    Either way, they will earn carbon credits for preventing the gas from entering the atmosphere.

    Pig farmers will also be able to earn credits by reducing emissions from manure.

    • No shi-

    • And what does burning methane produce? Carbon Dioxide! That’s right, your tax dollars supplementing the burning of cow dung so that we can create CO2 instead. Isn’t CO2 bad according to these nutjobs? I mean, I know plants like it, so they clearly no longer want to save the rainforests, but CO2 is the new evil, right???

      • CO2 is the lesser evil, there’s just more of it…

        • I know, its just that its all so silly, and they will use terms like “destroy methane” as if you run it through a shredder and its all good. Even if the total “greenhouse gas” emmissions are less, they are not enough less to justify subsidizing, EVEN IF you buy into manmade GW.

          • I wonder why my “warmist”, liberal friend never responds when I post this stuff on facebook? I usually comment when she finds another story on how we’re destroying the world….And her friend made a comment last week & I responded, mentioned the science part, and again, silence…..

    • Hi LOI……first state to acknowledge this. Law enforcement, or for that matter anyone, who has forceful entry will. more often than not,be met with gunfire. The law enforcement here all know that everyone down to a new born as a weapon and will pull the trigger first.

      • I think this is much needed. I think police should & do enjoy certain protections, but it has long been they can get away with nearly anything. At a cultural level we have grown tired and even resentful at how the law frequently does not apply to those in authority.

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    Please……Please……Please……Please……Please……let it be so!

    North Dakota is considering the ELIMINATION of property taxes.

    • Why are you begging so hard JAC? Just to prove that the private sector can carry it’s own weight?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Because I hate property taxes more than any other form of taxation.

        It is a direct assault on our Right to property. More so than even “income” tax. It turns us into “renters” of our own homes.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        One other thing. North Dakota is next door to Montana. Maybe the idea will spread across the prairie. Please……….please…………..please. 🙂

  19. “In the case of the United States, had Barack Obama reformed the tax code to promote investment and entrepreneurialism, vastly stepped up oil and gas leasing on public lands in lieu of subsidizing Solyndra-like boondoggles, and trimmed back regulations, the economy would have grown far faster, even despite Obama’s vast deficits. ”

    Economics isn’t my strong suit -but this makes a lot of sense to me-if we want to have the ability to help people through government -we really must help business by getting out of their way. It does seem like the liberals theories work at cross purposes. It really seems evident that all they want to accomplish is the destruction of freedom.

    une 12, 2012 4:00 A.M.
    ‘Austerity’ versus ‘Growth’
    Western governments clothe their irresponsibility in misleading words.

    By Victor Davis Hanson

    Who would not prefer “growth” to “austerity”? That is the false dichotomy that insolvent Western governments, both here and abroad, are now constructing. After all, everyone prefers growing things to starving them. Yet in truth, there is no such clear-cut choice.

    In other words, “austerity” is a lie. For all the talk of terrible hardship and suffering, most of insolvent southern Europe still enjoys entitlements undreamed of by prior generations. When the French lamented that they were being squeezed to death by postponing retirement, they meant to age 62 rather than 60 — a futile reform soon to be rescinded by new French president François Hollande.

    In the case of the United States, “austerity” does not mean significant cuts in food stamps, reductions in unemployment eligibility, or a raised retirement age, but simply not adding new entitlements to those that recently were vastly expanded. It is a trademark of human nature that people resent any reduction of a benefit, or even only a moderate expansion of it, far more than not having it offered at all. Talk today of cutting the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit or No Child Left Behind, and hysteria follows — without recognition that neither program even existed before the presidency of the unpopular George W. Bush.

    But there is an even worse fraud in the new notion of “austerity”: It now commonly refers only to the level of government spending versus revenue, not to fundamental changes in the nature of regulated and closed economies. “Austerity” — the pruning back of government support — is supposed to lead to all sorts of social tensions and civic unrest. By contrast, “growth” — even more government spending — restores calm. But if labor markets are highly regulated and inflexible, if the tax structure is byzantine and punishes entrepreneurs while promoting the black market and cheating, and if government regulations crush new businesses, then the problem goes well beyond a question of expanding or cutting government benefits.

    The crisis in Greece involves not just the question whether the government must cut services and prune its labor force, but also the fact that the entire Greek legal system and national culture punish risk-taking and profit-making while rewarding timidity within a landscape of envy and jealousy. What the Greek government chooses to spend is important, but is rendered unimportant if endemic tax cheating and the regulatory straitjacket are left unaddressed.

    In the case of the United States, had Barack Obama reformed the tax code to promote investment and entrepreneurialism, vastly stepped up oil and gas leasing on public lands in lieu of subsidizing Solyndra-like boondoggles, and trimmed back regulations, the economy would have grown far faster, even despite Obama’s vast deficits. To take an example from the private sector, the Harvard graduate with $200,000 in student loans and a sociology degree is in terrible shape; the Harvard graduate with the same level of debt and an engineering or business degree is not.

    But if the bogeyman term “austerity” is misleading, even more ridiculous is the fuzzy new idea of “growth” — the notion that by not cutting back massive borrowing and high deficits, governments can create new wealth and grow themselves into prosperity. Here in the United States, we “grew” by adding $5 trillion in new borrowing — and got annual GDP growth of less than 2 percent, 40 months of 8 percent–plus unemployment, $4-a-gallon gas, and serial $1 trillion deficits. If having near-zero interest rates, borrowing more than all previous presidents combined, and putting 50 million people on food stamps is a policy of “growth,” what would be needed to actually show results? Negative interest rates? New debt of $10 trillion? More than 100 million on food stamps?

    Does anyone think austere Texas is growing more slowly than big-government California or New York? When southern-European countries piled up trillions in debt over the last decade, did such public “stimulus” and “growth” lead to far greater productivity, wealth, and security than in “austere” Germany or Scandinavia?

    So there is a disturbing counterfactual element of “never enough” inherent in the “growth” argument. There is little empirical evidence that borrowing creates national wealth, but it is still promoted on the principle that past efforts to boost the economy by running up gargantuan deficits always were too small. Thus Obama supposedly failed to restore the economy in his first term only because he did not dare to borrow $10 trillion rather than a mere $5 trillion — even though most severe recessions by now would have given way to a natural cycle of robust recoveries.

    Finally, there is one more problem with the fake growth/austerity juxtaposition. They are both simply reflections of much deeper ideologies that drive politics. “Growth” is a euphemism for the politics of hiring lots of government workers, preferably unionized, and expanding the number of people dependent on government, who in turn owe politicians their jobs and reciprocate at the polls in expectation of even greater largesse. The costs of expanding the number of government employees and offering them ever higher salaries, benefits, and retirement packages are met not through increasing productivity, but rather by increasing taxes on those who mostly make their livings under very different conditions in the despised private sector.

    “Growth,” then, is a sort of “gorge the beast” antithesis to the Reaganite “starve the beast” model. Both ideologies seek to avoid insolvency through a game of chicken — of front-loading the cost and hoping the other guy will blink first when it comes to paying for it. But where the Reagan model sought first to cut taxes, so as to cut revenue, so as to force down the size of government and prune federal dependency, the Obama paradigm seeks first to grow government, which increases dependency and therefore requires more taxes — itself a good thing because it means redistributing income from those who have no clue that they have passed the point at which they no longer need to make any more money.

    If politicians talked not of “growth” versus “austerity” but of “borrowing and spending” versus “fiscal discipline,” then there would be very little public support for their disastrous agendas. Instead, we are supposed to like the nurturers who “grow” and despise the “austere” who hack away.

    It’s that simple.

  20. THis is a new twist to things. It seems Russia is vaguely threaten using nukes. I don’t see this happening, but have heard a few whispers that this may be the way Obama can cancel the election. Trading a few nukes with Russia is not something I put past the those in DC, they are criminals and should all be removed from office. the whole Fed govt needs shut down.

    • Not sure, I can see it being a warning if the US takes any military action against any nation, especially a ME country like Syria or Iran, those countries might have and use nukes… No telling how many warheads the USSR has “misplaced”…

      Have to agree with one thing he said, “Reckless military operations usually results in radicals coming to power”. Odds are, any action the US takes in the ME will have moot or negative consequences for the US, there will be no positive results for us!

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    SUFA Political followers.

    Please MARK TODAY down on your calendar as the day a strategic ploy by the Republican establishment was launched to discredit the Tea Party indirectly and their spokespeople, like Grover Norquist, in particular.

    The MACHINE is fighting back. And they have the media on their side.

    Don’t give in.

  22. charlieopera says:

    Charlie comes here for some decent debate … and sometimes yous manage that; other times not. But it is your church and your choir and not enough of us idiots to drown out the noise.

    I’ll be gone for a couple of weeks … off to school so when I get my Masters I can take another cut in salary (the first compliments of outsourcing). I’ll do it because I love it … idealist that I am.

    But before I venture off into the wilds of New Hampshire … I bid you so long (for now) and for BF and his never ending bag of wind lectures, I leave him this:

    • Jon comes here for decent debate as well, which there would be little of without those who disagree with me, so you are appreciated and will be missed. You don’t always manage decent debate, but you do at least some of the time. 🙂
      Seriously, enjoy your trip and be safe in the wilds of NH.

  23. charlieopera says:
    • Hey Chuck, still miss Gorbachev? Ah, the good old days…..

      NBC Notes 25th Anniversary of Reagan’s ‘Tear Down This Wall’ Speech

      By Brad Wilmouth | June 12,

      Uniquely among the broadcast network evening newscasts, on Tuesday’s NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams noted that today is the 25th anniversary of President Reagan calling on Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev to demolish the Berlin Wall, as Reagan stood in Berlin on June 12, 1987, and delivered his famous “Tear down this wall” speech. Williams read the brief item:

      Hard to believe it’s been 25 years, but it was one of the signature moments of the Reagan presidency in the waning months of the Cold War with the old Eastern Block. June 12, 1987, when Ronald Reagan stood in Berlin and said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” It eventually did come down just over two years later.

      Read more:

  24. Mood music for you working slaves

  25. I do not understand the surprise and the indignation at the happenings in Syria. It is a civil war….the killing and torture of women and children in these countries is nothing unusual. This has been going on for centuries and will continue to go on. It is a normal operating business in this part of the world. The only difference today……technology. Video cell phones and U tube only bring it to the attention of the world quicker and more visually.

    Syria is a surrogate of Russia. This has been known forever and everyone is having a cow because of the attack helicopters being supplied. The United States has been giving Russia financial aid to the tune of a billion here and there and they turn it to weapons systems and resell it …….and people are surprised.

    Mr. Hope and Change promised to stop wars has only got us involved in three more….and people are surprised.

    There has never been a power grab this large since the Kennedy family tried it in the 60’s and people are surprised.


    • Smoke & mirrors, Russia wants us distracted and to keep us expending resources where it benefits their interests. Saw yesterday the Navy is shifting ALL their most advanced ships to the Pacific. Didn’t read the article but thought that was directed at China, which may take military action to secure the oil/natural gas resources in the S. China sea. Overextend America and then take what you want?

    • Insurgent groups post authentic and faked videos on Internet sites, such as and Some of the videos are rebroadcast by TV networks.

      On June 11, for example, Fox News repeatedly broadcast a short video that seems to show wounded civilians being rushed out of a building in Syria.

      The video was posted on with a caption reading, “As people try to flee the area, an occupied building takes an incoming rocket with a direct hit fired by Assad’s Syrian Army. Civilians rush to aid those killed or wounded inside. A small baby is also brought out, it is unclear if this child survived the impact.”

      But the video may be faked.

      The cameraman inexplicably focuses on the building even though there’s no shooting before the apparent missile strike. In fact, children are seen walking in the adjacent crossroads while a gunman directs traffic away from the building.

      An internal explosion produces much dust, but no visible debris, and then produces two bright, brief flames on the rooftop, similar to Hollywood-style gasoline explosions.

      A group of adjacent gunmen immediately run up to evacuate people from the building, and rush a sympathy-inducing baby and child past the camera, but without showing any evidence of injury.

      A pickup truck quickly backs into the picture to serve as an ambulance, but a supposedly injured woman is carried past the truck towards the camera and a group of armed men waiting behind the camera.

      “It looks suspicious … but it is impossible to say for sure without more context,” White said.

      Read more:

  26. NY Planned Parenthood turns into a Circus
    Jack Kemp

    In my neighborhood this morning, I found a flyer in free newspaper street box for the “8th Annual Benefit for Planned Parenthood of New York City” and a link to their website. They call the event “Summer, Sex & Spirits.”

    Now getting drunk and having sex in a season when people wear fewer clothes seems like a recipe for UNPLANNED Parenthood – or perhaps the abortion services that Planned Parenthood provides.

    The event will take place at the Hudson Terrace, a luxurious bar with a sweeping view of the Hudson River. Check out their web page. Among the entertainment mentioned in the flyer is “Naughty balloon artistry by Mistress B,” with a link to her web page. Let’s just say that the balloon imagery is reminiscent of Anthony Weiner’s transmitted photos.

    Another entertainment is the Lady Circus, an all women acrobatic group. Of course, if Planned Parenthood of New York continues funding efforts to abort female babies selectively, the Lady Circus may have to hire men to make up for a lower female population.

    When Cardinal Dolan of New York sued the Obama administration over their birth control mandate in May, “Representatives for Planned Parenthood New York blasted the archdiocese for turning the health issue into a religious issue.” So Planned Parenthood now wants to dictate what areas of human life the Church is qualified to speak about — or have to pay for. Planned Parenthood’s redefinition of an unwanted pregnancy here is that it is a form of bad health, similar to a disease like asthma or a broken leg that any Catholic hospital should be required to treat or “fix.”

    When the Susan B. Komen Foundation bowed to pressure, groveled and then restored its funding of Planned Parenthood, they were in a figurative media circus. Now, if their representatives come to this New York event, they can be at a real circus. Just don’t take any of Mistress B’s naughty balloon designs back to Texas to decorate the headquarters office.

    Read more:

    • Another evil organization that needs to have all public funding removed.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Hmm…I didn’t realize it was evil to provide cancer screening and STD tests/treatments to women….

  27. Yeah, that’s why an LA High School is opening a PP – for cancer screening.
    Can’t have sugared soda in our high schools, but need to kill your kid during study hall and we’ve got you covered! What the hell is wrong with our society?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Kathy, that’s not even remotely the case and you know it.

      The clinic (which had been in existence prior as a partnership with a local hospital, but due to lack of funding has closed and now is reopening as a partnership with Planned Parenthood) provides a nurse assistant, free contraception, and pregnancy and STD testing to students. This is an effort (supported by the local community I might add) to combat the rise in teen pregnancies within the community.

      • In California, you have to have your parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion.

        Buck, would you hire a pedophile to babysit? PP gets a huge amount of it’s revenue from abortions. They are not about advising kids on planing to be parents, they are about the money. They shout “reproductive rights” but their primary service seems to be anti-reproduction. Who’s the eco-nuts that think humans are killing the planet? Bet they are PP fans!!!

        • Buck the Wala says:

          “would you hire a pedophile to babysit?” What are you talking about here?

          First off, this clinic will not be providing abortions.
          Secondly, only 3% of PP services nationwide are abortions (hardly a primary service).
          Thirdly, yes, ‘reproductive rights’ necessarily includes the right to decide when you want to have a child.

          • Buck,

            97% of pregnant women who enter PP pregnant, walk out no longer pregnant. What about that “planning” role? Adoptions? And the three% number, come on!!! Do even you believe that????

            In its last reported fiscal year (2008-2009), PPFA clinics aborted 332,278 children, a number equal to the entire population of Cincinnati. Since 1970, PPFA has aborted an estimated 5,300,000 children, equivalent to the entire population of Colorado.

            In an interview published March 17 in the Texas Tribune, Ms. Richards spoke at length about all the healthcare PPFA provides: “We see 3 million patients each year across the country. For 97 percent of them, we provide preventive care. Three percent are abortions.”

            Yet according to PPFA’s own March 2011 Planned Parenthood Services fact sheet, 332,278 abortions were performed on some of PPFA’s three million clients in the year ending June 30, 2009. This suggests that eleven percent of their clients had abortions in that year, not three percent. But the best measure of how important abortions are to PPFA’s bottom line is the fact that abortions produce at least 37 percent of PPFA revenues “by very conservative estimates.”[1]

            PPFA has also expanded these lucrative abortion services, adding surgical or “medical” (RU-486) abortion to the services offered at an additional 75 clinics between 2005 and 2009. In that period, PPFA’s total annual abortions grew 25 percent,[2] while other services declined. For example, prenatal care clients numbered 7,021 in the most recent year (down 60 percent in the last five years),[3] and adoption referrals to other agencies numbered only 977, compared to 4,912 in 2007, (see page 7) a remarkable 80% drop in adoption referrals in only two years.

            Due to this increase in abortions and decrease in prenatal care and adoption services, 97.6 percent of PPFA “services” for pregnant women in 2009 involved killing their children, and only 2.4 percent involved prenatal care or adoption referral.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              97% of pregnant women who enter PP pregnant, walk out no longer pregnant.

              And you’re getting that figure from where exactly?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Oh wait…that has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand, even if a completely accurate number (which I still question). It ignores the millions of women who enter PP not pregnant to begin with.

              • Mathius™ says:


              • I’m curious-Matt and Buck-If PP was only in business to do abortions-if they did absolutely nothing else:

                Would you still believe they should get government money?
                Would you still support them as “good for woman”?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                If 100% of PP was abortion services…

                1) Yes and no. I don’t believe there necessarily needs to be some magic dividing line with respect to allowing federal funding for abortion, a legal medical procedure. That being said, the government cannot fund everything under the sun. I would probably support some level of funding though.

                2) Absolutely yes.

              • Mathius™ says:

                If- IF- that was all they did.

                Would you still believe they should get government money?
                No. I’m not 100% convinced they should get government money NOW, but I can see a valid argument for it. But if it were JUST abortions, nothing else, no.

                Would you still support them as “good for woman”?
                The reason PP is “good for women” is that they provide valuable medical services, including breast and gynecological exams, as well as providing preventative birth control services. For many women, there is nowhere else to go and these are very valuable. Abortions… can be good for women.. in very select cases. I, however, am not in any position to judge when that is and is not the case, nor would I ever wish to be asked to evaluate this.

                Personally, I would like to see a MASSIVE ramp-up in pregnancy prevention. This necessarily includes education in school of sex-ed. It is a NECESSARY part of the equation. I’d love to see fewer abortions, but the key to to prevent the pregnancies in the first place. To that end, everyone needs unfettered, judgement-free, affordable access to the pill, to condoms, to IUDs, to tube-tying, to The Snip. And this includes children without parental approval. PP is great for this, but they just have too much head-wind to meet that goal. I think if people, like you, are so anti-abortion (and it’s a legitimate stance), you would find a way to get these services to the masses in order to PREVENT the abortions.


                Now, if I may, I’d like to turn this around on you. If – IF – Planned Parenthood did not provide abortions, but only contraceptives, counseling, breast/gyno/prenatal exams, etc:

                Would you believe they should get government money?
                Would you support them as “good for woman”?

              • You can find it at multiple sources, but here’s one..


              • Buck the Wala says:

                LOI, hate to break it to you, but your own source confirms: “This is three percent of the 11 million services it provided.”

                The breakdown PP provides indicates that abortions account for 3% of its SERVICES. There is no claim being made that only 3% of all patients obtain an abortion.

              • And when they report 320,000 abortions one year, they only show 997 adoptions???


              • Buck the Wala says:

                LOI, again the number of abortions versus the number of adoptions is irrelevant in assessing the claim that only 3% of its services are abortions. This is a fact, as your own source confirms.

                Now you are seeming to make the allegation that PP is actively advising its patients to undergo an abortion as opposed to placing the child up for adoption to increase its revenue and profits. Any support for such a claim?

              • Do I think we should have free clients for poor people to get medical care-yes I do-does government have to pay for it-I don’t know-maybe, but only because their policies have a tendency to increase the cost of healthcare.

                As far as the rest of your post -pretty much all you said was that we must support and encourage millions of abortions because heaven forbid we judge anything as wrong, even if it’s wrong 99.999999999% of the time.

            • Buck, the link is in the post right above yours, a thousand adoptions to 320,000 abortions. So if abortion is 3% of their business, adoption must be 0.00003%? And if you count 8 million condoms handed out, sure their focus is on preventing unwanted pregnancies…

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Not following you here.

                PP is not an ‘adoption clinic’ – never has been. If you were interested in carrying to term and placing your child up for adoption, you wouldn’t go to PP. No one is arguing this fact.

                PP focus is most certainly on preventing unwanted pregnancies as well as providing preventative care and treatment to women in terms of cancer screenings and STD tests/treatments. How is this an ‘evil’ (in the words of Kathy) thing?

            • Buck, their name is Planned PARENTHOOD. Does that not imply their mission is something to do with having children? They offer adoption guidance along with several other services. Funny though how much of their cancer screening is just referrals. And how few that go there end up having children. More like “How to avoid being a parent, at all costs”!

          • “would you hire a pedophile to babysit?” What are you talking about here?
            They are an Abortion business, claiming to be several other things. They do SOME adoption work, some breast cancer screening, birth control, STD’s…The fact that abortions provide a significant portion of their revenue should raise the question of conflicts of interest. If you think human life is something to value, adoption should be a much better alternative to abortion. But how many adoptions do they assist? Where do their interests seem to be based on what they do, not what they say? Would you prefer to call it hiring a fox to guard the hen house?

            Planned Parenthood is very far from the uncontroversial organization the Susan G. Komen Foundation aspires to be. According to its most recent annual report, for 2010, Planned Parenthood sells abortions to nine out of every 10 pregnant women who come to its clinics. And it’s known throughout the country as an implacable and aggressive opponent of any meaningful restrictions on deliberate feticide.

            Planned Parenthood has spent millions fighting even those legislative initiatives that command extremely wide public support, such as laws requiring parental notification and informed consent for abortions, and those banning late-term abortions when the child developing in the womb is fully viable. Planned Parenthood even opposes a bill recently introduced in Congress to ban abortions for the purpose of sex selection.


  28. @ LOI…..of course the move to the Pacific is for China. China is beefing up their military a lot faster than ours… moves to intimidate the South Pacific. It wants to entrench now because there will be no counter by the US other than moving pegs around a board. What is playing out right now on the world chess stage is amazing. China and Russia moving queens and bishops around and the US…..moving pawns.

    • But I am also a proponent to say..” Let it happen” ….let someone else be the big kid….and then when the US is no longer the dominant power…..and the resulting changes that would happen because of it…..the pundits will then say….wha’ happened? We are trying to be nice in a not nice world and we will pay the price for it.

      • What-I am so confused-One the one hand you say we should just mind our own business-then I hear what sounds like “but we will regret doing so”?????????? 🙂 Explain please

        • Ok… is my ‘splenation………..Obama is going to intervene or try to,…..I say let it happen, it is a civil war but no one should be upset what is happening over there…this is nothing new. I am saying that we can still be the big kid on the block without intervening in anyone’s affairs. I am saying that the pundits of the left wish to reduce the military to less than a dominate world power….I am saying that will have drastic effects. I repeat…..we can still be the big kid on the block without being interventionists.

          Let em fight it out. Russia will ensure that there will be no change and the carnage will not stop. It is not our fight. Do not be alarmed at the atrocities of the world… has brought centuries of atrocities to our doorstep… is nothing new and nothing to be droopy-eyed about. That’s all.

          Better? 🙂

          • Better-but I still want to know what being the big kid on the block means in technical terms-do we close down bases but maintain our presence some other way-do we keep some bases open-or do we just bring everything home and build up around our own borders. Do we still protect Canada, Europe, Israel, S. Korea? Do we install warning systems in other parts of the world? Do we keep a military presence in the world or not?

            • ‘splenation of the ‘splenation.

              Big kid on the block means……We are the biggest baddest mutha around. We have enough military to annihilate whoever wishes to pick on us

              Yes, we close down bases and bring the troops and money home.
              No, we do not protect anybody but ourselves. Pull out of Europe and if they wish to maintain a US presence there for technical and military advisory assistance…..ok, if they pay the tab…100%
              We have no reason to protect Canada nor Israel. They can protect themselves. S Korea can protect itself on the ground.

              We keep our navy task forces and carrier groups in the areas they already are. We keep our nuclear deterrent right where it is and do not agree to one sided arms agreements that no one abides by anyway.

              We refrain from being the world’s policeman….we owe the world nothing. We stand back and fold our arms and watch the world implode and if anybody looks our way………….make em flat, black, and glow in the dark.

              • How is providing technical and advisory assistance not intervening?

                And if it isn’t in our best interest for them to win, why should we get involved just because they pay us-and if it is in our best interest-why shouldn’t we get involved even if they don’t pay us?

    • Kinda hard begging for money from the same guy you are threatening…

  29. And now, I just heard on the news, there is a move afoot to limit popcorn? LOL….

  30. Perhaps it is time to remind everyone, that the democrats had the check book, filibuster proof, from 2006 through 2010…..and still has a filibuster proof Senate…….

    • Actually I think it’s time to check your facts and definitions…

      • Well, Todd…here is what I found…..The Democrats took the house AND Senate in 2006 and had over 60 votes to filibuster proof…they had the check book…..Bush did not. When Obama was elected, the Democrats had the same percentages in the House and Senate and filibuster proof until 2010……..the Republicans took the house but the Senate has remained in control of the Democrats…..who refuse to pass a budget and they have 290 bills at last count sitting in the Senate and Reid, majority leader, has refused to send them to committee nor pass a budget….I would say that makes the Senate filibuster proof….the votes are not there. There is no way the Republicans can push anything forward.


        Perhaps you know something I do not about the makeup of the Congress?

        “Democrats maintain a majority of both the US Senate and House of Representatives, and have since the election of 2006.

        Read more:

        The 2010 election was held on Tuesday, Nov. 2, with at least 36 of the 100 seats in the Senate being contested and all U.S. House seats up for election. After sweeping victories, Republicans will control at least 239 seats in the House of Representatives in the next Congress, eliminating a previous Democratic majority. In the Senate, the Democratic majority will remain with a 53-46 advantage.


        “Exasperated House Democratic leaders have compiled a list showing that they have passed 290 bills that have stalled in the Senate.”

        Ref: The

        I do not know how you count it, sir…but this is what I found.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Sorry Colonel, while the Dems did most certainly have a majority, they did not have a filibuster proof majority in 2006. This would require 60 Senators. I believe there were 59. Perhaps you are mistakenly counting Lieberman to get to this magic number?

          • No, not mistakenly counting,.,,,,I did count him.

            • And the reason I counted him was because he still aligns with the Democratic Party even tho independent.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                He may caucus with the Dems, but I wouldn’t count him as a Dem vote.

              • Outside of being on the “hawkish” side, especially when it comes to the Middle East, I would like to see where Joe Lieberman falls on conservative vs. liberal voting. I think you will find him safely on the left. The Hannity’s give him a pass because he is a hawk and I guess you condemn him because he did not abide by the primary results when he lost and ran as an independent.

              • And then there was this:

                Adding Franken, 58, to the Senate would give Democrats the 60 votes needed to overcome any Republican filibuster on legislation.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I don’t know if condemn is the right word.

                I agree that his voting record is more to the left than right, but I don’t believe you can count him as a solid Dem vote. I’d have to take a much closer look at his overall voting record.

        • Colonel,
          Your numbers are way off – and so is your understanding of what “filibuster proof” means.

          You can find the actual Senate make-up by party here – scroll to the bottom:

          If you count all Independents as Democrats (which I know you do, whether that is valid or not):

          After the 2006 elections, Democrats had a 51-49 majority.
          After the 2008 elections, Democrats had a 59-41 majority.
          After the 2010 elections, Democrats have a 53-47 majority.

          The only “filibuster proof” time was after Arlen Specter switched to the Dems and before Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by Scott Brown – about 9 months.

          Also, “filibuster proof” is only valid when 60 members actually agree on something. That wasn’t really the case in 2009.

          You also seem a little obsessed with the Dems controlling the “check book”. By that I assume you mean the House, where all appropriations bills start?

          Are you implying the Dems are responsible for all spending in 2007-2010 because they controlled the House?

          So, by that definition, the Reps are responsible for all spending in 2011-2012 because they controlled the House? Obama did not…

  31. Mathius™ says:


  32. Hillary Clinton has recently visited Greenland to experience firsthand “global warming.” According to James Taylor, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites have shown minimal if any reduction in polar ice caps since 1979 when their satellites were launched. “Whole Viking villages built in Greenland 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period, remain buried under hundreds of feet of snow and ice.” (James Taylor, “Hillary Needs a New Global Warming Travel Agent,” Forbes, June 6, 2012)

  33. *****coffee police lurking around lawyers buildings in NJ and NY*****

  34. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Yes my friends, we have a winner! Best word I have heard in a long time!

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    BF and Peter B.

    I saw an interview with a legislator from Virginia this morning who claimed that “the records show” that seal level in the Richmond area has risen 14 inches in the past 100 years.



    • Seems sort of self-evidently false. Its the ocean. How does it rise over a foot in the “Richmond area”? Besides, I live in Richmond, trust me, we do not have a sea level here, we are a couple hour’s drive from the ocean. Also, being from Richmond, I can assure you, the legislator in that interview is a friggin moron, if that was not already evident from what he said. Further, there was not very good records kept of sea levels in virginia in 1912, so the 100 years claim is bunk, and thats not even including the fact that, yes, the sea level records in Richmond are non-existent because we have not had any sea level in Richmond at all since hurricane Camille back in ’69…

    • 14inches????
      impossible – that would be utterly fantastic.
      Maybe.. 1.4inches
      probably .14inches

    • no, they started putting the state seal on documents 14 inches higher then they used to

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Apparently that legislator was confusing his IQ with sea level rise and came up with the number 14.

      There is absolutely no evidence that sea level ANYWHERE has risen by 14 inches in the past century. The widely documented and accepted global average rate of sea level rise is about 6mm/decade or 6cm/century, which is less than 2.5 inches/century. Richmond is probably somewhere around average.

      Also, the most recent charts I have seen show sea level leveling off the past few years and perhaps even starting to drop slightly.

  36. CARACAS, Venezuela – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says his government has begun to assemble Kalashnikov assault rifles with assistance from Russia and has also started making surveillance drones.

    Chavez says Venezuela has produced three drones so far. One of the small planes was shown on television atop a truck.

    Chavez also said during a televised speech on Wednesday that Venezuela has so far assembled 3,000 Kalashnikov AK 103 rifles. He said that Venezuela has also started making grenades and ammunition for its military.

    Chavez says Venezuela is strengthening its military with help from allies including China, Russia and Iran.

  37. Good article on the mindset of Hubris, something I have seen the Left Wingers displaying alot in the past. 🙂

  38. @ Buck…I am showing 51/47/2 in the current Senate…Have I missed something?

    • Sorry, reference is from INFOPLEASE

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I thought we were talking about having a filibuster proof majority, not a simple majority.

      • OOOPS!!!!! You are correct….my bad. I keep forgetting about the 60 and my reference to filibuster is also to mean….that a majority leader refusing to let bills get to committee has the same result as filibuster. Sorry……..I bet that is where Todd was coming from…..

        OK…..Colonel amends definition (sometimes Colonel’s can do this)….LOL.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          So this is what happens when old retired Colonels don’t get their DP fix! 🙂

          • Yes, it is one of the things……mouth gets in gear before brain engaged…it happens….and it will happen to you as well. Heh heh.

            • However, will you agree with the fact that the result is the same? If bills do not get to committee…..then the result is the same….it actually negates the effect of a filibuster, as I see it.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Same general effect, sure.

              • WOO HOO…the Buckster and I have a tacit agreement.

                (caveat: This in no way impugns your rights to disagree on other things).

                But spoken like a true barrister….”same general effect”…..The Walla leaves wiggle room.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Always leave wiggle room! Good advice for life in general.

    • 😯 I bet Matt has no problem with this.

      • (Wonder when they will start handing out homework assignments? Pass out lollipops or banana’s before the talk?)

        Pannkuk and her husband sat their daughter down and asked her explain what she was taught in the class.

        “You take a man’s penis and you put it in your mouth – that’s what the girls do to the boys,” their daughter told the couple. “The boys spread the girls legs apart and put their mouths down on the vaginas.”

        Pannkuk said he became enraged as his 11-year-old daughter recounted what the principal had told the classroom.

        “Steam was coming out my ears,” he said. “I was very, very upset. I understand that they need to teach these kids sex education – but 11-year-olds? I have a problem with that. The wife and I were very – very upset.”

        Gilliland said another child explained to their parents that it “was basically like a lollipop.”

    • This is why it is imperative parents get involved and question everything going on in their kids school from kindergarden through High School. Math, History, Science, etc are things that the educators need to focus on. If the “public” School is not teaching how and what the community wants taught, then remove the current school board members and ellect those that will.

      It is paramount to regain our control over the schools, otherwise we are going to face a continued rise in maladjusted youth.


  39. June 14, 2012 4:00 A.M.
    New Mexico Assaults Religious Liberty
    A wedding photographer sued for refusing same-sex couples isn’t the only example.

    By Ian Tuttle

    When 43 Catholic dioceses, schools, and institutions filed suit against the Obama administration to block the HHS mandate, they reiterated for all Americans the importance of preserving “our first, most cherished liberty”: religious liberty, as guaranteed in the First Amendment. But while national attention lingers on that specific clash, fresh assaults on religious liberty carry on elsewhere.

    The latest battleground is New Mexico. In 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found Elane Photography, an Albuquerque photography studio co-owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband, Jonathan, guilty of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for refusing to photograph Vanessa Willock’s same-sex “commitment ceremony.” The court ordered the business to pay $6,600 in attorney’s fees.

    If it was little surprise that the commission found in favor of Willock, it was a shock when, last month, the New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. The three-judge panel rejected Elane Photography’s claim that forcing the business to photograph the same-sex ceremony against its conscientious objections constituted “compelled speech” in violation of the owners’ federal and state rights. It also rejected the Huguenins’ claims to protection under the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause and the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

    “I felt like Atticus Finch,” Jordan Lorence, the Huguenins’ attorney, told NRO. “There is so clearly an injustice here.” Lorence is a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization of Christian lawyers specializing in religious-freedom cases.

    The court dismissed the appeal that was based on the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act as inapplicable in a dispute between “private parties,” apparently failing to recognize that the law should certainly apply to a dispute with the Human Rights Commission, whose ruling and damages Elane Photography was appealing. The court based its decision, in large part, on the technical distinction that a photography studio qualifies as a “public accommodation,” defined in the New Mexico Human Rights Act as “any establishment that provides or offers its services . . . to the public,” such as a shop or a restaurant, “but does not include a[n] . . . establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private.”

    But isn’t a photography studio’s product different in kind from the products of, say, a burger joint or a shoe store? Neither the commission nor the court believed so. While the studio “does exercise some degree of control over the photographs it is hired to take,” the court wrote, “this control does not transform the photographs into a message from Elane Photography.” The court labeled the business, instead, “a mere conduit for another’s expression,” thereby denying it any free-speech protections available under the First Amendment.

    Elaine Huguenin said it best, commenting on the HRC proceedings in 2008: “The way the commission talks about this, it reduces me to a gumball machine.” Coins in, pictures out. But wedding photography, as Lorence tried to argue before the court, is not that simple: It is an “expressive artistic” endeavor that requires the careful application of skill. Willock implicitly acknowledged this in her initial e-mail to Elane Photography, asking for a photographer who would be willing to help “celebrate” the ceremony. It’s not a stretch to imagine that an artist would have rendered the ceremony differently had Willock asked for someone to “interpret” or “glorify” it.

    In its desire to prop up the same-sex-marriage agenda, though, the court has rejected that distinction and, in doing so, established a shocking precedent: Not only photographers but writers, videographers, graphic designers, and a host of others who market their services can now be legitimately forced by the government to work on behalf of causes with which they disagree.

    The case is ripe for hypotheticals: An atheist web programmer asked to create a megachurch’s Internet site? A Muslim graphic designer asked to create an advertisement for a hot-dog stand? According to the court’s decision, the government has the right and the responsibility to force each to participate, despite his conscience objections. And in cities like Seattle, Wash., and Madison, Wis., where discrimination statutes extend to political affiliation, the government’s coercive power could force an ad agency to work on behalf of the American Nazi Party or the Communist Party U.S.A.

    But why rely on hypotheticals when a growing number of cases like this are coming before courts nationwide?

    In March, Hands On Originals, a T-shirt business in Lexington, Ky., refused to make shirts for an upcoming gay-pride parade. In response, the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization of Lexington filed a complaint with the Lexington Human Rights Commission.

    Or, from the opposite side: New Mexico liberals have cheered the courage of Antonio Darden, a Santa Fe hairdresser who earlier this year publicly refused to cut Governor Susana Martinez’s hair because of her opposition to same-sex marriage. “If I’m not good enough to be married,” he told the Santa Fe New Mexican, “I’m not going to cut her hair.” By the standard set in the wedding-photography case, the governor could file a discrimination complaint against Darden, as the Huguenins’ attorney pointed out in a New Mexican op-ed.

    Elane Photography plans to appeal its case to the New Mexico Supreme Court and, if necessary, to the U.S. Supreme Court. But it’s not merely a matter of overturning an unfavorable ruling. The implications of the decision are staggering. “It needs to be reversed,” Lorence argues, “as a matter of ordered liberty.” The decision could be used to effectively bar those opposed to same-sex marriage (or any other liberal cause) from the marketplace.

    Add to Elane Photography and Hands On Originals organizations such as the Ocean Grove (N.J.) Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church, sued for barring a same-sex civil-union ceremony from its property, and individuals such as Don Mendell, a Maine school counselor investigated for endorsing traditional marriage in a 2009 campaign ad, and it becomes clear that threats to religious liberty are not isolated incidents. They signal a nationwide assault on the same right at stake in the battle against the HHS mandate: the right of businesses and private citizens to abide by the dictates of conscience, free from government coercion.

    And while it is certainly not clear that as goes New Mexico, so goes the nation, if liberal activists and their judicial backers can chip away at conscience protections in cities and states, they will eventually succeed at the federal level.

    • from John Lott

      Children raise by homosexual parents apparently have some real problems
      A new study finds significant problems in children raised by homosexual parents.

      Those who knew that their mothers had had a lesbian relationship fared significantly worse on measures of educational attainment and household income, reported more depression, used marijuana more, more often reported forced sexual encounters, felt less close to their biological mother, felt less safe and secure in their family of origin, had more often pled guilty to a minor criminal offense and were more likely to be on public assistance.
      Those who knew their fathers had had a gay relationship were more likely to have been arrested, to have thought recently about suicide, to feel depressed, to report sexually transmitted diseases and to have experienced forced sex.
      Twenty-three percent of young adults who knew their mother to have had a gay relationship reported being forced to have sexual contact with a parent or adult caregiver, while only 2 percent of intact families with a mother and father reported such contact. For female young adults, that figure leapt to 31 percent (while only 3 percent of young women from intact heterosexual families reported this). . . .

      Keith Ablow has a general discussion beyond what is quoted above about this research.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I’m throwing out the BS flag on this ‘study’:

        From Huffington: “But other scientists say the research is deeply flawed, and does not measure the effect of same-sex parenting at all. The study defined same-sex parenting by asking participants if their parents had ever had same-sex relationships, and whether they had lived with the parent at that time. That led to a “hodgepodge” group of people who Regnerus then compared with kids in stable, married homes, said Judith Stacey, a sociologist at New York University who was not involved in the research.

        “He doesn’t have an actual category of gay parents in the project that you can isolate and say the most important thing in this kid’s childhood is that they were raised by gay parents,” Stacey told LiveScience. “These are kids whose parents, maybe they divorced, maybe they separated, maybe they had a scandalous affair, we just don’t know.”

        In contrast, a fair comparison would have matched up children of same-sex parents with children of heterosexual parents who looked otherwise similar — no extra divorces, no extra separations, no extra time in foster care for the kids, said Gary Gates, a researcher at the Williams Institute, a sexual orientation policy think tank at the University of California, Los Angeles.”

        • Buck, I mostly agree it’s BS. I do think this shows what other studies have shown, a strong, stable family produces a higher percentage of stable, functional kids/adults. Aren’t these nearly the same numbers reported for children raised by a single mother?

          (and did it cause you to stand up and shout bulldookey before you responded?)
          win/win for me,LOL

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Nope, sorry, I didn’t stand up and shout bulldookey. I just took the yellow BS flag and threw it out into the hallway.

            Now, in terms of having a strong, stable family with two parents – I know other studies have confirmed that this is best for children, but based on my past reading, there was no real difference between having a strong, stable family with heterosexual parents and a strong, stable family with homosexual parents.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          There is a flaw in the arguments against the study.

          The study seems to match up against the premise being tested. The arguments against change the premise to justify their own.

          The critics are guilty of creating a hand picked sub-population. Not exactly OBJECTIVE SCIENCE.

          The legitimate criticism is not the sample but stretching the results to far in making conclusions about the “affect” under any circumstance.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I don’t believe this points to a flaw in the arguments against the study. The results of the study are being raised, at least in part, in an attempt to prove that homosexuals should not be parents. This is a deeply flawed reading of this study and the arguments against the study make this point.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      The FUNDAMENTAL problem here is not a religious freedom issue.

      It is the power of the Govt to DICTATE that a private business is actually a PUBLIC enterprise and thus subject to protection of “rights” that were clearly designed to protect those rights from Govt Action, not private.

      FREEDOM and LIBERTY LOST this case years ago. The photographer is toast.

      • Obviously your right-I had no idea when I agreed that no Black Americans or any other should be denied access to public places -what that decision would lead too. But they have been pushing the discrimination boundary to the insane. Now they want to change the definition used for the exception. At the same time they are taking a more direct attack against religious freedom.

        We are all toast, if people don’t wake up.

  40. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    This link is especially dedicated to JAC, but any of you that have the time (LOTS of time) and the inclination, should really check this site out. Basically, when the warmists claim that the skeptics have “no peer reviewed literature” to provide evidence for the skeptical position, here’s your answer in one easy location:

    This does get updated regularly, so even though there is a 2009 in the link, there are peer reviewed papers in “the stack” from 2010 and 2011. I am sure they will be adding 2012 papers soon if they have not begun to do so already.

  41. Here’s the daily Bash Obama article but I figured the Colonel would like this comment:

    Caley Bovee · Top Commenter
    Are you really that stupid?

    The State of Texas is going to be in a world of hurt soon, because they have baked a structural deficit into their budget. And how do they balance the difference???? Why with federal dollars.

  42. “A group that opposes Planned Parenthood’s mission and services is promoting a hoax patient videotape that features clinicians from two of our health centers as well as an introduction featuring an actor posing as a Planned Parenthood clinician,” Anderson said in a statement provided to The Daily Caller. “Edited videos of hoax patient visits are part of a coordinated campaign by this group over the last several years to distort Planned Parenthood’s services, mission and values. Today’s video shows two staff members providing accurate information in response to highly unusual questions.”

    The footage is the fourth installment in the group’s series “Gendercide: Sex-selection in America.”

    In Maui, Planned Parenthood counselor Leslie Watson stressed non-judgment about a Live Action actor’s decision to abort based on gender.

    “This is your reason and this is your situation,” Watson said in the video. “So they should be accommodating because this can help you determine, and it’s nobody’s business and nobody’s reason but yours.”

    A Planned Parenthood counselor in Live Action’s Honolulu sting tells the actor to be sure to space out her abortions when she decides to terminate on the basis of sex, going on to suggest that she obtain her abortion through Hawaii’s QUEST state health insurance.

    “So if I wanted to terminate a girl, the government would pay for it?” the actor asked in the film.

    “They don’t care,” the counselor responded.

    Read more:

    • une 14, 2012
      Is There a Woman’s Right to Be Born?
      By TR Clancy

      An abortion is a homicide.

      In order to camouflage this stark, staring reality from the view of civilized, sentient beings made in the image of God, advocates fudge abortion’s homicidal nature by emphasizing instead that it’s first and foremost a solution to a problem. Americans understand problem-solving. Paint a problem in appalling enough terms — a 10-year-old impregnated by her father! a woman who will die if forced to carry her baby to term! — and sympathy for the mother tends to squeeze out close consideration of the other, graver problem created by the favored solution — that is, the unborn child’s problem of being marked out for death by its own mother.

      As solutions to human problems go, you’d think any solution entailing homicide deserves the greatest scrutiny, not the least. Capital punishment is homicide (not murder, but homicide). Killing in wartime is homicide. Western civilization sanctions both, provided neither is resorted to without first engaging in a searching inquiry of the circumstances and an adherence to strict rules. Or not — we don’t do any such thing, as opponents of these kinds of killing would protest, which is why these actions should be outlawed. Either way, the logic’s not far different: opponents of capital punishment object, among other reasons, that it’s too easy to make a mistake, which is why innocent defendants lose their lives. Anti-war activists object to a particular war because it was undertaken on insufficient grounds or is being fought by the wrong rules. Or many object to all wars, regardless, because, they say, whatever the problem is, war is not the answer.

      The point is this: it’s the plainest truth in the world that it would be madness to sanction an activity whose principal byproduct is spilled human blood without due attention given to why and when such an activity can take place.

      But we’ve been listening to that kind of madness for 40 years. No argument for the abortion license has been more inflexible than that a woman’s choice to terminate her unwanted child must remain shielded from all evaluation whatsoever. Abortion advocate Michelle Goldberg recently explained her opposition to a ban on sex-selective abortion, even though she considers the practice “odious,” by saying, “Banning it means allowing the government to decide what constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate a pregnancy, and forcing doctors to try to discern the motives of their patients.” Stated otherwise, killing unborn girls because they are girls may be “odious,” but our current abortion regime forbids judging that choice by any criterion outside the absolute will of the mother — which can never be questioned. In spite of years of lectures about the sacred relationship between a woman and her doctor, even the abortionist is denied the competence to look into the reasons behind the “medical procedure” he is called upon to perform. In order to remain truly free, a woman’s choice can’t have any strings attached tying it to any standards of law, morality, or even good manners. To be genuine, the freedom to choose must be an exercise of arbitrary power.

      Rather than detracting from the logic that abortion is an act of pure will, the shockingly bad reasons women offer for terminating their children actually ensure that the freedom to choose is not being “burdened.” Like with the Queen of Hearts and her impulsive commands to behead her subjects, it’s the very capriciousness of her decisions that proves that she wields sovereign authority.

      Abortion proponents view a woman’s “choice” as extending beyond herself even to disposal of the life of a born child who has survived a botched abortion. Obviously, a live infant can’t be discounted any longer as just part of “a woman’s body,” nor be blamed, post partum, for being a threat to her life in childbirth. None of that matters. No circumstance can be allowed to nullify the woman’s decree that the child be unmade. Then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama followed this logic exactly when he opposed a state bill that required life-saving measures for such children by saying that “the decision concerning a baby should be left to a woman.” His objection to the bill was that it would “burden the original decision of the woman [to abort her child].” Given the choice between a baby’s life and a woman’s decision, Senator Obama thinks it’s no choice at all.

      The fact is, if abortion is only a solution to a problem, then aborting little girls in favor of male babies is the reductio ad absurdum of that logic. As long as pro-abortionists were able to convince large majorities that millions of mothers needed unrestricted abortion to save their own lives or to erase the memories of savage sexual assaults, pro-lifers were fighting an uphill battle, “forcing their morality” on these unfortunate victims of circumstance.

      But if it starts to get widely known that mothers are killing off their female offspring in significant numbers just because their regressive cultures place more value on boys than girls, then pro-abortion advocates will find themselves goosed against the pointy horns of their own hopeless dilemma. A problem is a problem, after all, and abortion fixes all. The pro-abortion left isn’t going to be able to straddle contradictory public positions that the government must be allowed to decide what constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to be terminated from her job, but can’t be allowed to decide what constitutes a legitimate reason for an (unborn) woman to be terminated from her existence.

      Read more:

      • Buck the Wala says:

        “The pro-abortion left isn’t going to be able to straddle contradictory public positions that the government must be allowed to decide what constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to be terminated from her job, but can’t be allowed to decide what constitutes a legitimate reason for an (unborn) woman to be terminated from her existence.”

        Because that’s a good analogy……

        • Sorry you didn’t like the analogy-guess that means you agreed with the rest of it.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            As far as sex-selective abortion goes:

            1) There really is very little evidence of this happening in the US, and
            2) Goldberg’s statement (“Banning it means allowing the government to decide what constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate a pregnancy, and forcing doctors to try to discern the motives of their patients.”) is pretty spot on.

            As you know, I am pro-choice and support a woman’s right to abortion up to viability. We’ve been through this so I’m not going to start or get into yet another debate on whether abortion is murder. Now, in regards to sex-selective abortion, banning it does open the door for the gov’t to decide when a woman can and cannot have an abortion. But beyond that, it is completely impossible to enforce without stomping on doctor-patient confidentiality and turning every abortion provider into an inquisitor trying to determine the ‘real’ reasons for the abortion. How is this a good idea (unless, of course, you wholly disagree with abortion and are looking for ways to bring an end to the practice)?

            • Buck, I am pro-choice also, but there is a difference between allowing and promoting. Prolific abortions can even be shown as a factor in the demise of the USSR….


            • There is another way to look at this situation-Look at the evil it will and has been growing into, if you are unable to see the evil it already is.

              Do you really think the best way to solve a societal problem is by killing our prodigy?
              Do you really believe using the word viable excuses destroying life-that baby is already viable
              It just needs a little mothers love to keep it that way.

              Watched a video about a man in India who killed his 3 month old baby because it was a girl-he told his wife she could keep it-IF-she could get her mother to pay the cost of the babies dowry-When I heard those words it reminded me of the lefts argument about society paying to stop abortions. I couldn’t see any difference in the mentality-especially since society already pays a hell of a lot to help the poor. But it would never be enough to stop evil-people can and do justify almost anything with BS words like viability or personhood.

              As far as making them illegal-it sends a statement-it says abortion for any damn reason isn’t acceptable-something this society really needs to hear and be reminded of-lets keep the decision to kill our children at the very least a difficult decision. Some on the left trying to make these oh so brave woman into hero’s scares the hell out of me.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                “that baby is already viable
                It just needs a little mothers love to keep it that way.”

                Not to be too crass, but if you really think that’s ‘viable’ then let’s take the fetus out of the mother and see what happens.

                “…a man in India who killed his 3 month old baby…”

                That has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, so please let’s stop pretending that it can somehow be used in this argument as an appropriate analogy.

                “As far as making them illegal-it sends a statement-it says abortion for any damn reason isn’t acceptable-something this society really needs to hear and be reminded of”

                Sorry, but abortion ‘for any damn reason’ IS acceptable. Yes, it is absolutely disgusting to me to terminate a pregnancy because you don’t like the sex of your baby. But, and this is a big but, it is not my place to question your motives in choosing to terminate your pregnancy. Not to mention, there is no evidence that sex-selective abortion is even happening on a wide scale in this country.

                “Some on the left trying to make these oh so brave woman into hero’s scares the hell out of me.”

                I think this rhetoric is more in line with acknowledging the difficulty the vast majority of woman face in choosing to terminate their pregnancy. In other words, this decision is an extraordinarily decision to make, so let’s please stop treating it as if pro-choice women (and men for that matter) view abortion as an ‘easy’ decision.

              • Okay-why don’t we do an experiment-we’ll take you and sit you down in the middle of a snow storm without a house in site and see how viable you are.

                And yes, the situation in India absolutely relates -you keep devaluing LIFE-there are consequences.

                Obviously it isn’t disgusting enough to you- if any reason is acceptable-than we will very soon, if not already have sex selective abortions. Because you and people who think like you, and unfortunately even people who don’t but still support abortions are certainly not going to do a damn thing to stop it.

                And NO, the people cheering woman on-are not acknowledging the difficulty-they are trying to take away the difficulty-they are trying to make abortion acceptable for any oh reason and any oh time, a woman wants to have one-you know like YOU are doing with your “any damn reason’ IS acceptable” and how dare anyone judge you for doing so for an “absolutely disgusting” reason.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                VH, yes I do personally find it disgusting that a woman would end her pregnancy due to the sex of the baby. But it isn’t for me to delve into the motives behind some woman’s choice to terminate her pregnancy, and it certainly isn’t the role nor responsibility of her doctor. So no, I won’t do a thing to stop it — first, you are asking me to stop something that is just not prevalent in our society; secondly, and much more importantly, there is absolutely no possible way to stop it without questioning every single woman’s motives behind her decisions, forcing her doctor to question her and then report her if they suspect the reason is sex-based. That is just not something I can support, and frankly I find it a bit surprising that you would, regardless of your views on abortion. Do you really want to turn every single abortion provider into an interrogator, trying to make a determination as to the woman’s ‘real’ reasons for obtaining an abortion?

              • Seriously Buck-exaggerate much-all this law would do is make woman retain the idea that abortion for any old reason is not okay. And any woman who had multiple abortions might be asked what is up. Personally, I think it’s sad that we have to point out how bad and selfish some reasons are, to reach people’s level of discomfort with this despicable practice.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Do you really truly believe that having a law on the books stating ‘abortion shall not be performed for reasons of gender selection’ would make a woman who chooses to have an abortion due to gender selection second think this decision?

                The reason I oppose such a law is that it is completely useless and will only serve to place additional barriers and restrictions to woman seeking an abortion, possibly (at worst) turning the woman’s own doctor against her, substituting the doctor’s perceived reasons for the woman’s choice for the woman’s actual motives.

              • *blink*

                So the argument is:
                – it is more perverse for a woman to explain why she wants to murder her own baby then merely murdering her baby at a whim….

                Insanity is getting worse.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Do you have something in your eye?

            • Evidence? like somebody is going to talk about doing this? What are you nuts? Mentioned before that a former very good friend with big bucks used it 20 years ago because he wanted the perfect family. # 1 was a girl, so was # 2 so, #2 had to go! Just like that. he spilled it over a beer because I was a good friend and because he knew
              my basic libertarian philosophy. Ultimately he got the perfect family, his wife was a professional woman so the children were ultimately raised by a succession of nannies. Couldn’t understand the problem. This guy could have afforded ten kids easily.

              This, my friend is the “Brave New World” Huxley promised us. 90% of Downs Syndrome babies are being aborted. Want to know when limits will be put on abortion? Here’s not only a prediction but a promise. If homosexuality is inborn, then there is a genetic cause. When that cause is identified, and parents start aborting kids with the “gay” gene, the outcry against selective abortion will become deafening. Just watch. I’ll probably be laughing from the great beyond at that point but it will be a loud laugh.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                “like somebody is going to talk about doing this”

                I agree with you on this point — so again, exactly how do you even begin to enforce a law making sex-selection abortion illegal?

                “If…parents start aborting kids with the ‘gay’ gene…” — You bet I would find that act disgusting, just as much as I find sex-selective abortion disgusting. But again, how do you even begin to enforce something like this, absent trampling all over doctor-patient confidentiality?

              • Buck,

                Following up on your most recent posts, would you draw the line on abortion at the gay gene?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                As I said — I would find it just as disgusting as sex-selective. But I would not support banning the practice as I just don’t see how that can be done.

              • Whoops, you jumped in faster than I though you would. Thanks for the answer. I guess we are stuck with the problem, unless and until the “right to privacy” goes back to what it was before the Supreme Court started messing with it.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Figured as much!

                But seriously, do you have any suggestions?

              • I do think though, that the right to privacy will be trumped by the right to gayness. Presentation of a gay specific DNA test might be required before an abortion was performed under a variety of possible penalties against the doctor or institution. This would be considered a “modest” restriction on privacy, in the public interest of course.

                As an attorney, you could probably even argue the point despite the fact you might disagree with it.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Sorry, doesn’t pass the blush test.

              • We shall see, we shall see.

  43. Just A Citizen says:

    BF and Peter B.

    Well my dear fellows, according to this data the Ocean has RISEN about 7 cm since 1960. Although the graph shows 8 cm.

    • 7cm is not 14 inches.

      Ask your wife… LoL! 😉

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      JAC, the ocean typically rises when both the AMO and PDO are positive, which is precisely what happened. Now the PDO and AMO are negative, we are starting to see a reversal.

      7cm in 50 years would be 14cm in 100 years, so maybe the Richmond legislator meant 14cm when he said 14 inches… or maybe he just doesn’t know there is a metric system that scientists use to measure things 🙂

      14cm/2.54cm/inch = 5.5 inches in 100 years.

  44. Just A Citizen says:

    Needed information for those, like me, who are always criticizing Krugman.

  45. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    Here’s another fine example of what “scientists” do to “adjust” temperature records to get the answer that they want:

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Peter B.

      The citations you provide do not include complete explanations and use clipped data sets, just like the other guys use.

      There is also the issue of CREDENTIALS. When I present some of this info to others they quickly point out that the “denier” is NOT a climate scientist.

      Here is some more stuff I clipped this morning that is being used by the PRO warming folks.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        Please keep in mind that up until recently, there has been no such official field as “climate scientist” and there have been no degrees in “climatology”. For example, Michael Mann is not a “climate scientist”, he is a geologist.

        All that a “climate science” credential means is that you have bought into the AGW bullcrap and gotten a stamp of approval from the likes of Michael Mann, Thomas Wrigley, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, and Kevin Trenberth. Not exactly the sort of credential I would consider “respectable” for any real scientist to hold.

        See below for a recent Forbes article showing EXACTLY what the so-called climate scientists do to temperature data to torture it to make it fit their preconceived notion of how temperature should be behaving.

        Here’s the question du jour: If we know from actual data that Iowa had 32 100+ degree Fahrenheit days in 1934, and that much of the country had similar weather, and we also know from actual data that for the entire 2000-2010 decade, the State of Iowa had vanishingly few 100 degree days, and much of the country was similar, why do “climate scientists” claim that 2000-2010 were 10 of the “hottest years ever”??? If you strictly look at the raw data, 1934 and 1936 were hotter, and several years in the 1950s were equally as hot.

        “Climate Scientists” claim that 1998 was “the hottest year ever” and that it has been about equally hot ever since. However, the raw data from 1930-1999 shows that 1934 and 1936 were clearly hotter than 1998, and there were quite a few other years especially in the 1930s and 1950s that were damn close.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Hmm… JAC, you better have a look at the graph going back 600 million years instead… it kinda shows that as far as atmospheric CO2 concentrations go, we are on the REALLY REALLY LOW end, historically speaking. It seems Earth survived and thrived for hundreds of millions of years with WAY MORE CO2 in the atmosphere than what we have now… and that being the case, I find it highly unlikely that our current CO2 concentration is in any way dangerous whatsoever.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          This is a good example of the problem. That is the ability to gather defensible information to counter the warming argument.

          What happened millions of years ago is not relevant to the issue of IMPACT TO HUMANS TODAY.

          In fact, I would argue that the period when Fern Forests developed would probably not support humans very well.

          Another factor that I think is not discussed adequately is this notion that there are NO positive feedback loops. While I agree with this in a broad sense, that is large amount of time, it fails to address the variability that could occur until a new “equilibrium” is achieved.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            You conflate to very important issues, and it is in the interest of the “warmists” for you to do so.

            The issues you are conflating are the following:

            1. What is “natural” for the climate cycles of the earth. For example, we have ice ages approximately every 12,000 years or so.

            2. What climate conditions are optimal for humanity.

            The problem, when you conflate these to issues, is that you become convinced that what is natural for the climate cycles of the earth IS THE SAME THING AS what is optimal for humanity.

            Nothing could be farther from the truth!

            Citing my example from above, we KNOW that the earth has ice ages approximately every 12,000 years, and yet we ALSO know that a full-blown ice age would likely be CATASTROPHIC for humanity!

            Or, to use your example, the conditions during the period when the fern forests developed may not have been ideal for humanity… but THAT IS IRRELEVANT! What is relevant is that for that geologic time period, those conditions were perfectly natural. Also, as an aside, I would argue that conditions which allowed for that sort of plant and animal proliferation on the planet would actually be IDEAL, think of how much arable land there must have been back then!!

            So, what it boils down to is that you are being fooled on several fronts by the AGW con-men. Firstly, you are being fooled into believing that ideal climate conditions for humanity and normal, natural climate conditions on earth are the same thing! OOPS, that just isn’t the case! Secondly, you are being fooled into believing that human beings are emitting enough CO2 into the atmosphere to distort climactic conditions to the point where they exceed the bounds of what is normal and natural for the atmosphere of the earth. This is also patently a fallacy.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Peter B.

              Your claim that I am conflating these two issues couldn’t be farther from the truth.

              I do recognize, however, that there are Natural ranges of variability more conducive to human habitation. I also recognize that history is filled with “periods” of similar variability.

              In other words, Ice Ages are natural, but so was the last 10,000 years without ice. The latter was better for us.

              I also recognize that doing anything that would create an Ice Age would not be good for humans. And there in lies the problem with many of these arguments.

              If someone claims that we are creating an Ice Age and the opponent claims, “well ice ages are natural”, the rebuttal has no relevance to the key question. ARE WE CREATING an ICE AGE?

              You seem to mistake my questions for being fooled by the AGW crowd. I am not fooled by them or the anti AGW crowd.

              What I am asking for is hard core scientific proof that the AGW science is flawed and specifically where it is flawed. I know the weakness of models quite well. But this issue of doctoring data is hard to deal with. When an AGW type claims this is fraudulent and only put forth by NON SCIENTISTS there is no way to respond. The Anti crowd claims the data is lost or hidden. But the Pro crowd says no its not. It is right here….SEE.

              This entire issue currently resembles the point made by someone the other day, one of our SUFA ladies, that we can’t even agree on the basic TRUTH. Or in this case the BASE Data Set.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                Of course we can’t agree on the BASE data set! We also cannot agree on what “adjustments” to the data set are legitimate and what adjustments are not legitimate.

                For example, semi-reliable temperature data in the “Western World” only goes back to about 1850 (a few locations go back further). In “remote” locations, semi-reliable temperature data only goes back about 50-60 years. As such, how can we even calculate past “global temperature” with any accuracy? Any reasonable analysis would show huge error bars, but do you EVER see a past reconstruction of temperature from a “warmist” that ever includes ANY error bars whatsoever? (I didn’t think so). To reconstruct “temperature” prior to 1850, most “climatologists” use tree-ring studies, and yet there are COUNTLESS studies that show that trees are pretty terrible thermometers, and you can only get a set of trees that have rings that correlate well with temperature if you THROW OUT NEARLY 95% OF THE OTHER TREES IN THE AREA YOU ARE STUDYING! Now, doesn’t it seem likely that the 95% of trees that don’t correlate well with past temperature are probably telling you something FAR MORE IMPORTANT that the 5% of trees that appear (probably by accident) to correlate well with past temperature?????

                All I can tell you is that the “adjusted” data sets have all been thoroughly analyzed by physicists, geologists, meteorologists, and PLENTY of other scientists. Provided that the scientists scrutinizing the adjusted data sets are not on the “climate scientist government payroll”, there is pretty much unanimous “consensus” (as the climatologists like to say) that the adjusted data sets are bull dookey.

              • JAC

                What I am asking for is hard core scientific proof that the AGW science is flawed and specifically where it is flawed.

                If you are arguing science you have to hold to these truths:
                1) It is NOT the job of scientist to DISPROVE your hypothesis. You must PROVE your hypothesis.

                This is a common trick of AGW – reversal of the “null” hypothesis – that is, they demand you disprove the theory of AGW.

                However, the “null” hypothesis sits at Nature, not man. AGW must prove their hypothesis that it is man, not nature, invoking these events.

                So as soon as you demand hard core scientific proof that AGW is flawed you have -in fact- fallen for the AGW tactics

                2) Hypothesis requires proof – and if the proof is not forthcoming, the hypothesis is wrong. End of Story. Science does NOT need to replace your terribly flawed hypothesis “with something else. The “null” hypothesis remains in effect – Nature

                But again, you fall victim to the junk science of environmentalists who claim that if one cannot replace their failed hypothesis with something else theirs is the null hypothesis – that is, it is man, not nature

                3) The AGW hypothesis HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE.
                An hypothesis whose own declarations are shown to be false demonstrates that the hypothesis that creates such declarations is false.

                AGW predicted a massive and continuing increase in atmospheric temperature from 1990 to current – lock step with the core of their hypothesis – CO2 concentration.

                But the facts show no such correlation over the last 20 years – Co2 has arguably increased, but atmospheric temperature has fallen.

                Therefore the hypothesis of Co2 causation – the cornerstone of AGW hypothesis is WRONG, and if you believe in the scientific method, that is the end of that story. Period.

                4) Occam’s razor – there already exists a superior hypothesis that has been proven to explain the climate change.
                It is simpler.
                It is proven.
                It requires no missing observational effects (such as under the AGW hypothesis – the one that always seems to attract Mathius, the mysterious and yet to be found missing positive feedback loop).
                It completely explains the event.

                So why invent an alternative that is more complex, is not proven (heck, has been falsified), requires massive yet-to-be-discovered observational effects and fails to explain the event?

                So, JAC – to the point.

                If you are honest in your scientific inquiry, the search ends here.

                AGW is false.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            I am glad that you put the term equilibrium in quotes. Why? Because climate is a dynamic/chaotic system, and dynamic/chaotic systems don’t have true equilibrium conditions.

            For example, we alternate between ice ages and temperate periods (inter-glacials). We are in (thankfully) an inter-glacial period now, but even WITHIN this inter-glacial, we have cycled between the Roman Optimum (Roman warm period), the Sporer Minimum (Dark Ages cold period), the Medieval Optimum (warm period), the Dalton and Maunder minimums (Little Ice Age) and the Modern warm period. So, even within the “equilibrium” of an inter-glacial period, we have WILD swings in climate which are well-documented. On top of that, we know that the last MAJOR ice age was about 11,500 years ago, so based on the ~12,000 year period of the ice age cycle, we know that we are about due for the next one….

            So, what I am trying to say is – there is no equilibrium!

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Peter B.

              Re: Equilibrium. We are in agreement on reality but I disagree with your definitive statement due to the context of TIME. One could argue that the earth is in equilibrium and always has been, since the day it was created. Especially since there are no “positive feedback loops”.

              In the environmental science the key question is “what equilibrium and when did it occur”. Just as your example of the ice age period and the post ice age period. Each was a state of equilibrium until something changed. Then a new state was created. But each had “swings” in conditions during those periods.

              The proper way to make the argument is that it is not STATIC. Which was the major point missed by most Environmentalists until recently. Although I think they still slip into this thinking on any given issue.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                JAC, as I said, even within the “equilibrium” of an inter-glacial stadia, which we know is only a temporary condition lasting approximately 12,000 years, there are huge swings within what we are tempted to see as “equilibrium” conditions.

                The biggest problem is that humans don’t live anywhere near 12,000 years, we live more like 80 years or so, so it is easy to fool us into thinking that the conditions of the first 20 years of our lifetimes are “normal” You cannot point to ANY time period and say that the climate system was in equilibrium, it tends to oscillate like a sine-wave, even within what you are calling “equilibrium conditions”

                For example, we KNOW from actual, unadjusted data, that in the US, the 1930’s were damn hot and dustbowl miserable. We also know from actual data that the 1970s were damn cold. We also know that the 1990s, especially 1995 and 1998, were damn hot again.

                So… where, exactly, can we even say there was even a “temporary” equilibrium??? How long does a similar set of conditions have to last before we can proclaim it to be in equilibrium, and more importantly, if we do so, it is at our GRAVE PERIL to proclaim that “equilibrium” to be “normal”. We simply haven’t been around (geologically speaking) long enough to have any idea what “normal” is for the climate of the earth.

                We THINK we have a pretty good idea of what is optimal for us as humans, but to claim that the conditions optimal for human life are in any way normal, or that our climate SHOULD NATURALLY BE IN AN EQUILIBRIUM CONDITION WELL SUITED TO HUMANITY is dangerous hubris.

                Would it be nice if the natural climate of the earth coincided with what is optimal for humanity? Sure. To a certain extent, at least during modern inter-glacial periods, it seems to oscillate wildly between conditions that seem to at least allow us to survive, which is convenient anyway 🙂

                Furthermore, on the dangerous hubris subject, as far as the earth is concerned, we are about equivalent to ants. In the time since the “industrial revolution” the amount of “pollution” that man has put into the atmosphere pales by comparison to the amount of “pollution” put into the atmosphere by nature itself, through volcanoes and other natural media.

                I am not saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE that man is having an effect on climate, but what I am saying is that the warmists would have you believe our impact on climate is INORDINATELY LARGE, when in fact, it is very likely that our impact is VANISHINGLY SMALL.

  46. OK OK guys, I will lower the level for you….satisfied now? Sheesh……levels up and levels down….I have more important things to do…..I mean..look at the fly…one of my worst creations….I have so many things to correct. Flies, the playpus, liberals…….

    signed God.

  47. SK..great thought about aborting because of a gay gene.

    Very curious to hear what Matt and Buck would say if their wives suddenly said they wanted an abortion.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I think Matt and I would both have a pretty big problem with this, concerning we are all way past viability.

      Prior to that point, I won’t speak for Matt, but if the Mrs. brought it up with me I would be open to a very serious conversation with her on the topic and why. Given that we both wanted a child, it wasn’t exactly an issue.

      • Buck, what happens to that baby, unless your wife makes it so-is none of your business. And there, in reality. isn’t a viability cutoff. It might be a little more trouble to arrange but doable.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          No, it is my business – it just isn’t my decision to make when push comes to shove.

  48. Just A Citizen says:

    Well I suppose it was bound to happen eventually.

    I am in complete agreement with Buck that constructing a law to prevent sex selection through abortion is not practical and thus not desirable.

    In fact, any law short of making abortion illegal poses the same legal enforcement issues as far as I can see. But that includes the “viability” criteria as well. The only point on the pregnancy to birth continuum that appears to be objectively identifiable, without invasive practices, is the onset of labor.

    I would also like to suggest that when we get laws that can not be enforced by clearly identifiable, objective criteria they are not standing on solid principles.

    Now I do not agree that the issue is interfering with the Doctor/Patient privilege or relationship. The issue is that any such law would place the Doctor in a position to try and determine the real “intent” of a person. And if not the doctor then who? Each procedure becomes a subject of law enforcement because there is no way to determine Intent without an investigation and trial.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      “I am in complete agreement with Buck”

      I think I just fainted!

      In regards to the Doctor/Patient privilege — you are correct, it is not necessarily interfering with privilege, but it most certainly would impact the doctor/patient relationship (assuming of course it was the doctor tasked with making a determination as to his/her patient’s true intent).

      • Just A Citizen says:


        The burden would have to be on the doctor. But being LAW the doctor would also be suspect in ANY abortion. How would we know what the Doctor was REALLY thinking or truly knew?

        We already have far to many laws constructed for emotional reasons that create the same legal traps. We should be looking to reduce the number not increase them.

        Your Brotherhood was the feature of Stossel last night. Not a very pretty picture.

      • Buck, while I agree as well, I fail to see how you reconcile such a position with support of other things in regulations or legal restrictions that serve as a barrier to personal choice. Is it really that you do not believe in personal choice, but only in personal choice that you like? Laws on diet, smoking, other health issues, economic issues like whether to purchase health insurance or not, etc. are no different than this, yet you come down on the other side of those issues. The health care mandate for instance you claim affects us all, but no more than the increase or lack of increase in population that a birth represents. Why is a child the choice of a woman but my health can be dicated by others who claim to know best? Why is charity being taken from me and put in the hands of government as if they can decide better who is in need and who has enough? If you really want to remove barriers to personal choice, then I am with you, but if you want to remove barriers to personal choices that fit your agenda but not other personal choice issues, then you are just talking partisan BS and you garner no support at all.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          How do I come down on different sides of the issue? I feel I am pretty consistent on these issues.

          I am against the diet laws (though for educational campaigns to raise awareness). I am all for you smoking, but I support placing restrictions on your right to smoke as it affects me and others (for instance, in a public place). Abortion is the choice of the mother as it is her body. Health care does affect us all, but I do not support someone else dictating your health for you; I support an individual mandate if and only if we stick to the current insurance framework as your decision to not have insurance affects me and others.

    • Is it constructive to write a law where doctors have to report abuse? Does this interfere with the doctor/patient relationship? If a doctor does something unethical is it wrong to question his actions?

      Is it better to allow evil to grow?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Is it constructive to write a law where doctors have to report abuse? NO, for the same reasons.

        Does this interfere with the doctor/patient relationship? The “relationship” is irrelevant.

        If a doctor does something unethical is it wrong to question his actions? NO. But which ethics are you going to use as the basis for “questioning”?

        Is it better to allow evil to grow? Absolutely NOT. But you can’t fight evil with evil.

        • Then how do you fight it-because we are LOSING?

          • Just A Citizen says:



            Reasoned debate.


            I do not think you are losing. At least on your issue with abortion. We often get confused by the headlines and talking heads. Just like those that told us the LEFT had won years ago. But when they tried to shove the final plan on America, what happened?

            Up sprang the Tea Party.

        • Buck do you agree-is it wrong to make doctors report abuse?

          And just so no one misunderstood my above statement I don’t think a law that makes sex selective abortion illegal is evil. Doing nothing is what is evil.

          • V, the problem is that passing such a law IS doing nothing. It is the same fallacy as the laws on hate crime or gun control or whatever. It is the fallacy that passing a law is “doing something”. Espcecially a law against intent. It is unenforceable, and is therefore symbolic at best. Furthermore, you end up in a moral debate rather than a debate on human rights. Morality will never be a good basis for law, it is too subjective and it turns over the responsibility for morality in society to the government (which is like turning the asylum over to the crazies). Approach this on the basis of protecting the rights of people, and do not waste your time supporting laws that do nothing. A law saying you cannot use gender selection as a reason for abortion merely means people will make up another reason. It accomplishes nothing.

            • There should be laws against MURDER-so all the morality arguments simply do not apply.

              And NO, the law is not a waste-it is a form of teaching that it is not okay to kill babies in the womb for just any reason YOU(not you specifically) choose. Yes, I would rather it be a law against abortion except if the pregnancy will kill the mother. But I will take what I can get.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                But VH, not everyone agrees that abortion is akin to murder. Though again, I’m not going down this road with you today – just adding this point to the conversation.

                Though I do wonder — if you truly believe that abortion is the equivalent of murder, why make an exception for the life of the mother? Why do you get to play God and choose which life (the mother or the child) is more important? Or is there an understanding that abortion is not really the same as killing an adult woman?

              • You cannot kill that which isn’t alive-if you kill that which is alive-what do you call it??????

                And NO-there is an understanding that we do not have the right to force someone to die for another or, we too would be guilty of murder.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Depends on the definition of murder — I didn’t mean you aren’t terminating a life, I meant that many people do not equate abortion with murder as the intentional killing of another human being.

                As for the second part — good explanation of your views on the subject, thanks!

              • Yes, there should be laws against murder, because they violate the right to life. If humans have a right to their own lives, then murder is a violation of this. The moral implications of murder are irrelevant to the need for a law. If I lie to you, it is my right, as it is free speech. However, it is certianly immoral, and ultimately a poor decision as it destroys trust and will eventually stop working for me. The key with abortion is that because one life is totally dependent on another, does that life have the right to demand support of the other? If the right to life trumps all, then the answer is yes, however, what then stops the right of people to demand the necessities of life from another, such as food, shelter, medical care, etc.? If, however, the difference is that children have a different standard than adults, which I think they should, then it remains a rights issue. However, the right to a thought or motivation remains outside of the realm of law. I understand the mentality of taking what you can get, that any restriction is good restriction, but in the grander scheme of things, you can end up crippling your own philosophy and credibility with your contradiction and compromise.

                This is why abortion is such a difficult issue for many. I, myself, have a hard time deciding where I stand because it involves both the question of when human life begins and the question of what right does one human have to demand subsistance from another. These are both questions that are not fully answered in my mind. For those who have answered those questions difinitively, the stance on abortion is clear and obvious. However, depending on the answers to those two questions, the stance might vary from person to person. I get the thinking of both sides, and I just have not been able to decide which I think is right. I HAVE been able to decide that I do not like abortion and that I think it is immoral. But, for me, that is irrelevant to the law.

              • V.H. and Buck,

                Buck demonstrates the evil of his position softly.

                …as if the agreement of the killer is necessary to understand his killing of another person is “murder”.

                This mind-f*ck that Buck tries to pull off – like almost every abortionist tries – is that murdering innocent humans is somehow not murder if someone or some arbitrary sized group of someone’s says it isn’t.

                It is no wonder that the likes of Buck are always the ones responsible for the greatest slaughters of humanity.

              • Buck the Wala says:


                And this is why I try not to get into this specific argument anymore. It is completely pointless and invariably winds up with me being likened to Stalin or Hitler…

              • That is your cop out.

                You cannot argue your position without your position being demonstrated as vile.

                You hate being vile, because you are not a vile guy. But your position on the matter is vile.

                But, you will not change your position.

                So, you run away – it is your only recourse.

                But you come back, to argue your vile position again.

                But I am still here – waiting.

              • Buck,

                If you choose which conversations you are going to stay out of based on the chances that BF will accuse you of causing the slaughter of humanity-your choices will be limited.

                Which doesn’t mean that BF’s words should be ignored, he makes many, many, good points. He just made one, I will be using in the future-thanks BF, but you really can make these points in a civil manner-I had to wait almost an hour this morning before I could type anything civil.

                And if I had followed where my frustrations lead-the conversation would have ended almost as soon as it started. I may never completely convince Buck, but he will have my reasoning stuck in his mind and he’ll be forced to think about this subject with my thoughts swimming around in his brain. 🙂

              • Jon,

                I want you to think about these questions and let me know what you come up with .

                Why do you look at children as different?

                Does a woman who has a child have the right to kill the child, if she does not want to be forced to take care of that child’s needs and she cannot find anyone to take over that responsibility?

              • ALL TOGETHER NOW..

                Negative vibes to Buck! 🙂

              • Buck the Wala says:

                BF and VH,

                It isn’t a cop out. It is a recognition that we have been through this exact discussion many times in the past (whether abortion is akin to murder). You both believe it is and I respect your views. I do not equate the two yet you cannot respect my views (understandably so to be fair since you see my position as promoting murder). To be clear, my position on this topic is more nuanced than as I just phrased it, but that is neither here nor there.

                I will gladly debate the propriety of certain restrictions on abortion and methods of reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies with either of you, as I believe we can reach some sort of consensus on these issues. But I will not get into another argument of whether or not abortion = murder. (again, I am using ‘murder’ in the criminal law sense, not in the sense of ending any life, which would also apply to killing an animal for food).

                Have a great weekend guys, I’ll probably not be around until Monday!

              • Buck

                But it is a cop out.

                You continually refuse to put forward the basis of your determination of right/wrong. It is whimsical – solely based on what is “good for Buck”, and that changes like the seasons.

                But you hate being seen as whimsical, vile and evil because you believe yourself to be rational, moral and good.

                Yet, you refuse to provide any substance to demonstrate such rational moral good

                Thus, you cop out.

                It is a recognition that we have been through this exact discussion many times in the past (whether abortion is akin to murder).


                At at this point -every time – you runaway when you find yourself caught between villainous beliefs contrary to your own belief that you are no villain.

                You are challenged to support your belief to be more than a declaration of emotionalism – and you have failed every time.

                To be clear, my position on this topic is more nuanced than as I just phrased it, but that is neither here nor there.


                You need to build around your villainous beliefs “wiggle” points to try to maneuver yourself away from its evil – putting lipstick on the devil – because you cannot stand the heat of that evil being seen in other people’s eyes.

                So you wiggle around, believing as long as you cannot be pinned down – you are “right” to believe the way you do!

                , as I believe we can reach some sort of consensus on these issues.

                There is no consensus between evil and right.

                But I will not get into another argument of whether or not abortion = murder.

                Good choice, because abortion is murder and you will lose your argument every time from now into the future as you have lost that argument now and into the past.

              • You have a great weekend too! And obviously you don’t have to talk about anything that you don’t wish to talk about-but it makes the conversation much more interesting when you do.

                I would kinda like to understand your stressing this :

                “(again, I am using ‘murder’ in the criminal law sense, not in the sense of ending any life, which would also apply to killing an animal for food)”

                I know that abortion isn’t considered “murder” in the criminal law sense- whether or not it should be considered criminal is what we have been talking about. So I must be misunderstanding your meaning.

                See you Monday 🙂

              • Buck the Wala says:


                By adding that disclaimer of sorts, I am merely stressing the different possible usage of ‘murder’ to try to clarify my position. I am not arguing that abortion is not terminating a life, but I do not believe that it is the same as going out and intentionally killing another human being. Does that make a bit more sense?

              • Buck

                I am not arguing that abortion is not terminating a life, but I do not believe that it is the same as going out and intentionally killing another human being. Does that make a bit more sense?

                Let me see:
                You do not believe going out and intentionally killing another human being is not the same as going out and intentionally killing another human being – as long one is older then the other.

                As usual, your position is insane.

  49. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
  50. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    In regards to positive feedback loops in the climate:

    I guess it depends on how you define this. There is obviously positive feedback in the system; for example, SOMETHING always pulls us up out of ice ages and back into warm inter-glacials. We don’t descend into an ice age and just stay stuck there. However, the key part is the “loop”. We ALSO don’t experience runaway heating coming out of ice ages which turns the earth into a scorching oven.

    From that standpoint, I guess you could say that “equilibrium conditions” for the climate of the earth oscillate between full-blown ice ages and times as warm as the Roman Optimum (which many geologists believe was about 1.5 degrees C warmer on average than our current temperatures)

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I mentioned positive feedback loops as a slight jab at BF’s argument that they don’t exist.

      His explanation tends to white wash the wide range of variability and can lead the uneducated to think that wild fluctuations are not possible.

      We call all this the Natural Range of Variability, by the way. So the question always becomes What Time Period is used to describe that variability. This concept was developed to address specie viability questions as a result of other influences. Including man’s activities.

    • PeterB and JAC

      AC, In regards to positive feedback loops in the climate: I guess it depends on how you define this. There is obviously positive feedback in the system; for example, SOMETHING always pulls us up out of ice ages and back into warm inter-glacials

      Both of you have completely misunderstood what a “positive feedback loop” is and what it is not.

      Here is an example to help:

      You put a microphone next to its speaker.
      The speaker blows up.

      The positive feedback loop
      The microphone amplifying the sound to the speaker, the speaker sound amplified enters the microphone.

      What is not a feedback loop
      You putting the microphone against the speaker.
      You removing the microphone away from the speaker.
      You kicking a hole in the speaker.
      You unplugging the microphone.

      This is where you err, JAC.

      Glaciation is an event that occurs without the need of a feedback loop.
      …and, equally, the inter-glacial periods – which is NOT the normal for Earth, by the way, which is why we say “inter-glacial periods” instead of the other way around, is NOT created by a reversing of a feedback loop or a different one, either.

      Both of these are conditional changes of cosmic origins and changes in the solar wind and nothing else.

      There is no “amplifier” nor “microphone” modifying cosmic origins and solar winds.

      Be cautious in applying “feedback loops” – first, there are very, very, very, very few positive feedback loops in nature – because, by their nature, positive loops are destructive and out of control – and can never be stabilized or operate in any static/dynamic equilibrium.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        That was kinda my point although you said it a lot better. One could say that warming up out of an ice age and into an interglacial period was due to “positive feedback” since, as humans, we would view such warming as “positive”, but it most certainly isn’t a positive feedback loop, because it does not cause the system to go out of control and destroy itself.

        However; as you would probably (rightly) point out, it isn’t truly “positive feedback” which causes (and then contributes further) to the warming out of a glacial era, but merely a change in conditions of the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, cosmic ray impacts, solar wind, solar irradiation, etc. There is evidence that such warming leads the oceans to warm, which causes them to release more CO2 into the atmosphere. However, we know from studying the past that this release of CO2 from the oceans DOES NOT AMPLIFY THE WARMING to any significant degree whatsoever, because it does not create a positive feedback loop.

        There are many flaws in the AGW argument, but the main flaw, as I see it, is that they are essentially arguing that humans are somehow capable of creating a positive feedback loop in the climate system which would either lead to an ice age or “runaway warming”. I am about 99.99999% certain that humans just are not capable of doing that.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I do not “misunderstand” positive feedback loops. There is nothing in my comments that should even make you remotely think I do.

        What I criticized was your presentation against them in prior comments that could lead someone to believe that there is NO AFFECT at all. That the “correction” in nature occurs in a much shorter time frame than might actually occur.

        Again, as I said above to Peter, the proper way to describe these changes is in ranges of variability. This includes some time frame for meaningful comparison.

        Magnitude of the changes and speed of change are both considerations that should be addressed.

        I am also not positive that the AGW crowd is actually proposing a runaway feedback loop. Much of the literature I read discusses higher temps that make life hard due to its affects on humans, but not some runaway temp device turning earth to venus.

        Where I have seen that type of rhetoric is primarily among the cool-aid drinkers and enablers, like Gore.

        As for your other comment, I assure you my inquiry is honest. However, your explanation of the scientific method is not useful to me because I am not arguing with myself. I am arguing with those who accept the credibility of the “Scientists” of AGW as opposed to the NOT SCIENTISTS in the anti-AGW group.

        So the only way to deal with this appeal to power is to discredit the scientific method and findings. While I agree with comparing the model predictions to the actual, this is not a clear cut comparison either. Thanks to the “prediction” having some variability and what appears to be a “life of its own”.

  51. Just A Citizen says:

    Peter B.

    OK then. If this is true:

    “Provided that the scientists scrutinizing the adjusted data sets are not on the “climate scientist government payroll”, there is pretty much unanimous “consensus” (as the climatologists like to say) that the adjusted data sets are bull dookey.”

    Then WHERE can I find the Reports, Papers, etc that document this broad consensus? The ones published by the ACTUAL physicists, climatologists, etc who agree it is bull dookey.

  52. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    JAC (and others) you might find some of these PEER REVIEWED PAPERS very interesting!

  53. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    You make a good point above!

    You said “you cannot kill that which isn’t alive”. Exactly.

    Those that believe that abortion is not “killing” have convinced themselves that what they are doing does not involve something that is “alive”.

    They say “it is merely a conglomeration of cells, like cancer”, or they say “it is simply a parasite living off of the host”. Of course, this ignores the absolute facts that cancer cells are, in fact, living tissue, and, beyond that, the cells which they are comparing to “cancer cells” would in fact NOT continue to grow into a “senseless tumor” but would in fact develop into a human being. It also ignores the fact that parasites are in fact alive, although they are dependent on the host for their continued existence. Of course they further fail to note that in the case of a fetus the parasitism is ONLY TEMPORARY and not a permanent condition as it would be with a true parasite.

    It is all “illogical logic” which they use to convince themselves that they aren’t killing a human being.

    The other, and most famous, argument is “it’s my body, I can do with it what I like!”

    However; when you are pregnant, it isn’t JUST YOUR BODY ANYMORE, it is now home to SOMEONE ELSE’S BODY AS WELL, so then they have to AGAIN resort to arguments similar to those I listed above to somehow convince themselves that it isn’t REALLY SOMEONE ELSE’S BODY INSIDE THERE!

    Of course then you get the wacko so-called pro-lifers that for some reason find it acceptable to bomb abortion clinics and still call themselves “pro-life”. Never understood that one myself. In my opinion, you can call yourself “anti-abortion” and bomb a clinic, but there ain’t no way in hell you can claim to be “pro-life” and bomb a clinic unless you live in a fairyland of contradiction.

    Of course, I am a pretty weird entity when it comes to this whole debate anyway… I would prefer for abortion not to even exist, but I don’t see it as my place to stop anyone else from doing it, I just try to educate people to try to analyze it logically. Logically, at ANY STAGE of development, a fetus has 100% of the DNA of a human being, and it is alive. To me, whether or not it could STAY ALIVE OUTSIDE OF THE UTERUS is totally irrelevant.

  54. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    As a scientist, I have to argue with one of your posts above. You can NEVER prove an hypothesis, you can only DISPROVE an hypothesis. If no scientist can currently disprove your hypothesis, then it can stand as the current THEORY of the way the universe works. If it stands long enough without being disproved, scientists may (erroneously) start to call it a “LAW”.

    Newton’s “Laws of Physics” stood for an awfully long time, and on the macro scale they can still be used; however, Einstein showed that Newton’s “Laws” were not actually correct.

    Now, as far as the AGW hypothesis goes, there are MANY problems, of which I will name a few:

    1. They throw out data which doesn’t agree with their hypothesis, but give no good reason for throwing it out, other than “it doesn’t agree with our hypothesis”.

    2. They adjust data which doesn’t fit their hypothesis so that, after adjustment, the data suddenly and magically DOES fit their hypothesis.

    3. They claim that anyone trying to disprove their hypothesis is “anti-science” when, in fact, it is the PRIMARY JOB of a scientist to disprove hypotheses… it’s what we do!!!

    Basically EVERYTHING that they do is in clear violation of the scientific method, and yet they CLAIM to be “scientists” and “experts”. How the hell can you claim to be a scientist when you routinely and purposefully violate the scientific method on a daily basis???

    But anyway, the initial point of my rant was that it is impossible to “prove” an hypothesis, they can only be supported or disproved 🙂

  55. V,
    “Why do you look at children as different?”
    Because children SHOULD have the right to demand that another provide for them, unlike adults. If I viewed them the same as adults I would say that they have no right to impose. Because they are children, and have no choice in the matter, they have a different standard. But that standard stands AGAINST the right to abort or abandon, not in support of it. I understand a purist view of human is human from a philosophical standpoint, but it does not work in real life, or even in a philosophy intended to pertain to or be viable in real life.

    “Does a woman who has a child have the right to kill the child, if she does not want to be forced to take care of that child’s needs and she cannot find anyone to take over that responsibility?”
    No, I do not believe she does. The only argument that can stand is that it is not yet a child, not yet a human life, but only a “potential” one. The argument is a weak one. I do sympathize with the woman who did not choose pregnancy. Obviously the rape argument is the only truly forced situation, and still there is an argument that it does not justify force on the baby, but it is not exactly the same as someone who engaged in sex. Those with situations of failed contraception were obviously not simply engaging in sex regardless of consequences, but should still know there is a risk. It is a hard thing, and it does do a great deal to a woman’s life and body. It is a lot to ask. That does not mean violence is justified, but I certainly get the reason that many choose the easier path. I am all for the more difficult path, but as for stepping in legally and classifying abortion as murder, it is something I find a lot more muddled in terms of definition than some do. I hold it as immoral regardless, but as I said, morality is not a valid reason for law. Protection of natural rights is, and life is one of those, I suppose it is a question of at what point does that right get imbued.

    • I’m not ignoring your points Jon-but I need a few points clarified if you have the time.

      You say you look at children with a different standard-so either children have a right derived from nature to impose and their parents and possibly other people have a “natural” responsibility to take care of them or are you are making a moral determination that people should ????

      And if they should-is this a responsibility that should be codified in law????

      I have a general idea how you mean this, I think, but it would help if you would explain why:
      “I understand a purist view of human is human from a philosophical standpoint, but it does not work in real life, or even in a philosophy intended to pertain to or be viable in real life.”

      Let’s leave the second part alone for right now.

    • Jon,

      Any argument that has to rely on “It’s not human yet” is ridiculous.

      It is completely unsupported and evil (attempts to contradict the universe).

      You can do better than that.

      • There is only one other argument. But for that I need a question answered. Does a child have the same rights as an adult?

        • Jon

          Does a child have the same rights as an adult?

          Yes, exactly the same rights as anyone else – no more and no less

          • Then by that standard, a child has no right to demand provision, property, subsistence, training, etc. As such, how is the child not parasitic in nature? Now, an abortion is initiation of violence, but pregnancy is an imposition if it is not the choice of the mother, even a forceful one.

            Now, I am not taking this approach because I believe it per se, but I need to understand how you can say that a child has equivalent rights with a parent. You are essentially not accepting the concept of parental authority, nor the concept of any responsibility on the part of parents.

            • Jon

              Then by that standard, a child has no right to demand provision, property, subsistence, training, etc. As such, how is the child not parasitic in nature?

              Because it did not come to exist by its own desires

              This is one of the many points wholly ignored by abortionists – whose actions created the situation?

              but pregnancy is an imposition if it is not the choice of the mother, even a forceful one.


              How can a consequence that is a direct result of her own choices is now “an imposition”????

              No, it is her responsiblity – she acted, all action has consequence, this is the consequence.

              Her attempt to avoid the consequences of her own choices by murder is the ulitmate sin.

              • Finally! You’ve come around to my way of thinking…..

              • And if it is not by her choice? The rape argument is an extreme case, to be sure, but it does exist, it is not so extreme as to be hypothetical only, it has happened many times. It is still not the child’s choice, but neither is it the mother’s.

                And what of those who, by no choice of their own, are unable to care for themselves? Be it mental or physical disability, they are just as dependent as a child. Who is responsible for them and why?

              • Jon,

                And if it is not by her choice?

                NO SIR

                You have NO ARGUMENT regarding these issues until you are capable of arguing and understanding the vast, massive majority of the issue

                You want to take a rare and complex circumstance – an issue you have no ability to comprehend – and attempt to use that circumstance to understand the simple one.

                Do not attempt calculus when you cannot even add and subtract properly

                Do not attempt to dialogue with me regarding rare, complex issues when you have problems dealing with what should be very simple issues.

              • Calm yourself. Insulting my capability on arguing and understanding is a distraction and nothing more than a debate technique. I am asking a question concerning the root of philosophy and using an example to make my question understandable, and to determine where the lines are. This is not calculus versus simple math, this is more like the inclusion of negative numbers in simple math.

                If I am having a problem with what you claim is a simple issue, it is because the idea of total equality of rights and total lack of any right to imposition does not make sense when dealing with dependent individuals. There are millions of cases of people who are dependent to varying degrees and for variable periods of time. There are cases where such persons lose parents (the ones whose actions created their existence) before they are able to care for themselves. There are cases where persons normally of an age of dependency are able to care for themselves and mature enough to handle their own decisions, there are cases that are the opposite. You are focussing on a specific when I asked a broader question, and I asked it for a reason. The fact that you do not have an easy answer does not mean you are incorrect, it simply means there is not an easy, universally applicable answer to all things. Sometimes, the universally applicable principle is more difficult to communicate, because it requires a deeper understanding. That is what I am seeking, if you do not have the patience for it, fine. If you do not know the answer, fine. But do not stoop to insulting my ability to comprehend or understand, you know better than that. It is a foolish emotional response to a viable question, you can do better.

                Abortion as a means of evading the consequences of irresponsible action is vile. It is the violent termination of life. That is clear. I do understand that the impact on the life of parents, especially the woman, is quite massive. As such, I understand the motivation of people to wish to evade the consequence of sexual choices. This does not mean that it is right or justified, only that it is one of the most broad impacts on life there is, and the impact is not easily measurable. Those who attempt to justify things based on the humanity of an unborn child are using, as I said, a very weak argument. Still, it does lead to the question of rights, a complex discussion you appear to be trying to avoid, because of how it may impact other aspects of your philosophy. Do not be afraid of it, I am not trying to trap you, I am, as I said, looking for the parameters of your argument.

              • Jon,

                Calm yourself. Insulting my capability on arguing and understanding is a distraction and nothing more than a debate technique. I am asking a question concerning the root of philosophy and using an example to make my question understandable, and to determine where the lines are.

                NO SIR

                You are making the distraction.

                Because you do not like the conclusion to the simple issues – you wish to cloud the question by increasing the complexity in hopes the complexity twists the issues more to your liking.

                But it never works

                All you do is increase your confusion of principles and make your own understandings worse.

                If I am having a problem with what you claim is a simple issue, it is because the idea of total equality of rights and total lack of any right to imposition does not make sense when dealing with dependent individuals.

                The problem you struggle with is in applying “imposition”.

                You are created false impositions where none exist.

                To move outside your twist, assign “innocence” where it properly exists – that is, innocence exists on the baby as it has done no act to cause itself to exist.

                Therefore all responsibility rests on the parents for they are the only ones who acted, and therefore All consequences are theirs to bear, and to push the consequence of death upon the innocent child is evil

                So, until you can reconcile responsibility, your desire to increase the complexity of the questions is irrational.

              • Jon

                Abortion as a means of evading the consequences of irresponsible action is vile.

                It has absolutely nothing to do with “irresponsible” vs “responsbile” – you are making a strange judgement of behavior that you have no right to make.

                Whether I chose or not to do some action does not give you the right to judge such an act irresponsible or not – you are no party to my decision or its consequences.

                Abortion as a means of evading the consequences of your own choice is vile

                If you agree to this, then you have your answer and your principle. End of story.

              • Mathius™ says:

                And, once again, Mr. Flag refuses to answer the question.

              • Mathius,

                You talk nonsense.

                You do not understand the question, let alone the answer.

                Until you can deal with the simple stuff, it is utterly pointless to even dialogue with you about the complex.

              • Mathius™ says:

                And, once again, Mr. Flag opts to insult me rather than answer the question.

              • Mathius,

                As the question roots in responsibility, and you are confused about responsibility and consequences, dialogue with on the topic is utterly pointless – you will be even worsely confused about assignments of responsiblity then you are now.

                You will get worse, not better, by increasing the complexity when the simple stuff is over your head.

              • BF, this has nothing to do with whether or not I “like” a conclusion. This has to do with understanding the consequences of a conclusion on an ideology.

                The application of innocence in this helps to clarify things. There are many things in life where this does not help, as the innocent may suffer because of circumstances. This in no way justifies harming the innocent.

                However, the fact that innocent existence can create a responsibility of care still confounds the idea of human rights being equal for children and adults. Unless, somehow, responsibility creates a place for authority…not sure I like where that could lead.

              • Jon

                BF, this has nothing to do with whether or not I “like” a conclusion. This has to do with understanding the consequences of a conclusion on an ideology.

                But it is you not liking the conclusion – because you continue yattering about how much you do not like the conclusion.

                You want to continue to add “but/if’s” to it so to give yourself “wiggle room” not to hold to it.

                However, the fact that innocent existence can create a responsibility of care still confounds the idea of human rights being equal for children and adults.


                Just because it is human does not “create responsibility”

                This is where I believe you are confused.

                Here is the answer:
                Your action creates responsiblity

                It is not that the child “exists” that created responsibilty. The child is a consequence.

                The parents actions creates responsibility and nothing else.

                All action have consequences – you must point your eye at the action and who did that act, and that is who is responsible, and no one else.

              • True, I have no place to judge the “irresponsibility” of an action. A better way to say it would be that an action was engaged in without consideration of the consequences (which is how I define “irresponsibility” in decision making), or the risk taken was counted as low enough that it would not happen to them. Then, when the consequence occurs, people try to find a way to avoid the consequence because they either did not consider it, or took a risk thinking it would not happen to them.

              • Jon,

                It is immaterial to whether the actors “considered” the consequences of their action or not; it does not change their responsibility whatsoever. It may make them better prepared if they did consider it- but whether they are ready or not, they are 100% responsible.

                Additionally, there is no misunderstanding whatsoever regarding the consequences of sex. There is no mystery. So to argue “I didn’t know” is wholly irrational.

              • No, the parent’s actions being the cause of the consequence clarifies on whom the responsibility falls. The fact that a child needs provision, teaching, protection, and other aspects of parenting is what causes there to be something responsible for. An amoeba does not have responsibility post-reproduction because there is no need for it. Fish, sea turtles, etc. are similar. More complex life forms, however, require parenting of some level or other. In some animal social organizations, the parenting is solely the mother, some it is mother and father, some it is the pack or herd.

                In the case of humans you are arguing it is the parents only because they alone made the decision to engage in a (potentially) reproductive act. As you say, consideration or knowledge of this consequence is irrelevant. However, the responsibility clearly denotes the existence of a need. Philosophically, can you put someone who is in such a level of need equivalent to the provider? This is no longer a question of abortion or its philsophical acceptability, this is the deeper question of human rights that has bugged me for some time as I have not had a clear answer.

              • Jon

                No, the parent’s actions being the cause of the consequence clarifies on whom the responsibility falls.

                That is what I said, so why do you say “no”?

                An amoeba does not have responsibility post-reproduction because there is no need for it.

                I don’t give a flying f*ck about how other animals act or react.

                We are talking about humans. Stick to that.

                In the case of humans you are arguing it is the parents only because they alone made the decision to engage in a (potentially) reproductive act.

                Either you believe you have choice or you do not.

                If you believe you are a creature of choices, then that is where the responsibility of your action rests.


                Philosophically, can you put someone who is in such a level of need equivalent to the provider? This is no longer a question of abortion or its philsophical acceptability, this is the deeper question of human rights that has bugged me for some time as I have not had a clear answer.

                I’m not sure what you are trying to say.

                I will guess, however, that you are applying a concept of “Human Rights” that is not a human right.

                In other words, where most people struggle in understanding a particular issue of cross-human rights is that they attribute something to be a human right where it is not.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Additionally, there is no misunderstanding whatsoever regarding the consequences of sex. There is no mystery. So to argue “I didn’t know” is wholly irrational.


                Tons of young teens get pregnant every year because they don’t know “how is the babby formed.” No sex-ed, or abstinence only sex-ed is RAMPANT.

                Now, if you wanted to argue (as I think would be wholly consistent with your world-view) that it’s irrelevant what the actors understood.. well that’s one thing. But to suggest that they necessarily knew because “there is no mystery,” well that’s worthy of a BS-flag being thrown.


                And now, for the followup:

                In the instance where a dependent child (who does not know how is the babby formed) becomes pregnant, whose moral obligation is the subsequent fetus? That is, is a child responsible for their actions if the parents did not adequately prepare them, or is the parent responsible by some morality version of inheritance? That is, the grandparents acted, therefore they are responsible for the action of their children, and by extension their children’s children?

              • Mathius,

                Tons of young teens get pregnant every year because they don’t know “how is the babby formed.”

                Utter nonsense and crap, and not even worthy another word.

              • Lol..Matt these kids these days know more than I know..ALL. OF. THEM.

  56. Abortion is murder, though there are rare exceptions.

    It is futile to discuss these rare exceptions if the rest of the examples are completely misunderstood to be “not murder but a choice”.

    So, again, abortion is murder.

    What Buck struggles and fluffs about is the difference between “judicial murder” and “non-judicial murder”.

    In Buck’s world – and in many other people’s world too, like V.H., Anita, JAC, D13, Jon – judicial murder is “ok” – it is the non-judicial murder that is not “ok”.

    Thus, the debate around abortion falls into a few gaps.

    V.H. does not agree abortion should be judicial murder, but she is contradicting herself when she has no problem supporting soldiers who murder “them over there” by the thousands upon thousands … judiciously.

    So, “her” group holds puff-ball ammunition against the likes of Buck, because that group eventually argues against themselves – arguing for and against judicial murder in the same breath – resulting in the argument falling nicely into Buck’s arena that “as long as it is legal, it ain’t murder” and to Buck, this is just fine with abortion being legal murder.

    Neither of these two want to leave this gap, because both believe in judicial murder – the root of their positions, but merely different locations that they apply – and to show Buck’s position to be vile, V.H. would have to admit her position on the soldiers/military/government to be vile, and she will not ever do that.

    Buck, of course, cannot survive outside of this gap. He has no basis on which to determine moral good/evil other than what others he declares superior say it is. He follows the crowd – the one with the big guns – and if they say this event is “good”, Buck cheers. If they say “bad”, he boos.

    What he cheers or boos, he couldn’t tell you or explain why other then point to another bunch of people and declare “See, that’s why!”

    • PS: No insults intended – just blunt dialogue exposing roots.

    • I agree that war is vile-I agree that government being involved intensify the probability of a war being fought that shouldn’t and intensifies the size of the war and the vile things which will occur.

      But even free men will stand up “as a group” and fight a war-vile things will happen and the innocent will be killed in both situations. So how does one take the presence of a “Clear and Present Danger” and just dismiss it from the equation when looking at a group, whether it be free men or governments. You tend it look at things from an individual vs. individual-but reality, even in more free societies(tribes, etc.) seem to fight in groups.

      • VH…they cannot! To describe a “clear and present danger” becomes judicial murder, even in BF’s analogy. It would be the same, in my opinion…… For one to think he/she has right on their side…..even declaring “clear and present danger” still steps into the mantra of judicial murder by BF’s definition. I see no grey edges anywhere….because then the definition of “clear and present danger” comes into play and who defines it. You cannot say common law or invoke any sort of cosmic or natural law….because that means someone gets to define it. Once a definition is established, you just crossed the line into judicial law.

        A great example……and this would be in BF’s wheelhouse. He has long championed, if I remember correctly, that he would not interfere in anything unless it presented a clear and present danger to his family, therefore, justified as a free man. This latest episode in Shiner, Texas, where the father beat to death, a man that was assaulting his daughter. In BF’s mind, this would constitute a clear and present danger….and, therefore, murder is justified. This is no different than a government declaring clear and present danger. You have pundits shouting from the roof tops to prosecute this man, who, according to witness statements, was carrying this man’s daughter away, heard the screams, the dad confronts a man that has his pants down fully exposed attempting to climb on top of a 5 year old girl and then beats him to death. The sheriff said he will not be arrested, the outcry from the community said the father did right, every single judge so far has said that the man did right, the District Attorney does not want to prosecute, and no grand jury is going to indict….BUT…..there are groups calling for this man’s head…and the case will go, according to statute, to a grand jury. In other words, they will go through the hoops and justice will prevail. This father saw a clear and present danger….but others have said that once the situation was controlled, that there was not clear and present danger…..hence….a determination and definition ensues. My point to you, is that, anyone can declare a “clear and present” danger… is subjective…to make objective is to make it judicial.

        So, governments are free to declare clear and present danger if individuals are free to declare clear and present danger….If someone declares “universal law”…. that is a definition and, thus, universal law, becomes judicial. There is no way to say one is right and the other is wrong and have it be correct. The taking of a life, whether in war or abortion or self defense is still definitive. For one to be correct and one to be wrong throws this up.

        Another great example, in my opinion, is that I see no difference in a rock, knife, or gun. If you wield either one to me, you will die. I will determine clear and present danger to me….like the kid throwing rocks at the immigration officer and died as a result. He threw a rock with the clear intent of harm…..the officer drew his weapon and we have one less kid to throw a rock. No different than pulling a gun…it became a definition and an action was taken. Judicial? Non judicial? Universal Law? Common Law? Clear and Present Danger? Who decides if not the individual?

        For you, to say that abortion is murder… your right to do so. As it is the right of the person to decide to abort the child. Now, you wish to declare it murder, so, you make a definitive statement and , VOILA, it is murder. THen you start to define morals….. it is never ending…as I see it. Everyone has an argument for or against… is infinite.

        • D13

          To describe a “clear and present danger” becomes judicial murder, even in BF’s analogy.

          No, it is not.

          CPD is self-defense, and self-defense is NOT murder (murder=killing of innocent people)

          where the father beat to death, a man that was assaulting his daughter

          In BF’s mind, this would constitute a clear and present danger….and, therefore, murder is justified.

          False. It is not justified.

          One has the right of self-defense, to the point the threat no longer exists.

          Continuing violence beyond such a point turns your self-defense into an initiation of violence and then becomes an attacker.

          Who decides if not the individual?

          True, it is the individual who can only decide but that does NOT mean that there is no law.

          The law says “Thou shalt not kill” and it says “Thou has a right to defend thy life”.

          If you violate the former and cannot prove the latter, you have violated a Natural Human Law – you have committed murder.

          • This is not the forum today for discussion of Natural Laws and its origins, which are many and often times convoluted. YOu had peaked my interest months ago and over the last 10 months, I have been reading the origins of Natural Law and found many definitions…..Common Law, Law of Human Rights, and Natural Rights. Switzerland, being one of the states used as examples, is losing its identity today due to the evolution of Natural Law. You and I would need our own page to discuss the origins and evolution of this LAw from Socrates forward…..assuming that one wants to believe in Socrates.

            However, in my reading of the differing opinions of Natural Law, Laws of the Universe, common Law, Laws of the rights of Man, Natural Human Law…..each have definitions albeit some are very close to each other.

            You state that “One has the right of self-defense, to the point the threat no longer exists.” But my interpretation is such that the individual, being a prudent man, decides when the threat no longer exists…..therefore it is subjective. I find no definition of law that defines where the “threat no longer exists” being the common denominator. I do find where Natural Law often conflicts with itself but relies on the “prudent man”. Again, subjective.

            So to state that there is an absolute Natural Law….then makes Natural Law resolute in the minds of free and prudent men. Then if that law becomes resolute, therein lies, no difference, as I see it.

            • D13

              You state that “One has the right of self-defense, to the point the threat no longer exists.” But my interpretation is such that the individual, being a prudent man, decides when the threat no longer exists…..therefore it is subjective.

              It is not “subjective” – subjective means “not measurable nor determinable thus whimsical” and that is a very erroneous view point to apply to any case of violence.

              It is, however, unique for any given situation – but in all situations there does exist a time and condition where the threat no longer exists – and should you continue your violence beyond that point, you become the initiator, and not the defender.

              Because you can determine when there is no longer a threat and that it is a fact that there is always a point in time and condition where that determination can be made, means such a thing is measurable, determinable, knowable, and can be judged, and hence, is not subjective.

              There is absolute Natural Laws – where you go a little astray is believing that such application of these laws always leads to the same outcome – but there is nothing in nature that says this to be so.

              Gravity is a natural law – but no rock -ever since the beginning of time- has fallen exactly the same way, making exactly the same noise, and rolling exactly the same distance.

              You are measuring “rocks reactions”, seeing differences, and declaring that gravity is not absolute.

      • V.H

        You tend it look at things from an individual vs. individual-but reality, even in more free societies(tribes, etc.) seem to fight in groups.

        Cooperation between free men does not make them “not” individuals

      • V.H.

        Because war “happens” does not justify killing innocent people.

        As I pointed out, you are an apologist for soldiers who kill innocent people – yet, you argue that others are wrong to kill innocent people. This is why the issues of war and abortion are never solved – the people contradict their principles whenever the situation suits them – and then are stunned that others do the same thing to them.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          BF, I see what you are saying here, but I don’t believe there is necessarily a contradiction of principles. More a realization of different contexts. You know, those beautiful shades of grey!

          • Buck,
            Since I do not believe you even know what your own principles may or may not be, you are no judge of whether there is a contradiction or not.

            Thus, the contradiction exists where one argues that murder of innocents is “ok” and “not ok”.

  57. Mathius™ says:

    Black Flag,

    Let’s go out on a limb and assume that I do, in fact, have a brain in my skull and that, while I may disagree with you, I do at least understand your argument. Your argument, in a nutshell, is that a woman’s action creates the baby fetus, therefore the woman cannot kill abort it because doing so is “murder” since the fetus did not act in order to be conceived, but the mother did. Thus she is not the “victim” of a parasite, but rather the actor who has created a situation where a life is dependent on her, and attempts to avoid the consequences of her actions by “killing” this “baby” is murder not “self defense.” How’d I do?

    Ok, now let’s move along and answer the friggin’ followup questions:
    1. In the instance of rape (or possibly in the case of mental retardation) where the woman did not “choose” any action which led to pregnancy, the fetus, while innocent and wholly dependent on the mother, is not the responsibility of the mother. That is, she did not act to create the imposition which obligates her to deal with the consequences of “her actions.” As such, it would seem, that an eviction (even if resulting in death) is the mother’s absolute right. Do you agree or disagree, why or why not?

    2. If it can be said that a mother’s (and father’s) decision to act created a “child” such that they have an obligation to provide and care for it, where does this obligation terminate? Specifically, you seem to be suggesting that, certainly, a mother must carry it to term and deliver it. But I think logic would dictate that it’s not sufficient as the child still cannot provide for itself – if she just abandoned it at birth, it would die just as certainly as if he aborted it – so your argument would seem to suggest that they have an obligation to feed, shelter, and provide for it. So, the question here is, where does that terminate? If at 18, the child is still unable or incapable of providing for him/her self? Must you allow him/her to live in your house in perpetuity, eating your food? After all, if the child is lazy, it stands to reason that it’s either nature (your DNA) or nurture (your upbringing) which created that situation, ergo you are still fundamentally responsible. At 32 can you kick the lazy bum out of your house? What if he’s not lazy, but is instead mentally disabled?

    2b. As a side question, does that obligation necessitate providing anything more than “keep it alive” – ie, education, etc

    2c. How do you feel about spankings?

    2d. If, at 5, the child decides he doesn’t like you and wants instead to go live with his estranged uncle, do you have any rights / power to stop him?

    (on the assumption that you’re going to get hung up on some technicality in my first part, feel free to correct me, but please don’t think that voids the follow up questions. Consider the parts of this post to be severable.)

  58. Just A Citizen says:


    Sometimes your arguments border on bizarre.


    Tons of young teens get pregnant every year because they don’t know “how is the babby formed.” No sex-ed, or abstinence only sex-ed is RAMPANT.”

    First, sex ed has been in the public schools since the 1960’s. To argue that lack of sex ed is the cause of a “significant” number of teens being ignorant of how baby’s are made is ridiculous.

    Second, abstinence is a form of sex ed, which of course teaches how baby’s are made and negates the first part of your argument.

    Third, RAMPANT???? RIDICULOUS!!!!

    Fourth, if someone is a “parent” then short of serious retardation they know how baby’s are made. So to ask whether responsibility goes beyond parents is simply bad thinking or deliberate silliness.

    • Mathius™ says:

      1. So there aren’t any home schoolers out there? Or kids in religious schools which skip the whole topic entirely? Or, for that matter, abstinence-only classes that don’t really teach anything of substance? I’m not giving numbers, but you think, especially in the context of (young) teen pregnancies, that there is “no misunderstanding whatsoever regarding the consequences of sex”?

      I know that the first time I had sex, I had an understanding of Man + woman + ??? = baby, but I didn’t know the specifics of it, certainly not the mechanics.. I didn’t really understand what the “???” was that resulted in babies – all I knew was that “two people who really love each other..” I was lucky to not get her pregnant (PHEW!), but I sincerely doubt I am alone, and I wonder how many other teens aren’t so fortunate. I would certainly argue that my parents dropped the ball on teaching me this – I would also suggest that it’s far easier to get that information today with the internet (that makes me feel old..). But sex ed doesn’t usually start until the mid teens, no? I was 13 and the extent of my education was “man + woman + love + ??? = baby,” watching scrambled late-night cable tv, and seeing boobs in the national geographic magazine.

      2. Abstinence-only is a pathetic form of sex-ed. It doesn’t work. IT… DOESN’T…. WORK…


      Or, at the very least, it doesn’t work as well as comprehensive sex education. (see, for example, Bristol Palin). Abstinence-only states routinely rank worst on teen pregnancies. Maybe, for purposes of this discussion, it “works” since it transforms ‘uninformed acts’ into ‘informed acts,’ though in my opinion, it’s borderline criminal to withhold information on how to have safe sex from kids. Because kids, especially teens, especially male teens are nothing but a bundle of raging hormones wrapped up in a near-complete lack of impulse control. Tell them not to.. by all means, tell them they shouldn’t (if that’s your stance, I personally see nothing wrong with it).. but also tell them that if they are going to, how they can be safe (safe-ish) about it.

      3. What’s wrong with the word Rampant? I said that “No sex-ed, or abstinence only sex-ed is RAMPANT.” Is that wrong? Maybe there’s less of the “no sex-ed” and more of the “abstinence only,” but there’s still plenty of both.

      4. I think you misunderstood this. The question isn’t about people having kids and wondering what happened (although I’m sure there’s plenty of that too). The question was about minors who are still under the banner of “ward of their parents” who conceive that this time. That is, if you are still a kid yourself, are you – or is your parent (ie, the grandparent) – responsible for that new child?

      To make this a little clearer, let me just rephrase:
      In your / BF’s logic structure, it is your decision to act, which creates a fetus, which in turn creates an obligation to not kill that fetus. However, because abandoning it at birth would still kill it, we can infer that you have an obligation to provide a certain level of care for it even beyond birth and hold a certain amount of responsibility for its actions. The question then becomes how far that obligation extends (5 years old? 18 years old? Some litmus test? Forever?).

      Then, to expand, at some point, the child must shift from being a ward of the parents to being an adults themselves. If, however, they become sexually active and conceive during this time (while the parents are still “responsible”), the question is whose “problem” is the new fetus? To put it yet another way, if your kid hits a baseball through your neighbor’s window, is it your responsibility or is it your kid’s responsibility? If it is yours, then by extension all of the results of all of their actions become (inheritance property) your (the parents’) responsibility. To that end, if your child’s actions result in a new life being created, then it seems that you, by extension are responsible for it. Do you agree or disagree?

      LOI, I trust that you, unlike our esteemed pirate friend, can have a more adult conversation which doesn’t involve insulting me. So, if you see a flaw in my evaluation, please let me know. Otherwise, I’d be interested in your take on these points. I’m not trying to argue with you specifically, I’m just trying to flesh out the broader implications of your opinions, so please consider it in that light.

      • You pick up a gun you know to be empty and pull the trigger – it goes off and kills the person next to you.

        You can scream “but I didn’t know it was loaded” until the sun explodes, but you will be still responsible for your actions.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        “That is, if you are still a kid yourself, are you – or is your parent (ie, the grandparent) – responsible for that new child?” etc, etc, etc.!

        The PARENT is RESPONSIBLE for “their” CHILDREN!!!!!

        Beyond this one incontrovertible TRUTH of Nature, the responsibility goes to those willing to ASSUME it, “voluntarily”.

        Does that cover all the rest of your questions?

        • JAC


          It is interesting that many people think if you do not force things on people, they will never get done.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Ah yes, but that is part of a Level 2 question, and I am also trying to avoid those for the moment. 🙂

    • Mathius™ says:

      *I said “LOI” in that last paragraph.. sorry, meant to say “JAC”

  59. Just A Citizen says:

    So much effort to dissect a simple concept.

    Look folks, IF you accept the proposition that a “human being”, or a “person” exists at the moment of conception then abortion becomes “murder” by definition. I am assuming here that most of us can agree on the meaning of “murder”.

    WHO is responsible for the “conception” is IRRELEVANT because it is the “innocence” of the newly conceived person that separates murder from self defense.

    Responsibility dictates who should care for said person and for how long.

    So once again the argument returns to the first question. WHEN does a “human being” or a “person” first EXIST?

    Assuming of course, that we equate “person” as synonymous with “human being”.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      And as you indicate in your post “IF you accept the proposition…”, that is a big IF and does get to the root of the problem.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Yes it does. And of course if you do not then you have to construct a rational argument as to WHEN a person does “first” exist.

        And of the choices available, I find “VIABLE” as one of the weakest.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Why do you find ‘viable’ to be such a weak choice?

          The only other choices I can think of are ‘conception’ and ‘birth’. Are there others I’m missing?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Viability is much like the debate over who should pay more taxes. Obama says those over $250 K. I say, why not $251 or perhaps $249?

            I agree that what seems to remain is conception and birth.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I think you are trying to make ‘viability’ sound much more subjective than it is.

              • Buck

                I think you are trying to make ‘viability’ sound much more subjective than it is.

                It is totally subjective – you are using a level of development as a measure, and whether you select any particular day or year is whimiscal.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                What is YOUR definition of viability?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Viability = being able to survive outside the womb.

                Perhaps it is subjective in the sense of choosing one level of development compared to another level of development. But whether or not viability has been attained is not such a subjective question.

              • Buck

                Viability = being able to survive outside the womb. Perhaps it is subjective in the sense of choosing one level of development compared to another level of development. But whether or not viability has been attained is not such a subjective question.

                Then conception it is…. because you have to add “…for how long” and adding a time component is merely a subjective addition, a minute, hour, year, or century? Why pick one particular period over an other?

          • Buck

            The only other choices I can think of are ‘conception’ and ‘birth’. Are there others I’m missing?

            There are these only two – everything else is completely subjective and whimiscal.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              By the way BF, are you going to answer Jon’s and Mathius’ questions from above?

              • Buck

                By the way BF, are you going to answer Jon’s and Mathius’ questions from above?

                What question?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I provided the answer to ALL the questions with my summary.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Abortion in the context of rape, for one. This is something I’ve long wanted to read your views on to better understand your perspective and how you apply your ‘simple concept’ to a more complex problem.

                For the other, Mathius had a few additional questions for you not far above.

              • Buck

                Then I did.

                I told you and others that if they find it impossible to understand the answers in the context of the simple circumstances of choice – which represents 99.5% of all cases – then attempting to explain the complex circumstances of 0.5% will be impossible – it will way over their heads.

                It is a common tactic of abortionists to engage in the complex issues as a way to so muddle the conversation no one knows what is going on – and confusion of principles is the goal in doing this.

                Abortionists believe if they can confuse principles, they can hide their vile beliefs in that confusion.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                JAC, yes you answered the questions within your post for yourself. I am curious to read BF’s answer as well, to see if there is any difference in how you each approach the problem.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                BF, sorry but that is not answering the question. That is called refusing to answer the question and then providing a reason for why you refuse to answer the question.

              • Buck

                Yep, because I am old and wise to abortionists confusion, and I refuse to add to it.

              • When you are capable of providing an objective root principle from which you determine your right/wrong – and not a whimiscal “depends”, then we can dialogue to your hearts content on the complex.

                Otherwise, it is futile.

              • Buck the Wala says:


                If you are going to just run away from the question being posed, than so will I. Besides, work calls…

              • Buck,

                I have explained the requirments and you cannot provide them for yourself – do not ask me to provide it for you.

                Further, review what JAC said as he properly provided the right answer

  60. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck the Wala

    You: “Viability = being able to survive outside the womb.”

    With or without assistance from others?

    How much assistance is allowed?

    What are the criteria for deciding since the decision can not be confirmed until the baby is removed from the womb?

    What “probability” of success is required?

  61. PS:
    Your definition, ultimately, will lead to chose the “birth” option of the two and only two possible measures as JAC pointed above.

  62. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck the Wala,

    Re the Questions to BF. Let me try to help end this portion of the discussion.

    HE answered THE primary question. Here it is:

    A PERSON exists at the point of conception. Abortion is “murder” because it is the killing of an “innocent” person.

    All the rest of the “what ifs” are irrelevant or ignore the answer given.

    Now I hoped I helped but maybe I didn’t. 🙂

    • Buck doesn’t like that answer that’s why he keeps being obtuse 😆

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Actually I think He and others are confusing THE answer with the one they want to a different question.

        One I think you are going to be disappointed in once they get BF to the next level.

        • …watching. BF must be tied up in an oil slick 🙂

        • JAC,

          Exactly. They are trying to use one answer for a problem to be the answer for a different problem.

          And again you are right – they will be quite disappointed in the answers on the next level – but because when they are ready for the next level, they will already know the answer for themselves, and will find my arguments unnecessary.

    • Agreed, and as you said, the only variable is whether the right to life is attained at conception or birth. My continuing on this is a matter of seeking an answer to a question many have asked of me. When are rights equal among people. Obviously, adults of sound mind all have equal rights. But the mentally disabled and the child are in question. They require care and, as BF has implied, represent a responsibility, a requirement on someone else. This is not permitted in natural rights among adults, so there is obviously something unique about children. Further, children are under parental authority, again this is an exception to what would normally be equal rights and freedoms.

      So the question is, what are natural rights and at what level of development are they attained? By what measure is this determined, and by whom?

      • Mathius™ says:

        I specifically asked about this.. but BF seems to be declining to answer.

        Oh well..

      • Jon,

        You err in understanding.

        You assume that care of children must be forced upon parents/other humans.

        It does not, or else you would be utterly confused about people who adopt.

        Just because there is no right of force upon others to care for others does not mean others do not care.

        • I presume no need for force on parents whatsoever. I challenge you to show where I have said that parents must be forced to care for their children. I may have hinted at the concept when stating that existence creates a responsibility, but that is as far as I have gone.

          What I HAVE done is show that force is used on children. Children do not always voluntarily submit to parenting, There is a power heirarchy, a system of authority in place. Yet you say children have the same rights as adults, no more, no less. So what grants the authority to the parents? And when are the children free from such authority?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        It is NOT an exception. Remember the concept of GUARDIAN.

        • Actually, could you spell that out briefly? I thought I was considering that concept, but if you consider it an answer to my question, then I must be missing something or not fully understand it.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Parents are the GUARDIAN of their Child’s NATURAL RIGHTS.

            • Jon,

              It is worthwhile to contemplate what JAC posted.

              Guards the Child’s Rights….
              …and assumes the responsibility of the actions of the child up until the child can assume those responsibilities themselves.

            • So, you are saying they alone have the authority to decide when their child is “ready” to weild those rights?

              • No.

                When the child assumes self-responsibility, they no longer need a guardian.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Or until the day the child ASSUMES that Authority on their own and declare themselves ADULTS.

              • Ok, so if a child declares they are an adult AND can care for themselves as such, they get their shotgun out of the glass case regardless of parental consent. I think I get that.

              • One more question tho, is there a point where a parent can release themselves from responsibility if their child never assumes responsibility for themselves?

  63. – “That is what I said, so why do you say “no”?”

    I said no because the action deines WHO is responsible, but existence creates a responsibility.

    – “If you believe you are a creature of choices, then that is where the responsibility of your action rests.

    – Period.”

    I am a creature of choices, but a baby is not. In other words, an immature human is not capable of the same choices or responsibilities that a mature one is. This is why a child is not, in my opinion, imbued with the same rights and freedoms as an adult. They are natural rights, but they must be “grown into”.

    – “I will guess, however, that you are applying a concept of “Human Rights” that is not a human right.

    – In other words, where most people struggle in understanding a particular issue of cross-human rights is that they attribute something to be a human right where it is not.”

    Are you saying that reproduction, the decision to engage in sex and the responsibility of that is not a human right? Parenting? The authority of parents over children and the responsibility to them? These are not matters of natural or human rights?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      We have a “right” to act according to our own free will. We are “responsible” for our actions.

      Baby’s have the same “rights” as the rest of us. We have covered this ground before. But because they have not developed cognitive and other social skills someone acts on their behalf until they are given the “freedom” to exercise their natural rights.

      • Ok, so babies are “given” that freedom by whom? Who took it from them if they have the same rights? Someone “acts on their behalf” under what authority? Freedom and authority are a central component of natural rights, yet an “undeveloped” person is under authority and is neither free nor fully responsibile for themselves. Therefore, I do not see how the idea that “rights are equal for all people regardless of maturity or development can be true. We have been over this ground, perhaps, but no one ever answered it. Your statement simply repeats my question in a different way as if it was the answer to the question.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Think of a Right as “your” shotgun hanging over your mantle.

          You may not use it nor wish to use it. But it still exists as yours.

          If someone comes along and puts a glass case around it to prevent you from using it, it still exists as yours.

          • Ok, so then what is the difference in what a parent does and what a government does? They put a glass case around, say, the right to free speech. The right remains yours, but it has been “blocked”. So children have rights but are not allowed to use them, I fail to see how that is much of a distinction. By what right does a parent weild such authority? When do they no longer?

            • Jon

              Ok, so then what is the difference in what a parent does and what a government does

              By what right does government assume responsibility for my actions?

              • The government has no such right unless it is granted by the individual. Note, I do not say the people, since that could be defined as a majority, I speak of the individual. Parents, however, do not derive their right from the individual, since the child did not voluntarily choose them nor grant them authority.

                So is the authority derived from a status of “creator”?

              • Jon,

                They have no “authority” – they have responsibility, as it was them who created the person, it is them who retains default guardianship.

              • Without authority, how can one assume responsibility? Is one supposed to take responsibility for the actions of another person over whom they have no authority? A manager has authority within the workings of a business over his workers. Without that authority, it would be impossible to hold that manager responsible. You cannot separate the two.

              • Mathius™ says:


                I have this problem constantly. I have little to no authority over certain matters at my office, yet I am held responsible.

                So, when something goes wrong, I get nailed to the wall, but there’s nothing I could have done. Seems ludicrous to me.

                I’m still waiting on the answer to the following question (amongst others): If your young daughter decides she wants to go live with your neighbor (who is a convicted child molester), do you have any power to stop her?

                I mean, you’re responsible for her well-being, no? But she’s a free person with all attendant rights, no?… hmmm..

            • Just A Citizen says:


              “By what right does a parent weild such authority? ”

              By the fact that they are HUMANS. And as HUMANS in is their NATURE to “nurture” their children.

              I am curious, you seem to go back and forth between the words “authority” and “responsibility” in your questions. Do you see these as synonymous with respect to raising children?

              From my perspective the word “responsibility” fits the situation where as “authority” does not.

              We are responsible to be Guardians of our children’s “natural rights”. We are responsible for teaching them the ways of the world so they may assume their full “freedom”.

              • I do not think parenting is just a constant barrage of authority and rules and regulations. I do, however, believe that such things are necessary at times. From bedtimes to school to chores, there is an authority structure that is not based on “trade” at least not until a certain age. It also varies based on the personality of the parents and, even more so, the children, but authority is part of the equasion. I am harping on it as I am because authority outside of trade is generally not considered a part of freedom, and people have the right to be free. Except for children.

                It is not so big a thing as I might be making it sound, but it is a question that I get asked a LOT, and I have yet to pin any other bright, strict, freedom lovers down on the subject. I respect Flag’s consistency and thinking, and I respect the input of others here as well. I find it odd that the response I am getting seems to still dance around the topic a bit, not wanting to say things like authority or admit to anything other than freedom.

%d bloggers like this: