Condone, or else…

Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about this opposition.
 
“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

Something sounds wrong there, how does “support traditional marriage” get turned around into “oppose” anything?    I have always been told it’s a good thing to cheer for your team, but rude to boo your opponents.  Is it now turned around so much that you have to either be silent or cheer them, ignoring your team?  Maybe Mr. Webster can help….

Support:

a. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of:

b. To argue in favor of; advocate:

Oppose:

1. To be in contention or conflict with:

2. To be resistant to:

And to be fair, it is accurate to think Mr. Cathy would and does oppose gay marriage.  But he did not say that, he said the opposite, that he supports marriage as defined in the Bible.   A positive statement was turned into a false negative by the agenda driven media.  Has or is he speaking against gay marriage or homosexuals?  His “crime” is publicly stating what gays don’t want to hear?  Liberal mayors have threatened to deny business licenses…And been rebutted by liberal newspapaers!

While many liberals cheer the harsh words that Democratic Mayors Thomas Menino (Boston) and Rahm Emanuel (Chicago) have had for the Chick-fil-A fast-food chain as a result of its conservative, pro-traditional marriage president, editorial boards at liberal newspapers in those two cities have come out with strong criticisms for the anti-conservative bullying.

“[W]hich part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand? A business owner’s political or religious beliefs should not be a test for the worthiness of his or her application for a business license,” the Boston Globe complained in a July 25 editorial. “History will render judgment on the views of Chick-fil-A executives. City Hall doesn’t have to,” the editorial board concluding, having noted that there’s no evidence that Chick-fil-A breaks any anti-discrimination laws.

Mayor Emanuel should “back off” thundered the Chicago Sun-Times. “Government has no business withholding zoning permits and licenses just because it objects to a businessman’s religious or political views,” the editorial board added in its July 25 opinion. It’s one thing for private organizations to boycott or pull out of business arrangements, but it’s another thing entirely “for government to put on the squeeze.”

Other liberal outlets like the Los Angeles Times and Time magazine’s Michael Scherer leveled attacks on the liberal mayors for, well, acting against the liberal value of free speech. Wrote Scherer (emphasis mine):

The only issues at play are the personal view of the owner of the restaurant chain and the philanthropic efforts of the private company.

[…]

Robust public disagreements over issues like the definition of marriage are a symptom of a functioning democracy, not evidence of its dysfunction. A recent poll in Massachusetts found that 30% of the state believes same-sex marriage should be illegal. In the Chicago area, 42% of residents support same-sex marriage, while the same number, 42%, oppose it. (Indeed, Emanuel’s depiction of “Chicago values” is misleading; the city is divided on the issue of marriage.) Presumably, many business owners in both states are among those who oppose same-sex marriage. Should those businessmen and women worry that their hopes for city permits or mayoral cooperation could be jeopardized if they express their opinions publicly?

Consumers have every right to patronize or boycott any restaurant they choose for any reason. But a government’s responsibility is different. It is one thing for big-city politicians to voice their own views. It is another thing for them to threaten businesses with the power of their elected office for not sharing those views.

In fairness, Menino has since backpedaled a bit and insisted that he won’t actively seek to block Chick-fil-A. However, his July 20 letter to Chick-fil-A’s president was sent on city stationary in his official capacity as mayor AND was CC’d to the real estate broker who would sign off on a lease for the Chick-fil-A franchise that was hoping to open in Boston. The message to Chick-fil-A, and the real estate brokerage, was clear: political considerations on controversial social policy issues could play into how easy or how difficult it is to navigate the regulatory hoops of the Thomas Menino administration.

Menino has not, and appears unwilling to, admit that that tactic was bullying and an abuse of power rather than an innocent, overzealous “mistake.”(1)

 
So many think the 1st Amendment doesn’t allow a business owner to speak FOR something if others hold a different viewpoint.  I have been refused service before, still strikes me as strange.  I had a perscription for oxygen that I was getting refiled for my father.  A medical supplier refused to fill or sell me oxygen!  I knew any business could refuse service to anyone, anytime, for any reason or no reason.  I went elsewhere and obtained the oxygen.  Others have a more “progressive” view….

What Cathy is experiencing is the tip of the iceberg.  Right now, people are in court and being severely fined simply because they wish to exercise their faith convictions in how they run their businesses.  Elane Photography is in court because the co-owner of the small New Mexico photo company couldn’t in good conscience user her artistic skills to beautify a same-sex “commitment” ceremony.  Hercules Industries is in court in Colorado because the Obama administration wants to force its owners to abandon their faith convictions when it comes to providing health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception.  Hands On Originals, a T-shirt company in Kentucky, has been dragged before a human rights commission because it wouldn’t print T-shirts to promote a “gay pride” festival.  The list goes on and on.

Never mind that none of these events has caused anyone a problem in getting the goods or services he or she wanted.  The goal is strictly to punish those who won’t go along and approve of leftist orthodoxy.

Just ask the Susan G. Komen Foundation, after it incurred the wrath of Planned Parenthood for simply saying that it wouldn’t fund the abortion giant anymore with a small amount of grant money to which Planned Parenthood has absolutely no right.  Of course, that didn’t stop the liberal politicians whose campaigns Planned Parenthood supports from demanding that Komen bow to the abortion agenda.

Sadly, Planned Parenthood at least partially succeeded in bringing about a concession from the Komen Foundation.  Let’s hope Dan Cathy continues to stand strong and resist whatever pressures are wrongfully applied to him for staying true to his convictions.  He has a great record of charity and community service to millions that people should not ignore just because a few on the left put their social agenda above all else.(2)

The Boy Scouts of America have again voted not to allow gay members.  Liberals are screaming, Charlie says it’s nazi like behavior…I’m at a loss.  I was a boy scout for a short period of time, did not do the merit badges or anything.  Later I was an explorer scout, again, no badges, but we did a lot.  Raised money, went on trips like the Grand Canyon, canoeing, trap shooting, some good times.  Explorers had both sexes and included high school seniors, so sex was on many minds, but was not what we did as a group.  No merit badges for sex of any sort, no instruction manuals, just no, no, no…(damn, should have gone to band camp)  For the record, they don’t hire porn stars either, so a organization that offers/allows no sex is treated to abuse because they will not allow anybody that makes their sex life part of their public persona….(3)

The Boy Scouts of America will keep their controversial policy banning gay scouts and leaders after a confidential two-year review, the organization said Tuesday.

The announcement comes amid a stepped-up campaign from activist groups urging an end to the membership standards.

“The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers, and at the appropriate time and in the right setting,” said Bob Mazzuca, Chief Scout Executive of the Boy Scouts. “While a majority of our membership agrees with our policy, we fully understand that no single policy will accommodate the many diverse views among our membership or society.”

And  I have to think this is a media driven, if not created controversy.  One that ties in with Obama and the Democrat’s election hopes.  Economy, jobs, budget, Post Office default, not newsworthy…

CNN Encourages Gay Activist to Fight Boy Scouts on Including Openly-Gay Scouts, Leaders(4)

 
And it’s not just the media or a few mayors mouthing off.  Anyone would take a visit by two FBI agents as serious.  What would prompt that in post 9/11 America?  Being Pro-life?

The unscrupulous Eric Holder is at it again’

Matt C. Abbott

If you’re a (peaceful) pro-life activist, watch out for the feds!

To wit: On July 13, two FBI agents paid a home visit to Andy Moore, the son-in-law of noted pro-life nurse-turned-activist Jill Stanek. The agents questioned Moore about his pro-life activities, but they also questioned him about-and were perhaps even more interested in-Stanek’s activities.(5)

 

Everyone feel safe and protected?  The FBI is protecting us from non-violent, pro-life protesters.  They must have 99.98% of the really bad people already in prison.  Maybe if I look, I can find one they’ve missed, that slipped thru those damned cracks or something….

 

I think the argument on gay marriage has been wrongly framed by both extreme’s.  The religious right want to ban homosexual behavior, as if failing for thousands of years is because they just didn’t properly word the laws.  But then those on the gay extreme demand the same name, acceptance and rights as traditional marriage.  And I think they could get their way on everything except the name.  But they demand not just the same legal rights, but the same respect.  They demand I condone their behavior, attempting to deny me the right of free speech and free thought.  What is this the liberal vision of America?  Free love like in the 60’s? Anything goes, anywhere?

in ancient Rome, despite adulterous and homosexual acts being illegal between citizens—adult and pedophile activities were rampant between Roman men and their slaves. This occurred since slaves were not persons, but things (res) that could be treated however the owner chose. Obviously, such corrupt practice degraded the entire nation, helping lead to its demise. In the same manner, the US is also in grave peril from our increasingly unfettered approach to dating, procreation and family life. When even our president advocates for easy and late-term abortions for his own daughters, we realize how savage and short-term our values have become.

So how is America’s character revealed in its sexual mores? The American family has endured much destruction the last few decades. For example, the NY Times recently reported half of all children born to women thirty and under are now born out-of-wedlock.(6)

A study says some six year old’s think of themselves as sex objects?

Toddlers & Tiaras
 
(3)http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/17/12790471-boy-scouts-were-keeping-policy-banning-gays?lite

Comments

  1. Sorry this is rough and long. Wanted to tweek it and add pic’s but looks like we need an open mic anyway….

    • LOF;

      Well written article, thanks.

      Got married in a church, in a traditional manner, by a traditional preacher and had a traditional reception that included plenty of eat and drink. By the time the wife and I left for the honeymoon suite we figured about 350 people had showed up…big party.

      If one pushes through all the smoke and mirrors to locate the “core” issue hear we wind up realizing that individual’s, individual groups & their supportive government representatives are really the crux of the issue, driving their perspective mind sets to obtain more power and influence; which is really all any of this is about. The individual’s and individual groups dislike another individual’s or individual group’s perspective or mnd set so they protest and pander their representatives to change it to how they believe or desire it to be. Of course name calling and negaitive portraing of their self-defined opponents is needed to work the media into a frenzy, and to further their cause. It is just typical radical behaivor.

      It boils down to 2 things:

      – Radicals that insist that their particular choices are imposed upon those who oppose those choices.
      – Government using whatever means to do the same.

      Why does government need to be involved since they have no Constitutional or Universal authority to do so?
      Why do individual’s need to raise a stink when they have no more right or authority to impose their particular lifestyle on those who chose differently?
      Why does it matter to me that my neighbor choses to live and/or love one whose gender is the same? (As long as that particular lifestyle does not violate my Constitutional and/or Universial rights)
      Why do some object to another’s right to express his/her beliefs when in the long run that objection is only harming both in the long run?

      We have allowed the government to dictate how, when, why and with whom we can exercise life and freedom. As a result we continue to loose more and more of both

      CM

      • CM, thanks! Glad you like it. The SimplePolitics hit me with a like(?) Wonder if it’s worth any Mathius points? Government and marriage is tricky, they have no business being involved, but since our first forms of government were religious based in the US, it was here before the state and federal governments. Imagine a Pilgrim debating gay marriage… Think it would end with, do we burn them at the stake or stone them?

        • Mathius™ says:

          Probably stoning.. burning was typically reserved for witches.

          And, no, no Mathius Points will be awarded.

  2. d13thecolonel says:
    August 2, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Uh oh…..I am guilty as charged then. I was directly responsible for getting 164 people to CFA in Fort Worth….and our veterans group sent almost our entire membership to CFA’s in three other cities. However, our intent was to support CFA for free speech and protest the bullshit of the mayoral interference. We could care less about LGBT…no one gives a rip about LGBT at all. So, I guess that I am a very violent person. Sigh….the things that I have to live with……

    I suppose I can say that an attack on free speech is potential harm. I don’t have to wait for the pain. Oh well…….god night all.

    I agree with the Colonel, also have no issue with the boycott. As long as it’s voluntary, no one is being forced to buy or not buy from them. If it’s a issue for you, vote with your wallet, by all means. Not sure about the God night closing, is that some kind of threat?lol

    • Just A Citizen says:

      One of the comments within your reference. Seems this person recognizes the “coercion” in a boycott. Some of the points are a little disturbing if you cherish freedom, liberty and justice.

      Comment by amoonfull | August 2, 2012 | Reply

      First of all, I’m excited to find a blog doing long-form political analysis — i.e. long-form analysis that doesn’t annoy me — and I like that you’re not squeamish about taking an unpopular position.

      A couple responses.

      Boycotts are not consumer decisions; they’re speech acts. In other words, if I stop buying Nike shoes in silence, nobody knows whether I’m protesting sweatshops or just switching brands. Furthermore, the way a boycott works is that a small group of people scare a company into some policy change, because the company is afraid that the boycott will spread. In other words, it’s a minority of consumers who leverage the possibility of a much more damaging drop in sales.

      In order for any of this to work, though, two things are essential. First, a boycott has to be as public as possible. Second, it has to address itself to everyone. Otherwise the implicit threat isn’t there. Plus, I think the issue is universal. If, for example, a fast food chain denigrated African-Americans, I wouldn’t eat there, and the same goes for LGBT. Discrimination is almost always practiced against this or that minority group, but it affects the entire society.

      ***

      Charitable donations: yes, they’re great, but they’re not a counterweight. There are no guarantees when it comes to donated money: just look at how charities have suffered during this recession. Furthermore, I just don’t like people who try to buy respectability. Some do that cynically (like the Kochs), some are perhaps in earnest, but the bottom line’s the same; the money comes with strings attached, and it’s another case of wealthy people simply being worth more, politically, than other citizens in our democracy.

      ***

      You’re right that other companies commit ethical violations and go unpunished. Which is a shame. Still, there are good reasons to go after Chik-Fil-A. The most basic reason is that one does what one can; a police officer can’t prevent every burglary, but if he sees one in progress, he’s going to act. The point is not only to punish Chik-Fil-A for an actual hateful culture, but also to discourage other companies from putting themselves at risk of a boycott.

      Thank goodness the CEO spoke out! It makes the issue very clear-cut, whereas the situation with Apple is still extremely murky. For example, Apple continues to have plausible deniability: “We are shocked, shocked to learn about these child laborers!”

      The CEO’s comments are relevant in another way, as well. They’re bold, which is not good, because it means he thinks the country will tolerate discriminatory remarks. If people do nothing, the opposite message goes out: now it becomes OK for other CEOs to say as much, and perhaps a bit more. An issue like this is never simply inert: it moves in the right direction, or it moves in the wrong one.

      • Dan Cathy never said anything derogatory about gays!! I cannot for the life of me figure out where the hell people got he opposes gay marriage from a statement that he supports traditional marriage. Really people, you need to push your agenda to the front badly enough that you’re going to put words in to someones mouth that they never spoke??????

        • Mathius™ says:

          He’s “Pro traditional marriage” which means he’s “anti gay marriage.” Saying that meddling with the definition (as if the present definition is anything like the definition when the bible was written) invokes God’s wrath is a clear enough statement that he’s AGAINST gay marriage. Let’s stop playing games with semantics. Now, this alone is a non-issue – it’s not about freedom of speech to me – he can say whatever he want, but he also donated almost $2 million to organizations which lobby against gay rights in 2010 alone. We’re not putting words in his mouth. We’re just reading the words for what they really mean, and then combined with his actions, it’s pretty clear that this is not someone I want to support, if for no reason than that funding him means funding for groups like the Marriage & Family Foundation which received over $1mm of that money (again, in 2010 alone).

          Per their own website, Marriage & Family Foundation seeks pushes laws to:
          -Oppose Domestic Partner Benefits
          -Oppose Homosexual Behavior as a Protected Class
          -and something else about forcing divorcing couples into therapy first

          So let me get this straight, he’s giving millions to groups to block gay people from having “benefits” such as hospital visitation, joint medical, join tax filings, etc. He’s giving millions to groups to block the inclusion of homosexuality as a protected class, which means that you can discriminate against someone just for being gay, and that’s ok. And he’s (irrelevant to the gay-rights issue) giving millions to push laws which force couples to enter therapy/counselling before receiving a divorce.. because.. well who knows why? But somehow he has the right to tell other people how they can and cannot live their lives or enter into or exit from a PRIVATE commitment.

          Oh, and they’re “located just blocks from the capital” with a goal of “educating lawmakers […] and coordinating statewide support for positive initiatives.” In other words, LOBBYING. Yea, I’m just fine with the idea of making it painful/costly to donate to groups like this.

          Do I support a boycott.. I’m definitely not hostile to the idea, and the more I read, the more I’m starting to like the idea.

          • No, what you’re doing is assuming that you know what he meant when he said he supports traditional marriage. Couldn’t it be that he said exactly what he meant? You read between the lines all you want to but all that’s happened here is yet another controversy contrived by the media to distract the people from the fact that our economy is in the toilet, jobs are scarce and we have 535 idiots in Washington doing nothing about it.

            As to the contributions, this is a privately held company, it’s nobody’s business who they make charitable contributions to. And it doesn’t matter why he contributes to them, it shouldn’t be used as a hammer. Has anyone uncovered anything about discrimination against gays in CFA hiring policy? Because unless someone has come up with an incident, this is all a non-issue.

            • Mathius™ says:

              assuming that you know what he meant

              “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'” Cathy said. “I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

              Tell me how I can possibly construe that as anything other than a statement AGAINST gay marriage, especially when you couple it with his donation history.

              this is a privately held company, it’s nobody’s business who they make charitable contributions to. And it doesn’t matter why he contributes to them, it shouldn’t be used as a hammer.

              I disagree.

              His money is going to the government to push policies which suppress gay rights. This is a public interest. It ABSOLUTELY is my business when he’s trying to impact the government to conform with his twisted views.

              If a business were donating to a “charity” which actively lobbies the government trying to implement Sharia law, you’d be up in arms. No one would be making the claim that it’s a private company and therefore none of our business. Hell, remember the firestorm over Lowes for just advertising on All American Muslims?

              Has anyone uncovered anything about discrimination against gays in CFA hiring policy?

              Not to my knowledge.

              Because unless someone has come up with an incident, this is all a non-issue.

              So let’s all just ignore the mountain of money being spent to influence the government.. nothing to see here.. move along…

              • Kristian says:

                He’s contributing to a cause that believes the way that he does. I have no doubt that many gays do the same thing, so tell me where the difference is. Because he doesn’t believe the way that you and others think he should he isn’t allowed to contribute his own money to a cause that he believes in? I just want to make sure that I understand where you’re coming from because that sounds like a double standard to me. He believes in something that gays find repugnant so that makes him wrong but gays believe in something that he finds repugnant but that’s ok. Did I get that right?

              • Mathius™ says:

                I have no doubt that many gays do the same thing, so tell me where the difference is.

                Right. Ignoring that “many gays” are on the right side of history here, I’d say that you’re more than welcome to boycott / protest a gay-owned restaurant if it donated to a gay rights charity. That’s your prerogative.

                I would feel a strong urge to mock your relentlessly.. but I would never contend that you don’t have the right to do so, or that you should be obligated to continue patronizing that store despite the offending views.

                Because he doesn’t believe the way that you and others think he should he isn’t allowed to contribute his own money to a cause that he believes in? Of course he should.

                But people who don’t agree with him should have every right to deny him their business.

                He believes in something that gays find repugnant so that makes him wrong He IS wrong.

                but gays believe in something that he finds repugnant but that’s ok. It IS ok. (adding, not ALL gay individuals are in agreement with this, by the way).

                He believes in something that gays find repugnant so that makes him wrong but gays believe in something that he finds repugnant but that’s ok. But, taken together, you’re missing it. He has every right to be wrong and, in his wrong-ness, to donate as he sees fit. Others have the right to oppose him by whatever legal/moral means they see fit.

                Take the flip-side:
                When the Islamophobes were boycotting Lowes for it’s advertising during All American Muslim, I thought they were wrong. I thought they were bigots and bullies. But I never denied that they had the right to boycott if they so chose. Why should they have to support a store which supports something they so strongly oppose? They shouldn’t. … but that doesn’t make them any less dumb.

              • Kristian says:

                I don’t see where I’m missing anything. Just because you (the royal you, not you personally) think that he’s wrong doesn’t mean that he is. But all of that is beside the point. This has turned into this huge controversy because a few people decided they knew what he was thinking better than he did and turned a point of view into he hates gays. He never articulated that in any way, shape or form. I think that is what bothers me more than anything about this whole mess. People putting words in Mr. Cathy’s mouth that he never said. Just because you assume that’s what he meant doesn’t mean that it is.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Just because you (the royal you, not you personally) think that he’s wrong doesn’t mean that he is

                That’s true. However, he IS wrong. But I suppose that’s a completely different topic.

                This has turned into this huge controversy because a few people decided they knew what he was thinking better than he did and turned a point of view into he hates gays.

                I don’t know if he hates gay people. I suspect (apropos of nothing) that he doesn’t. I suspect that he is an otherwise good and honest man who takes the ‘love thy neighbor’ bit very seriously. From the little I have read and heard, I get the strong sense that he also takes very seriously the ‘love the man, hate the sin’ bit. Insofar as I have to live in a world populated by the religious, he strikes me as one of the better types to have around.

                I don’t think the issue is whether he hates gay people or not. I haven’t heard about discriminatory hiring/firing or office harassment or anything else. I think the issue is that he’s donating money to causes which are lobbying to deny rights to these people. It’s a bigoted and misguided effort by someone who, I think, is otherwise a fine upstanding individual. He’s mistaken, and a relic of a system which has been broken for generations, and of a culture war, and of a narrow and selective reading of the bible. C’est la vie, non? I don’t think anyone cares, however, what he thinks – they just want him to stop acting in ways that do more harm.

                Just because you assume that’s what he meant doesn’t mean that it is. I ASSUME that he means what he said. That he’s “pro traditional marriage” which clearly means he’s against gay marriage. Now LOI can be in denial that that’s what he said and/or means, but I consider that much absolutely clear – especially when combined with knowledge of his donation history.

                I have little to no information suggesting that he hates gay people.. just that he doesn’t want to let them get married.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            So it is OK for you and your friends to lobby Govt to outlaw the RIGHT of Association on private property, but it is NOT OK for this person to lobby Govt to ban the grant of a Govt Privilege to specific people.

            It is OK for you and your friends to lobby Govt to get laws providing BENEFITS or Privileges to specific people (child tax credit for example) but not for others to do the same.

            So your response is to harm everyone associated with the business. They are ALL GUILTY, after all, of allowing this man to become wealthy enough to contribute to his cause.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Ooh kay… let’s break this into pieces..

              So it is OK for you and your friends to lobby Govt to Yes. It is ok for me to lobby the government for any reason I want. It is also ok for anyone to oppose me for doing so.

              to lobby Govt to outlaw the RIGHT of Association on private property Huh? What’s this now? Who is saying you can’t associate on private property? I’m not. Is someone else?

              but it is NOT OK for this person to lobby Govt This, I think, is where you’re confused. It IS ok for him to lobby the government for his bigoted views. However, that doesn’t mean I have to sit by with my thumb up my a$$ and continue funding his company so that he has the money to do this.

              Freedom of speech and freedom of petition / lobby does not mean that these freedoms are without price tags. Should an employer, for example, has to continue employing someone who actively lobbies against their interests?

              lobby Govt to ban the grant of a Govt Privilege to specific people. You and I have had this conversation before. Insofar as government is going to recognize ANY marriage, they should recognize ALL marriages equally. Given my druthers (what, by the way, is a druther, exactly), I would have government out of marriage entirely. So, if Cathy were going to lobby against gay marriage AND straight marriage (in a political sense), I’d probably actually wind up making the 60 mile round trip to try one of those chicken nuggets I’ve heard so much about.

              So your response is to harm everyone associated with the business. My response is to do nothing. I have no business with C-F-A, before or after these comments.

              Others have determined that the harm from his ACTIONS (ie, his contributions) is so great that it merits risking harm to his (presumably innocent) employees. That is, they’ve determined that either gay people will get hurt or the employees with get hurt. They’ve done some mental calculus and, using the gray-scale, they’ve decided that the later is better than the former. Probably, if I had to guess, because of the exact logic which was already posted here today:

              “The point is not only to punish Chik-Fil-A for an actual hateful culture, but also to discourage other companies from putting themselves at risk of a boycott.”

              They figure that maybe they’ll hurt some innocent employees, but that the GOOD will be amplified because they’ll frighten other wayward companies and dry up the upstream sources of revenue for anti-gay-rights groups.

              • lobby Govt to outlaw the RIGHT of Association on private property….YEP! that’s one of those infamous EOs that slid through recently..no protesting anywhere near the president!

                Tolerance Matt! Tolerance. We have to accept Code Pink, Hollywood, Environuts, Planned Parenthood all pushing at the same time. We have to tolerate and so do you. You had it right in your first sentence..shoulda quit right there.

              • Mathius™ says:

                No protesting near the President I’m against that, if that’s an accurate description – first I’m hearing about it. I, in fact, think that the President should have to constantly be surrounded by protesters so he can never forget those who have opposition to his policies. There should be a small roped-off section inside the oval office and on board air force one, they should ride in the limo with him, and follow him into the bathroom. Politicians, especially the President, shouldn’t be able to ignore The People.

                Planned Parenthood […] We have to tolerate and so do you. You DON’T tolerate. But that’s fine. For example, how many times have you (the royal ‘you’, not you personally) tried to ban or severely limit Planned Parenthood. Let’s ignore the few which have been set on fire and the several which have had bricks thrown through their windows. What about the near-constant protesters situated outside heckling women as they go in? What about the doctor who was shot in the head execution style during a church service by a ‘pro-life’ activist?

                That’s your interpretation of tolerance? Whereas a decision to boycott is intolerance? Man, I must be missing something…

      • JAC,

        We are going to talk about what a blogger who calls him/herself “A Moon Full” thinks? (sorry, just having fun)

        “The point is not only to punish Chik-Fil-A for an actual hateful culture, but also to discourage other companies from putting themselves at risk of a boycott.” Number 1., he’s wrong. Chick-Fil-A’s CEO spoke out supporting traditional marriage. How does that get twisted into “hateful”? One would assume Mooney was brought into this world by a woman who had sex with a man. I know, that thought is offensive to some, but they need to think things out. If their campaign against hetrosexuals takes hold, it will cut down on the number of homosexuals. They need us more than we need them…

        As for a “hateful” fast food chain, Mickey D’s is supportive of gays and everything, except homeless. I have seen them refuse to give water to a poor man and that’s their policy. Not sure how many others do the same, but Chick-Fil-A may stand out because of their charity.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Number 1., he’s wrong. Chick-Fil-A’s CEO spoke out supporting traditional marriage. How does that get twisted into “hateful”?
          I think we are inviting God’s judgement when we […] have such a prideful arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.

          Got it, god defined marriage. Trying to change that enrages god to the point where we invite his judgement.

          In other words, if you are gay and getting married, you are doing something horrible and evil in the eyes of god.

          I have seen them refuse to give water to a poor man and that’s their policy.

          Not sure where you live, but where I live, you’re legally required to provide water.

          However, I won’t disagree with you. There are a lot of companies which do bad things, are supportive of bad things, etc. And I understand that you can’t boycott them all.. but I see nothing wrong with making an example of them wherever possible.

          ———–

          Adding, are you “shaking your fist at God” if you touch a football? I mean, it’s pig skin, right? That’s also listed as an abomination in the bible.

          • “He’s “Pro traditional marriage” which means he’s “anti gay marriage.”
            false! A positive statement does not equal a negative. If you are talking to Anita and Kathy and compliment one on her shoes, you have not insulted the other. Cheering for your team is not booing the other team. If you give to the Boy Scouts, you have not insulted the Girl Scouts.

            “In other words, if you are gay and getting married, you are doing something horrible and evil in the eyes of god.”
            Yes, in other words, your words! He does not attack gays or anybody else. The only ones talking about “evil” or “hateful” or those who demand he lie or change his beliefs. That he must publicly SUPPORT gay marriage. This is blatant intolerance, agree with us or be silent!

            A lot of us could infer insult. Couples who live in sin or divorce. I do not meet his standard. I don’t feel insulted, I agree with him. It does not mean I can or will live up to that standard, but I think it is worthy as a model. I hope my children do better than I have, marry once and live happily ever afterObama.

            • Mathius™ says:

              LOI,

              “He’s “Pro traditional marriage” which means he’s “anti gay marriage.”
              false! A positive statement does not equal a negative. If you are talking to Anita and Kathy and compliment one on her shoes, you have not insulted the other. Cheering for your team is not booing the other team. If you give to the Boy Scouts, you have not insulted the Girl Scouts.

              This is nonsense. And, I’d like to think, you’re smart enough to know it.

              If you’re “Pro-Life,” what you really are is “Anti-Choice” or “Anti-Abortion.”

              This isn’t a question of liking shoes or donating to the boy scouts vs the girls scouts (I always give to the girl scouts.. I’m addicted to thin mints and samoas).

              Even if you ignore his assertion that he’s “pro traditional marriage,” and (somehow) don’t see the blatantly obvious implication that he’s “anti” non-traditional marriage, there’s always what he said next.. that we invite the wrath of god when we attempt to redefine marriage for him. How can “invite the wrath of god” be viewed as anything other than condemnation? And condemnation of what? Of redefining marriage. Redefining how? Well it’s pretty obvious that he’s talking about gay marriage, unless you want to claim he was talking about marriage involving goats. It’s laughable to pretend you can’t tell what he’s saying and, to be honest, it makes you look foolish.

              That he must publicly SUPPORT gay marriage. This is blatant intolerance, agree with us or be silent!

              Yes. Be against bigotry, or shut up.

              If he wanted to go back to segregating black and whites, I’d assert the same thing. If you want to have bigoted views, that’s your prerogative, but you should have the decency to keep them to yourself. HOWEVER, again, my only real complaint is with his ACTIONS. And his ACTIONS were to donate millions to groups lobbying against gay rights.

              • Matt

                “This is nonsense. And, I’d like to think, you’re smart enough to know it.” No sir, I think you are wrong. I have heard many religious leaders march and spout off about the sin and evil of a gay lifestyle. That is anti-gay and intolerant. He may give to some anti-gay causes, not sure. I know the Amazon.com founder gave $2.5 mil to push gay marriage in Washington. I don’t think that makes him against marriage between a man and woman.

                Charities / Scholarships

                WinShape Foundation was founded more than 20 years ago by Truett and Jeannette Cathy. Under the WinShape Foundation umbrella, there are several programs, including WinShape Homes®, which currently operates 11 foster care homes in Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama. The WinShape College Program℠ at Berry College in Rome, Georgia, is a co-op program offering joint four-year scholarship funding to incoming freshmen of up to $32,000. WinShape Camps℠ offers boys and girls summer programs at the college, which will be attended by more than 15,000 campers in 2012.

                Additionally, WinShape also operates the WinShape Retreat℠, which offers a sequestered setting for marriage support and counseling and other gatherings on the Mountain Campus of Berry College. Held at WinShape Retreat, WinShape Marriage℠ aims to help married couples by offering intervention for couples in crisis, preparation for engaged couples and enrichment for those interested in growing their marriage.

                WinShape Wilderness℠ is dedicated to using adventure to equip people to experience real change, not just in a team setting, but also through personal transformation. WinShape Wilderness is an outdoor adventure program that facilitates experiential learning for all audiences in ropes course settings as well as canoeing, rock climbing and backpacking venues.

                Finally, WinShape International℠ was founded in January 2005 with a mission to mobilize leaders to transform young people and communities around the world.

                Chick-fil-A Leadership Scholarship Program: Chick-fil-A separately offers $1,000 college scholarships to certain qualified franchised Operator Restaurant employees, a Chick-fil-A tradition that has awarded over $30 million in scholarships.

              • Mathius™ says:

                You’re being deliberately obtuse and I have better things to do with my time.

  3. Just A Citizen says:

    The difference between communities that thrive economically and those that suffer is largely due to CULTURE. Bwhahahhaahaa

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48482538/ns/us_news/?__utma=14933801.80355801.1343225800.1343874860.1344011187.7&__utmb=14933801.1.10.1344011187&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1343225800.1.1.utmcsr=%28direct%29|utmccn=%28direct%29|utmcmd=%28none%29&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc|cover=112=Landing%20Content=Mixed=113=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=130=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=152074809#.UBv75qDrR8E

    • Mathius™ says:

      … and resources…

      America is absolutely LOADED with goodies which other countries don’t have.

      But why let that stand in the way of a good narrative?

    • The article referenced a couple WHITE teens who were (allegedly) killed in Detroit by two BLACK recent parolees. It’s a huge story here. Where are Jesse and Rev Al?

      • Mathius™ says:

        Without knowing anything more, I’d suggest that there are still a lot of white people in Detroit. With the number of murders, you’d think that – just statistically – they’d get a white person here and there, no?

        I broke this out on here a while back. Nationally, black-on-black murder vs black-on-white vs white-on-black vs white-on-white. I found that, adjusting for the relative populations, black people MASSIVELY favor black victims, whereas white people show little or no preference (that is, they kill black and white victims proportionately with the demographics). Black people, it seems tent to shy away from white victim – the only problem is that there are SO MANY MORE white people than black people that it appears that black people are constantly choosing white victims.

        • So where are Al & Jessee?

          Don’t know exact numbers either but it’s safe to say there are only a couple white neighborhoods left..Polish folks..who make the best food in the country!

          • Mathius™ says:

            Wikipedia says it’s 90% black.

            So, statistically, 10% of the victims should be white. Are they?

          • Mayor Emanuel loves stories like this, lets him avoid talking about Chicago violence. Chicago union/pension/budget issues, yep, lets talk about the anti gay chicken guy….

  4. Common Man says:

    Matt/JAC;

    The man has particular belief’s and has chosen to express them. It is his right to do so when and where he wants. And since he pretty much owns Chick it is also his right to risk or promote it as he sees fit. The consumer market will determine if the promotion was a good or bad one. Also since the donations he is making is his business, and I assume legal, that too is no one else’s business.

    If this man wants to undertake an effort to promote that which he believes he is just as much in the right as you or I to oppose him.

    As I said above it doesn’t require or warrant government involvement in any way, unless he is discriminating in his hiring practices. And since there is nothing on any application that asks for your sexual perference, who they hire and how they make their decision is purely speculative.

    As to JAC’s statement implying that other CEO’s may also start to express their belief’s, so? Outside of the confines that each CEO works in what is the point? If the companies that outspoken CEO’s work for object then those companies can terminate that CEO’s employment.

    “I don’t like goats, as a matter of fact I see absolutely no value in any way to having goats. I want all goats barred from life in the US”.

    From a freedom perspective I do not see the difference.

    I do agree with Matt’s statement that the man is arrogant by making the statement about God’s wrath. The Chick man is not spiritually pronounced enough to condem others. And it is arrogant to do so.

    Unless the government starts poking around and finds evidence that this man and his company are discriminating in their hiring process, this whole thing will blow over in a few weeks. And ironically if the government does want to use this man and company as an example of not to behaive in the public eye, then evidence will arise about the company discriminating and they may well go by the wayside.

    CM

    • Mathius™ says:

      Also since the donations he is making is his business, and I assume legal, that too is no one else’s business.

      I also assume it’s 100% legal.

      But the problem is that I oppose the goals of those to whom he is donating.

      Since I cannot compete with their lobbying capacity, my only real option is to shut down their financing.

      Thus we (the royal we, not me personally) boycott the store and make it painful to donate to groups like this.

      It absolutely IS my business though, because he is using his money to make LAWS which affect the public at large. I’m not gay, and so it doesn’t really affect me personally whether they can or cannot get married, but I know quite a few gay people and I know that many of them are hurt that they are relegated to this second class status. It’s a matter of public concern, not a private issue.

      For comparison would you consider it a private or public issue if a local store contributed a portion of it’s fund to advocate for Sharia law?

      • No one is stopping your boycott. But that just isn’t enough for you. Would you like to see the man out of business? GREAT. That will also put gay employees of Chick out of business. Along with thousands of other employees.

        The problem came about because a few mayors decided to make it an issue. Now it’s turned into a 1st Amendment/ gay rights issue. Nothing like diverting away from the original problem..

        • Mathius™ says:

          No one is stopping your boycott. But that just isn’t enough for you. It’s not? Well none of this is “for me”.. I’m just sitting this one out on the sidelines…

          Would you like to see the man out of business? GREAT. … no… I don’t think so. I think I’d much prefer he stopped trying to foist his bigotry on society at large. If he could keep it to himself, then I’d be much happier. There are lots of other good causes if he still feels a need to be charitable. How ’bout feeding the homeless? How about lobbying against war?

          That will also put gay employees of Chick out of business. Along with thousands of other employees. Probably. I see it as highly unlikely that this boycott will be anything more than a blip on the radar for C-F-A. The odds of putting them out of business is pretty slim. That said, I don’t favor causing thousands of employees to lose their jobs if it’s at all avoidable. I’ve already addressed this point though (see my response to “So your response is to harm everyone associated with the business”). I’m not going to keep saying the same thing.

          The problem came about because a few mayors decided to make it an issue A few mayors are idiots. I don’t think they started it though – I think they just jumped on the bandwagon.

          Now it’s turned into a 1st Amendment/ gay rights issue. Nothing like diverting away from the original problem.. How is that diverting? The issue IS gay rights and freedom of speech and freedom of assembly (including the freedom to boycott).

          • The issue is whether govt can refuse you permits to operate a business because of your personal beliefs.

            • Mathius™ says:

              I don’t think that’s really the issue.

              The answer is that, NO, no the government cannot. If they tried, it would be a grandstanding gesture and it would get demolished in the courts followed by a hefty penalty.

              I guess we’re going to have to have another comparison here.. consider the “Ground Zero Mosque” which was fought against so adamantly. Eventually, though, they won (as was inevitable). And they were Muslims trying to build near-ish to the WTC site. You think, somehow, they’re going to be able to stop a Christian company from building based on their religious beliefs? It’s really laughable.

        • Would you like to see the man out of business?

          Personally? Sure, because I’m sure those jobs will be filled by the next owner to replace the one who went out. The next owner may get it at a bargain price and if he isn’t a bigot, good for him. If he is, he’ll probably learn to keep his homophobic remarks to himself.

          🙂

          • Mathius™ says:

            Hey, when the Free Hand smacks your predecessor around badly enough, you’ll probably learn a valuable lesson..

    • Just A Citizen says:

      CM

      For the record, it was NOT MY comment. I was posting the comment of someone else that shows the mind set of those who understand the purpose of, and USE, BOYCOTT to force others to act as they wish.

  5. But he did not say that, he said the opposite, that he supports marriage as defined in the Bible.

    How do you not see this as being anti gay marriage? His support of 1 excludes the other.

    • Go Bills? Is that not an insult to every other team? By your logic, we must ban any and all cheering at every sporting event. If you support your team, you are oppressing the other team. If you support Obama, you are oppressing Romney.

      Wanna revisit the Boy Scouts? What merit badges do you want the gay scout leaders to hand out? That one on knot tying could be a great intro for bondage….

      • Mathius™ says:

        So, next time someone tells me they’re “pro life,” I shouldn’t take that to mean that they’re against abortion, right?

        • You might want to ask them yourself instead of assuming. Do you support abortion as a means of birth control? That’s what Pro-Choice means, right? Any abortion, anytime for any reason or no reason. Or maybe some think of themselves as pro-life, that abortion should only happen in cases of rape or threat to the mother life. I consider myself Pro-Choice, but would like to see abortion become increasingly difficult.

          • Mathius™ says:

            You’ve gone off the deep end, LOI.

            No, Pro-Choice does not mean any abortion any time for any reason. It means that it’s PRIVATE and a CHOICE. Most pro-choice advocates would suggest that they are just fine with prohibitions on late term abortions, gender selection abortions (though they would suggest that it’s non of their business to ask if this is the case, and so it would be impossible to enforce such a ban). They would suggest that it is a measure of LAST RESORT. Not “birth control” but “when birth control fails.”

            Go attack some other straw man.

            I consider myself Pro-Choice, but would like to see abortion become increasingly difficult.
            Because you consider yourself to be in a superior position to judge the validity and / or necessity of an abortion than pregnant women themselves, is that it?

            Don’t worry, ladies, LOI knows what’s best for you..

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              “Most pro-choice advocates would suggest that they are just fine with prohibitions on late term abortions,”

              Oh REALLY! When they had their chance they screamed out in pain and Clinton vetoed the bill that would have done just that.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Why do you perpetually insist on conflating a vocal minority with the whole?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Yea, Clinton ran around doing things that were only supported by a minority.

                The guy lived by polling data and political risk assessment.

            • Gone off the deep end? That was years ago, I’ve moved to another dimension since then…
              You KNOW abortion is now used as birth control. We could debate how often, but it is a true statement. BHO’s statement, he would not want his daughters “burdened with a mistake”? What does that sound like? Pregnant at 15, need to finish HS. Pregnant at 23, need to finish college.

              “I consider myself Pro-Choice, but would like to see abortion become increasingly difficult.
              Because you consider yourself to be in a superior position to judge the validity and / or necessity of an abortion than pregnant women themselves, is that it?”

              I hope not. I would like late term abortion to be very difficult to obtain. A big issue to me is parental permission, which California has passed a law against. Need a parents permission to get a tattoo, but not an abortion. Mostly I would prefer it move to the states, that Roe vs Wade, it cannot be outlawed, but state/federal funding ended except states that decide to fund it. That also allows those who are anti-abortion to move or have their state pass restrictive laws.

        • Mathius,

          I am pro-life – which clearly means I am against abortion. I always have been and my stance was not religious based. I am just not able to change my personal belief that from the moment of conception there is a life growing and that life should not be destroyed.

          At the same time though I will not condemn those who get abortions. It is their business, not mine. Would I be sad about it? Yes, I would.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Hallelujah!

            Precisely right.

            Pro-life means anti-abortion: check.

            And, as a bonus, despite being pro-life, you feel that it’s not your place to judge: awards 50 Mathius Points

            Would I be sad about it? Yes, I would: and there’s nothing at all wrong with that.

            • Similar to Plainly … I believe life begins at conception. Unlike Plainly, I accept a woman’s right to abort. Pro-life is anti-abortion … why is this a problem to understand?

              Oh, right … the right

              • Mathius™ says:

                It doesn’t sound like plainly is against a woman’s right to abort. It sounds like – PS, correct me if I’m wrong – he’s against abortion and wishes no one had them, but isn’t in favor of legislating against them. This is much the same as the fact I’m against nose picking and wish that people wouldn’t pick and flick, but I’m not in favor of legislatively prohibiting it.

                I, personally, think life generally begins some time around 24 years old (the 100th trimester). I reserve the right to abort until my children graduate from college, get their first real jobs, and move out of the house.

              • It doesn’t sound like plainly is against a woman’s right to abort. It sounds like – PS, correct me if I’m wrong – he’s against abortion and wishes no one had them, but isn’t in favor of legislating against them.

                You are correct. It is an ethical issue – as JAC would possibly argue? – to me. Now, shoot me if you will, but in the end it is between the woman and God (for believers) to settle the issue of breaking His laws (and I don’t mean Old Testament laws).

                I do believe that a society that approves abortion also adds to the devaluation of life (as I see life – I know it’s arguable) in that society (as does other societal supported choices).

                More later if you wanty to continue down any of the paths I have opened up in this response. Got to go for now. 🙂

        • And you have to wonder, if Chick-Fil-A was such a big story when all the mayors and talking heads were talking up how it was “hatespeech”, why isn’t the backlash a story?

          http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mainstream-media-blacks-out-chick-fil-story_649234.html

      • Wanna revisit the Boy Scouts? What merit badges do you want the gay scout leaders to hand out? That one on knot tying could be a great intro for bondage….

        I have no problem with the BSA stance, they are a private organization (and no, I never was a Boy Scout). I have no problem with anyone that opposes their views either (as long as they are peaceful in their opposition). But, the comment you made here I have to say was nothing more than a cheap shot. *penalty flag thrown*

        • The Boy scouts should be boycotted too … but I suspect the reality is nobody much gives a crap. It’s absurd they can tell a lesbian woman she can’t be a scout leader in the land of the free and all men are created equal under the law land … but again, who cares what the boy scouts do. I was a scout. My feelings about it now are, “Eh.” I had fun but it wasn’t going to change my life …

          But they should NEVER be allowed to discriminate so openly … screw their private status.

          • Charlie,

            What does scouting have to do with one’s sex life? They allow no activities having to do with sex. If a person wants to make public their sexlife, scouts don’t want them. They do not want sex brought into boyscouts. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but it’s their choice to ignore or deny.

    • The man who served as the deputy director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives during Operation Fast and Furious resigned on Tuesday, an agency spokesman told The Associated Press on Thursday.

      William Hoover was one of the five ATF officials House oversight committee chairman Darrell Issa and Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley singled out as responsible for Operation Fast and Furious. ATF spokesman Drew Wade told the AP that Hoover resigned on Tuesday – the day Issa and Grassley released the congressional report in which they singled out Hoover and four of his colleagues.

      Wade did not immediately responded to a request from The Daily Caller seeking confirmation that the GOP lawmakers’ report prompted Hoover’s resignation, and did not answer whether or not resignations are in the works for the other four officials.

      The other four ATF officials Issa and Grassley blamed Fast and Furious on in this report are:

      William Newell, the special agent in charge of the phoenix field division
      William McMahon, Newell’s boss who was ATF’s deputy assistant director for field operations
      Mark Chait, McMahon’s boss who was ATF’s assistant director for field operations
      Kenneth Melson, former acting ATF director

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/02/atf-official-resigns-after-issa-grassley-nail-him-in-congressional-fast-and-furious-report/#ixzz22VrHy8YZ

  6. 😐

  7. Just A Citizen says:
    • Mathius™ says:

      Boy, he sure sounds more like a Tea Party wackaloon than a liberal wackaloon.. hell, he wants to “restore the country to its conservative Christian roots,” talks about FEMA prison camps, is militantly anti-gay, hates socialists, and is apparently a gun advocate.

      He’s one of yours, not one of ours!

      Adding, how does one hide a freeway from Mexico City to Toronto which is 4 football fields wide? That’s one big-a$$ freeway..

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        You don’t hide a freeway that size, and it was never hidden.

        Ask the Colonel what happened to Perry when he tried to push the Texas segment through.

        Yes, the planned “Super Highway” is a real proposal. It is in FACT included in a proposal by the Council on Foreign Relations.

        The “proposal” and “framework” for further cooperation were signed off on by Bush and the Mexican President and the PM of Canada.

        • Mathius™ says:

          and where is it……? I’d like to buy up some real estate along the route.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Here are the major corridors. Money has been flowing to some of the segments. If you google nafta superhighway you will get several articles.

            One of the maps shows other alternate “local” highways that vie for money. US 395 and US 95 are two where Congressional delegations have been fighting for money to be the first to connect Canada to the Interstate corridor running from Portland to Salt Lake.

            So in a nutshell, you are too late.

          • Just A Citizen says:
        • The Trans Texas Corridor…….is dead. It will not be revived in our lifetime. I will have to admit to having a significant role in killing this try by using Eminent Domain to steal private land. Do not do that in Texas….period. The first piece of land that the Emminent Domain criminals tried to take was,,,,,and this was a huge mistake…..a veteran’s land. The Sheriff and the DPS were met with over 300 veterans…all armed….you won’t see that on the internet. The Sheriff of that county lost his job in the resulting election as did the judge that signed the order. In the legislature the following year, thousands of people showed up at the Tx DOT and RRC hearings letting everyone, including the Feds know, that there would be bloodshed. You will not see that on any news reports either. We were successful in rallying tens of thousands of people in town hall meetings and it worked. In 2010, the Trans Texas Corridor has been officially scraped. It will not happen through Texas. As I understand it, three RRC members were not re-elected, two more judges were not re-elected, and three state representatives were not re=elected. Perry got the message and so did Dewhurst.

          Note: We took this very seriously and as I was actively involved with the Texas National Guard at that time, Perry knew that calling out the Guard would not have worked as a lot of Guard members were in the 300……(not to be confused with the Spartans). The issue of Emminent Domain in Texas…while on the books….is pretty much of a dead issue.

  8. Just GRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Fight like a girl V! What’s the problem, I won’t tell anyone!

      • Maybe I’m the crazy one-but I just find it infuriating that if one supports marriage as union between a man and a woman they are bigoted evil people and should be shunned-but people who believe life begins at conception but support abortion rights should be praised-for supporting, what they define as Murder!!!!

        • Mathius™ says:

          Support marriage all you like.

          But when you start telling other people who are in love that they can’t get married because of some preconceived notion you have… well sorry.. I’ve got to call a spade a spade.. that’s bigotry. No different than if you were of the opinion that two people can’t get married because they’re different races, just the 21st century version of the same issue.

        • V.H. Welcome to the real world (not being ugly here) … it’s the gray area us libtards often refer to … sometimes life isn’t so simple as an A or B choice. I believe life begins at conception, yet support a woman’s right to terminate the life. …

          • Then you knowingly support Murder-not being ugly here either- but if this isn’t the world you want-you shouldn’t support that which you know is wrong!

      • And the if you are Pro-life, you should use the words anti-abortion or anti-choice because even though I support abortion I am Pro-life. Well I’m being nice using the word pro-choice instead of the most accurate term Pro-murder-so I[‘m gonna stick with the best word choice Pro-life.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          You must have been sleeping in again. That took you a lot longer than I thought it would.

          🙂

        • I like what you have to say. The reality is, some of the Pro-Choice are really Pro-Abortion. They hide it and you can’t say it unless you want to endure that liberal storm. What was it Obama didn’t want his daughters “burdened” with??? A child? And those wackey Christian’s call them “blessings”.

          • The truth is-you really can’t be both-you can say a lot of smart sounding words-but in the end you are supporting the murder of millions of babies.

            • Right on.

            • VH
              That is the truth. I do not like it and wish I could beat my chest and proclaim myself Pro-Life. But if I support a womans right to choose, it turns gray, Do I say, to save her own life(knowing the child is likely to perish with her) is OK? Rape? Incest? It’s a moral cop-out, but I don’t want to play God. It should not be easy, it is a life or death decision. To me, it is an outrage that it has grown so large, for so long. Some 55 million babies killed in America. And we are “proud” to live here?

              But, you and I did not enslave anyone. We are not responsible for all those abortions. We are responsible for what we can and have done to change this. The liberals have outshouted us for too long on reproductive rights…. How does ending a life get called or relate to reproduction? It is anti-reproduction…It is murder in that context.

              • I want you to think about something, LOI. Lets set aside abortion for the moment and discuss just regular old taking of human life-there are exceptions that we as a society allow which determines whether are not the taking of the life is murder or is not. Do you call yourself pro-murder based on these exceptions? Or do you stand against murder.

              • VH,

                Tough question on a very difficult topic. Inclined to duck and run, but OK. Back to abortion, if used as birth control, I see that as murder. Trying to talk polight about it or let them hide behind reproductive rights is bulldookey.

                Pro-murder? Flag might call me such. I support the death penalty. Our recent mass killer for example, should get that quick trail and be hung, shot, or thrown over a cliff. Whatever is cheapest. He chose to live in our society. He broke the ultimate rules stipulated for living with us. I actively support his death. I would sign the paper myself and sleep fine every night.

                If someone breaks into your home and you kill them, I see that as simple self-defense. If you die instead, it may be murder on their part. Did they enter armed? That shows intent to kill, see ya in the next life. Un-armed and fought, maybe they get a break. I do not claim to have all the answers, just will state there are times when it is legal and moral to kill. Sad reality, that’s subject to abuse.

              • Morbid morning song

                I think of death
                it must be killing me

            • Mathius™ says:

              you are supporting the murder of millions of babies.

              …. or the removal of millions of parasites …

  9. Having read everything posted so far, I have decided that I also support traditional marriage, since I am a heterosexual male, and I’m not gay. I don’t give a rats ass what gays do, marriage has been a “religious” issue for a long time, let the gays find a new word that doesn’t involve religion. Frankly, I’m tired of all this “your a racist” bullshit. And for the record, I don’t discriminate against anyone, but I will not be forced to associate with those that are “different” than I. I’m not flying a rainbow flag to appease anyone, I’m not getting my hair done in cornrows and hair extensions to show my support for blacks. If yous on the left have a problem with that,tough shit, you do it! And no, the Boy Scouts should be doing exactly what they are doing, saying NO to the politically correct assholes of the world. I wouldn’t let my sons be in the Scouts if the leaders were gay, to much Sandusky comes to mind. Let the gays start a gay scout troop and move on. Rock on Boy Scouts!

    • OH, The Gorilla in the Room needs to be elliminated! Happy Charlie? 🙂

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      A long hot day working here, but G-MAN manages to put a smile on my face! 🙂

    • Mathius™ says:

      ,b>Having read everything posted so far, I have decided that I also support traditional marriage, since I am a heterosexual male, and I’m not gay. Ok….

      I don’t give a rats ass what gays do, Great!

      marriage has been a “religious” issue for a long time, That’s fine. Your religion can decide how they want to handle it and mine can decide for itself. I see nothing wrong with this. And if a gay person is involved with a church which believes that gay people can marry, then that’s great for him.

      Likewise, of course, the non-religious, should determine for themselves what it means.

      let the gays find a new word that doesn’t involve religion. But that doesn’t make sense.. there are plenty of churches which are fine with homosexuals getting married. So why is it that YOUR religion gets to determine the word? Why not THEIR religion? (again, or NON-religion).

      Frankly, I’m tired of all this “your a racist” bullshit. It’s not racisim. Gay isn’t a race. It’s homophobic. Which I think is also an inaccurate word. Phobic, from the Greek Phobia, means to fear. There’s some conflation of fear and hatred/dislike, but I have no reason to believe you fear gay people. I prefer the prefix ‘mis’ as in misanthrope. So, maybe the best for you is mis-sexual-homo-thrope (mis=dislike, sexual=sexual / sexual attraction, homo=same, thrope -> anthropos=man/human) – one who dislikes the sexual attraction between humans who are the same (as each other).

      Let’s see if we can get that to catch on…

      And for the record, I don’t discriminate against anyone, GREAT!

      but I will not be forced to associate with those that are “different” than I. Nor should you be.

      I’m not flying a rainbow flag to appease anyone, I’m not getting my hair done in cornrows and hair extensions to show my support for blacks Is someone demanding that you do?

      If yous on the left have a problem with that,tough shit, you do it! Nope, no problem here…

      And no, the Boy Scouts should be doing exactly what they are doing, saying NO to the politically correct assholes of the world. I disagree, but we’ve been over this already.

      I wouldn’t let my sons be in the Scouts if the leaders were gay, to much Sandusky comes to mind. Actually, the incidence of pedophilia amongst homosexuals is lower than heterosexuals. I saw a study on this a while back… probably pretty hard to get solid statistics since pedophiles don’t readily self-identify. That said, I think you have a bias here that isn’t supported by a valid reason. You son could just as readily be molested by a straight female councilor / scout-master or by a peer. Yes, it’s flashy news when Sandusky’s emerge from the woodwork, but that doesn’t make them the ‘norm’ for gay people.

      Let the gays start a gay scout troop and move on. Rock on Boy Scouts! Yes.. Separate but Equal! The last vestiges of a crumbling moral system of segregation and bigotry. You’ve already lost and just haven’t realized it yet – you’re like a fatally wounded empire which refuses to concede defeat even while enemy troops storm the capital. Like it or not, the future is coming for you.. you can hold out all you like, but in the end, they’re going to win. And in 50 years, assuming you’re still around, your great great grandchildren are going look at you like a two-headed snake when you tell them how you used to believe that gay people shouldn’t be able to get married or join the boy scouts. They’re going to get together behind your back and laugh about how crazy and bigoted ole grandpa Puritan is. It will probably be exactly the way your kids today feel about your grandparent telling them how they opposed school segregation and wanted to keep separate water fountains. The future cometh and no man can hold back the tide forever.

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    I have decided to, at least for a little while, accept that Boycotts are just speech.

    So I am going to find an PROGRESSIVE who I know voted for Obama and then I am going to track him/her to their work place.

    I am going to organize a bunch of crazy people who hate Progressives to go and picket said business and to threaten all their clients and customers. Right up the supply chain. We will get tons of media coverage and create a national campaign.

    They can stop this pain if they just FIRE the person.

    Now lets see how long it takes to start hearing how Boycotts have some nuanced meaning that excludes this effort. Before we have a court ruling splitting the hairs of speech once again to ban my boycott, but not others.

    😉

    • Enjoy your boycott. I have no problem with you doing so as long as it is peaceful.

      • Plainly, I’m on your side here. I’m not against protests or boycotts in general. I privately boycott certain companies for personnal reasons, and they are doing just fine without my business. Tonight, the media has overblown some comments and made it an issue with the Gays. Now we have “The Night of th Kissing Queers” that the Liberal lying media can fawn over and continue to make assclowns of themselves. I’m OK with protesting and boycotts, but I’m also OK with calling out the lies that may lead to them. The Liberal media, and the Liberal politicians have no real credibility left anyway, so, with that said, the gay Liberals can suck face all night long for all I care, I’m not there to vomit on them 🙂

    • Let me know who, where and when…Be warned that piddling on their tires is my favorite expression of “free speech”.

      • I just got a chance to really go through the comments and try to catch up and this one just caught my eye and I couldn’t stop laughing. LOI you are too funny my friend!! Love the whole piddling thing, that just tickled my funny bone!

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    Oops.

    boy·cott (boikt)
    tr.v. boy·cott·ed, boy·cott·ing, boy·cotts
    To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion. See Synonyms at blackball.
    n.
    The act or an instance of boycotting.

    WHAT WAS THAT WORD FOLLOWING “MEANS OF”?

    • The any and all protests or demonstrations of any kind are coercion right? Tea Party, LGBT, Anti-war, Pro-choice, Pro-Life, ect….

      Hear ye, hear ye, in the land of JAC all dissent is illegal because it is coercion.

      Enjoy your country of 1

      • Just A Citizen says:

        plainly

        Your starting to channel Charlie.

        I posted the definitions of each of the key terms used in the discussion.

        Boycotts are defined as a group “act together” for the purpose of making somebody do what you want. They are by accepted definition COERCION.

        So if you have a problem with the definitions then take it up with the Dictionary people.

        • lmao! I am not the one having a problem with the definition.

          But nice sidestep to keep from answering the question. “any and all protests or demonstrations of any kind are coercion right?”

          You’ve been caught in your own web – clearly suppressing freedom would be the outcome of your “ethical” society.

          Have a great day JAC. 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Plainly

            Freedom: The ability to live one’s life according to their own free will.

            This definition carries with it an absolute and corollary ethic. In order for ALL men to live according to their will then each can not impose their will upon another.

            I am having no problem with this definition.

            Protests and demonstrations may or may not be coercive, depending on how they are carried out. Does the demonstration carry with it an explicit threat? If so it is coercion.

            I did not create these definitions. I have posted them from various Dictionary web sites.

            So it is you who is struggling here, not me.

            Unless of course you have a different definition of freedom. One, perhaps, that allows you to do anything you like as long as it doesn’t cause physical injury?

        • Oh, and by your reasoning the Civil Rights Movement would have been outlawed as unethical, since boycotts were one of the several types of tactics used n(along with protest marches, demonstrations, etc).

          • Just A Citizen says:

            plainly

            Not at all. Are you having trouble reading my explanations?

            Did you not see where I stated boycotts are allowed where harm is done?

            • JAC, it isn’t the definition that is the problem – so you can quit providing definitions.

              We differ in the application of “harm.” Yours would restrict freedom as defined by YOUR ethics, not mine. You sir have no better course for free society than anyone else. You say yours would be ethical and I say your ethical world steals freedom.

              So, enjoy your world. Luckily it has about as much chance of coming to fruition as does Charlies ideal society.

    • JAC, I do not shop at Target, as an expression of protest because of their Liberal policies. I do not go to any house of religion that is not the one I favor, because I “disfavor” the others. I think that in the world of religion, coercion is used on a daily basis. I think you may have lost your point of contention, as individual “boycotting” is quite normal.

    • How can a non-act (doing nothing – abstaining from ….(whatever)) be coercion???

      Bizarre argument, JAC.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        They don’t happen by magic. Action is needed to go beyond one person.

        Because the definition of coercion is to THREATEN.

        So it is bizarre to you only because we have different definitions.

        • JAC

          There is an infinite difference between:

          “If you do not, I will kill you”
          and
          “If you do not, I will take my ball and go home”

          You wish to make a “threat” of informing one party to be aware of a non-violent and direct response to be the same as a “threat” of informing one party to be aware of a violent and direct response.

          In other words, any manner of sharing information of consequences is a defined to be a “threat” to you, making the word essentially meaningless and redundant.

          You need both the non-violent and violent information to be equally a “threat” so you can invoke the same response to either and justify that responses you would use on violent “threats” to be used on non-violent informatives.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            Yes, a threat is a threat. It doesn’t matter what the consequences are. The difference is in the affect of that threat.

            If you …………then I will……… is a threat. You can not escape that unless you want to change the language.

            Do this………… or I will……… is also a threat. It is coercive, by long held definition. It is also a form of FORCE, by definition.

            I do not need violence and non-violence to be the same. Violence is force, but not all force is violence. Response should be commensurate with the force.

            Meaning that I can not NUKE Iran just because they attack a cruiser in the Gulf.

            • Then you define all information of cause and effect to be a threat.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                No. And neither does the definition, nor do the vast majority of humans.

                That is a stretch you and plainly seem determined to make. But it is outside the realm of reason, and the meaning of the words used.

              • JAC,

                You have no objective measure to discern one from the other – you subjectively apply whenever it appears to suit your cause.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                You are starting to get to that point where you assign motivations to people that is unjustified.

                It is not a subjective criteria at all.

                I, along with most humans KNOW when we are being THREATENED.

              • JAC

                BF You are starting to get to that point where you assign motivations to people that is unjustified. It is not a subjective criteria at all. I, along with most humans KNOW when we are being THREATENED.

                Most humans are irrational when they do not get what they want – and so to justify violence response, they twist and warp words and concepts – such as “violence” – to mean non-violent things.

                Same here.
                Negative advertising is not coercion. No one is holding a gun to anyone to listen.
                Consumer boycotting is not coercion. No one is holding a gun preventing another from buying.

                The measure – if that person did not tell you their reason for not purchasing, you’d *shrug* and say that’s their right and would never call their act coercion.

                Them saying that they are not buying because of some personal moral issue, …. suddenly that changes your stance and you yell “You are being coercive on that company!”

                The act has not changed – not buying – yet you declare the act has changed merely because someone spoke!

        • The violent “threat” is a promise of direct action on YOU if you do not conform.

          The non-violent consequence is a promise of NO SUCH DIRECT ACTION. In fact, nothing is done to you. I take my ball and go home. You can stand in the field and continue playing football all you want – I merely no longer am there.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            I keep playing football with others. You decide you don’t like my game so you get friends and you all go to the guy who owns the field.

            You tell him that if he doesn’t stop letting me play ball on his field you will create a boycott campaign against him. This will include all his advertisers and business partners. The school at which his wife works. What ever it takes.

            The man kicks me off the field along with all my friends. You are no longer there, that is true. But now I have no place to play ball.

            There was an action and THREAT of direct action, harassing businesses etc, to impose your will upon me, when I had done nothing to impose my will upon you.

            • No sir, it is not.
              No one – not one – has done a thing to you.

              You have no right to his field – he can for any reason kick you off.
              You merely disagree with the reason he does so, and declare “coercion!”

              You are in judgement of his reason – for a thing he needs absolutely no reason for him to justify.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                So if you reject the English language, what language do you accept?

              • I do not reject English – I am enforcing it.

                The meaning of the word is perverted so to fit a justification to use force where force would not be normally justified.

  12. Obviously, such corrupt practice degraded the entire nation, helping lead to its demise.

    This is not true.

    Slavery helped lead to the demise – but it is not true to claim sexuality lead to the demise.

    • Oh Chit! It’s Black Flag! Run and hide your golld!!! Great article at that link!? (well, I liked it anyway)

      “In the same manner, the US is also in grave peril from our increasingly unfettered approach to dating, procreation and family life. When even our president advocates for easy and late-term abortions for his own daughters, we realize how savage and short-term our values have become.”

      The fall of Rome is both simple and complex. Economics of raiding other countries to pay for an entitlement society is one facet. Erosion of cultural values is another. Cultural values may be but a poor reflection of principals, but relevant. You and I understand why we don’t rape when oppertunity presents itself. But what of the poor man in our society? We still enjoy a significant number/precentage of the lowest members of our society who retain similar values. But we are also seeing it erode. It is not one thing , but many things that will bring about a fall or keep pushing it back until when…The core of our society has been built on the nuclear family. The erosion of our culture can be linked to it’s demise. And that does include loosning of sexual moores.

      • LOI,

        I cannot agree with all your statements.

        Yes, family is the center of society – but this has nothing to do with “morals” – many successful cultures, for example, support polygamy – which, according to your basics, would “erode” society.

        Abortion argument has nothing to do with a moral argument – that argument is about basics of rights and life.

        “Unfettered” dating – oh gosh! The sin of it! Just think if they want to listen to music or dance!??! The shame, have they no shame!??! (roll eyes).

        Nope – lots and lots of false cause/effect mushed together in just another specious argument.

  13. So how is America’s character revealed in its sexual mores? The American family has endured much destruction the last few decades. For example, the NY Times recently reported half of all children born to women thirty and under are now born out-of-wedlock.

    Again, another false cause/effect statement.

    This infers that single mothers destroy families and are a cause of societal collapse.

    This is not true.

    The fact that single mothers have lower family income and tend to abandon their kids to third party care causes the demise of society.

    Sexual mores have nothing to do with improving or degrading society – these have been repeated falsehoods since the Puritan days.

    One merely need to look at the Puritans as a counter example. If sex mores do have major impact in society improvement, then the Puritans should have represented the greatest era in society improvement in history.

    In fact, it is measured as one of the set backs to societal development, and turned England into the backwater of Europe compared to the post-Renaissance enlightenment that was being embraced in the rest of Europe.

    • 75-80% of our prison population comes from a home with only a single mother. Argue it however you like, the traditional family unit is a big part of what made America great. A melting pot of Irish families, Italian families, English, German, etc–families were the first shared value.

      • Another specious argument – that single mom’s create criminals.
        They do not.
        The same confluence of conditions that effect single mom’s – should it effect two parent households – holds the same damage.

        • Reality says otherwise. In the same economic conditions, a two parent household results in a vastly smaller percentage of children who end up in prison.

          • LOI

            Reality says otherwise. In the same economic conditions, a two parent household results in a vastly smaller percentage of children who end up in prison.

            Your data please.

            Please show a woman earning $100,000 a year as a single moms have more kids in prison than a two parent family with income of $100,000

            • Funny, I don’t know ANY single woman who make a $100,000 a year.

              • I do.

              • I did for several years. Geez…to have had that continue for an extra ten yrs… I’m going to have to figure something out for the next ten.

              • The point is that, that isn’t the norm-so why does BF-want to use it?

              • V.H.
                That is not the point.

                The point is that being a single mom does not make children criminals. It is a terrible specious argument that LOI is presenting.

                There are other conditions as a consequence of single motherhood that may be causative – but those conditions exists in two-parent families too.

                It is incredibly dangerous to declare some sort of irrational morality as a cause of social disorder.

  14. One must be very careful in assigning cause/effect relationships. It is very easy to create a specious example – but completely miss the truth.

    Morals are such a danger. There is always one group who believes their morals are sacrosanct compared to someone else, and they reach into bizarre arguments to prove it.

    But morals are individual and subjective. There is no such set that can state itself to better or worse than another.

    The Golden Rule does not say “Your morals must be clean”

    It says “Do unto others as you would have done unto you”.

    Live and let live.
    Do no harm, then do as you please.

  15. One big problem with my article, a lot of it was already covered over the last few days. I did not want to post over US(well, it is his site). And G! points out here, most of the controversy was not what Cathy said, but what the media said he said….kinda like Matt’s “in other words”
    What a bulldookey expression, use my words if quoating me! Say whatever you want, but take credit for it, they are your words, not mine rephrased!

    gmanfortruth says:

    August 1, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    @Buck,

    Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy has been taking heat from the left for some comments he made presumably about homosexual marriage. The thing is, he didn’t actually say anything about homosexual marriage. Cathy only stated his beliefs about traditional family and marriage. Leave it to the media to try to make a story out of nothing.

    The original interview that the media quote as being responsible for all these attacks and boycotts by the left was given by Ken Coleman on Ken’s radio show that aired on Father’s Day. The context of the infamous quote by Mr. Cathy in which he states that our culture is “inviting God’s judgment” wasn’t even about homosexual marriage. In fact, the subject of homosexual marriage never even came up during the entire interview. Ken’s question to Dan was regarding the growing problem of “fatherlessness” in our society today.

    Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6385/liberal-media-fabricate-another-scandal/#ixzz22Jh55PLU

    Maybe the Liberal Media should get their crap straight!

    • I don’t think anyone can misinterpret “blow me” ! Pretty cut and dry there. 😆

      Subject change for the Flagster, What happens when China announces that they are backing the Yuan with gold (if they do as predicted).

  16. JAC,
    Carrying forward:

    The ethical defense against someone who lobbies for anti gay legislation is to lobby for gay legislation. The proper response to someone who runs advertising against gays to to run advertising for gays.

    Again, lobbying (using government) to enforce my agenda is ethical?

    Why is it that I can only use the tactics that have been used against me?
    If someone lobbies or runs advertising I don’t approve of, why can’t I organize a boycott?
    Lobbying involves much more coercion/extortion/force than boycotting, so why is lobbying ethical and a boycott not?

    You are misconstruing the discussion with others as opposed to “persuading” them to participate in an organized and orchestrated effort to HARM x economically or otherwise.

    What about advertising? If my competitor advertises that he has the best deal, and pulls customers away from me, he is hurting my business. He is “persuading” customers in an organized and orchestrated effort to HARM me economically.

    How is that different than a boycott?

    You are splitting hairs and twisting logic trying to make boycotts “unethical”.

    If you want our business, you meet our demands. If you don’t want our business, then don’t. It’s call the free market.

    Boycotts are one of the few options that those with less power (individual consumers) have to deal with large companies.

    Your position on this seems to favor the powerful. There’s no way individual customers could ever match the power of most companies.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      I offered lobbying as a retaliation/defense method that was similar to the other persons harm to you. Assuming that harm is done, not just that you feel offended. Such as the gay marriage ban.

      It is not the tactics per se’ but the magnitude of harm done in defense. Eye for and Eye, not Head for an Eye. I used lobbying as a tactic but limited the lobbying to a direct attack on the person, not a group. I used it because I assumed that was what Mr. Chicken did to you. So in this case, using the force of govt against one who used it on you “first”.

      Your like or dislike is not harm to you. So it is not appropriate to impose your will upon others if they are not imposing upon you. Imposition in this context means to FORCE you to do something you would be unwilling to do.

      My objection to boycott is two fold. One is it engages a large group many of whom have not been harmed but just agree or sympathize. Second is the impact to innocent people. Most boycotts today are not really “voluntary” in the old sense. The “mob mentality” starts to take over. Just as with the Chicken “support day”.

      I realize I am breaking the accepted norm here. But it seems to me the key to supporting freedom is to recognize that adverse actions should be based on actual harm or threat of harm, as in someone trying to FORCE you to act against your will, and they should be person to person. We should not be acting against someone just because we like our friend and fell they were insulted.

      It is interesting to note that the concept of Boycott started over a direct action against those that participated. But it soon spread to the broader community and poor Mr. Boycott became ostracized.

      Advertising is not about hurting you, it is about helping the other guy. You may have a negative sales as a result, but he did not act to impose his will upon you. Note that even if you allow Boycott as an ethical means of action it would be viewed as different than advertising. In fact you would have to advertise to solicit people to join. Also by organized and orchestrated I was referring to the organization of people and the campaign to harass others.

      I don’t think I am twisting logic at all here. I am starting with the Core Principle of Freedom, defined as the ability to exercise your free will. It is true that certain types of boycotts might fit as a retaliatory/defensive mechanism. Where those participating are the ones harmed, their participation is voluntary and equal in response. Thus the boycott of the plant polluting the towns water supply. The harm there is broad, not a small group. However, I would still prefer a law allowing the town to go after the PERSON in the company responsible.

      Remember I am a small govt guy, but govt none the less. So people should have a means of dealing with large companies when they are harmed. The problem is in the laws not a need to boycott. I will think about whether I am favoring the powerful but I don’t think this is the case. I favor a robust court system with simple and clearly defined laws regarding harm. That is the proper place to adjudicate disputes in my opinion. The Boycott looks an awful lot like a lynch mob to me. And it is completely unacceptable to me when aimed at people for their beliefs or things they may say.

      For the record, I found the Cons boycott of the Dixie Chicks just as offensive as the Boycott of Limbaugh for his Fluke statements. Both are examples of misuse of boycotts.

      Now I had a thought today on how your view of advertising being similar. Lets say it was and advertising to harm someone was viewed as unethical while advertising to benefit someone was not. One is persuasion to a point of view while the other is aimed at harming someone else. Now extend that to Political Campaigns. You might be onto something.

      I am pretty tired at the moment and don’t know if I did any good with this but hope I clarified some things. I continue to ponder on the whole debate but assure you I did not come to my opinions lightly. My goal is more civilized and free society. I see this tool working contrary to that goal. Although it is not the tool but how it is used.

      • JAC,

        I am starting with the Core Principle of Freedom, defined as the ability to exercise your free will.

        Doesn’t a boycott fall under the ability to exercise your free will? I want to boycott a business for some reason. But doing so by myself is not effective, so I tell others and ask them to join the boycott. We advertise to get more to join (I’m assuming all of our reasons are valid – no one is lying or making things up) (and the business has every right to advertise to explain why we’re wrong).

        How does this violate the rights of the business owner?

        He still has a right to run his business. If he wants our business, he’ll meet our demands. If he doesn’t want our business, he doesn’t have to meet our demands.

        He doesn’t have a right to make a profit – only to try.

        Thus the boycott of the plant polluting the towns water supply.

        Can we boycott the plant before the pollution, on the assumption that pollution will occur?
        If we have to wait until after the pollution occurs, it’s kinda too late…

        The problem is in the laws not a need to boycott.

        Yeah, but laws and the court system can take so long, and large companies have deep pockets and can drag it out forever.
        Boycotts can be a fast response while the problem is still manageable.

        And it is completely unacceptable to me when aimed at people for their beliefs or things they may say.

        If I’m a vocal abortion supporter, don’t the pro-life supporters have a right to boycott my business?

        For the record, I found the Cons boycott of the Dixie Chicks just as offensive as the Boycott of Limbaugh for his Fluke statements. Both are examples of misuse of boycotts.

        I think both have the right to say what they want, and those who disagree have a right to boycott.

        Although it is not the tool but how it is used.

        I do agree with this. I think the Chick-Fil-A boycott has merit, but a lot of it has been overblown. I’m not a big fan of demonstrations/boycotts, but I don’t deny others their right to demonstrate/boycott.

  17. Obama’s New Rules to his immigration policy…..Selective enforcement on the illegals in the US…………on background checks, it is not against the law to drive without a license, even in a DWI, and it is not against the law for them to have used identity theft. Neither one is considered a deportable offense.

  18. Word of the day:

    MORALPHOBE

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Anita

      Good one my dear. Happy Saturday morning to you.

      Do you have your tickets to the Boise State game?

      • No Sir, I need to make a plan though. Right now I’ll be living on ESPN. I’m fresh out of relatives at State for about 4 years. Last May our 8th grad finished up. Including my daughter with 2 years, that makes 9 Spartans strong! GO GREEN!

  19. Praise where it’s due … to the great Russian lifter, Vasily Alexeev …

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/08/dinner-with-david-olympics-chick-fil.html

    • Oh man, Charlie. I remember watching Alexeev back in the day..especially the 76 Olympics. If I’m right, he used to be on ABCs Wide World of Sports all the time too. Good times. And Holly Mangold? Holy Shit! Go girl!

  20. Begin sarcasm:

    I’m outraged. Gabby Douglas, affectionately known as the “Flying Squirrel,” is going to make millions of dollars after her gold medal Olympic performance.

    This should not be.

    First, she didn’t do it on her own. You know, “you didn’t build that.” She had help from other people. There was her mother, her coach, and teammates. The Olympic outfits she wore were paid for by the United States Olympic Committee. If NBC hadn’t broadcast the results of the competition, very few people would have seen her gold medal performance and her infectious smile. They were with her when she flipped upside down and landed on the four-inch balance beam. I even saw President Obama there.

    Second, Gabby is small in stature. This is a huge advantage to anyone doing gymnastics. Her ability to rotate quickly puts a tall person at a disadvantage. The Russian girl who came in second was even shorter. I abhor size discrimination. There is no way that I could ascend the ranks of elite gymnastics at my height and weight. I had to pick the shot put. There’s no money in endorsements from shot putters.

    Third, Bob Costas made the point that Gabby is the first African American to win the women’s all-around gymnastics crown. Did her race play a role in the judging? I want to know. The judges should be questioned. Some might argue that compensation was made for her race and the fact that no black had ever won the coveted all-around gold medal. If this is true, then reverse discrimination played a role in the judges’ decision.

    Fourth, there is no reason why anyone should be paid so much money for doing something that can’t be shared by the community. Hillary said it best, “it takes a village.” That money could be better spent on the poor and homeless. She should be protested against by the Occupy Wall Street crowd because she is now an evil one-percenter.

    Fifth, as everybody knows, women gymnasts always get paid more than men gymnasts do post-Olympics. Mary Lou Retton is worth nearly $6 million. Nastia Liukin is worth more than $2 million. Hardly anyone remembers the names of the men gold medal winners let alone how much they’re worth. This is blatant sexism.

    Sixth, there is beauty discrimination. All these girls are cute. Girls who aren’t cute don’t get the endorsements. It’s time that we all read J.P. Hartley’s 1960 novel Facial Justice that “depicts a post-apocalyptic society that has sought to banish privilege and envy, to the extent that people will even have their faces surgically altered in order to appear neither too beautiful nor too ugly.”

    Seventh, “The gymnast has a healthy, wholesome and all-American image which would be attractive to plenty of companies.” This smacks of “American exceptionalism.”

    Eighth, Gabby gave “all the glory to God.” She said, “It’s kind of a win-win situation. The glory goes up to him, and all the blessings fall down on me.” The owners of Chick-fil-A also believe in God and support the biblical definition of marriage. Unless she tells the world that she is for homosexual marriage the companies that pay her for endorsements should be boycotted.

    Ninth, I hear she eats at Chick-fil-A.

    Tenth, I’m just trying to keep it real.

    / Sarcasm

    Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6454/10-reasons-gabby-douglas-should-not-make-money-off-her-gold-medal-performance/#ixzz22bIP2Tv7

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    Black Flag

    I do not reject English – I am enforcing it.

    The meaning of the word is perverted so to fit a justification to use force where force would not be normally justified.”

    No my friend, it is not being distorted. You have decided to assign a meaning to “force” that limits its use to “violence”.

    So you then discount the meaning of words, with long historical acceptance and understanding, because they do not fit YOUR definition of Force or Coercion.

    And YOUR determination is just as “subjective” as any other. That is using YOUR definition of the word “subjective”.

    • You guys are arguing over silly stuff. IMHO, organized boycotts are short lived. Most people who boycott Rush Limbaugh, likely don’t listen to him anyway. I boycott certain business’s, such as gay bars and Target. I am not harming either and I’m exercising my free choice, what the heck is the big deal?

      This whole thing started cuz the liberal media are idiots, and those that follow them and their lies are just as moronic.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        What you are doing is no big deal. But what happened to Limbaugh is not what you are doing.

    • JAC,

      Not so.

      I apply words with meaning. The word, when applied, describes the act or situation clearly.
      When an opposite act or situation occurs, I do not change that words definition to also include that!

      So coercion is a threat, created by violence.

      But when there is no violence it cannot be a “threat” or “coercion” – it is merely a statement, in advance, of cause/effect.

      But someone is frustrated that they did not get their “way”, and wish a response to force their “way”, they quickly re-define words and meanings to be “violence”, “coercion”, “threat” so that they can then justify their violent response to someone elses “violent, coercive threats”.

      So suddenly, a man not offering a job to a poor person is doing “violence” on that poor man – justifying the poor man’s theft of the rich, etc.

      This dialogue topic here of “boycott” being “coercion” is no different.

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    And to complete our list of definitions:

    THREAT or THREATEN

    1threat
    noun \ˈthret\
    Definition of THREAT
    1
    : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
    2
    : one that threatens
    3
    : an indication of something impending
    See threat defined for English-language learners »
    See threat defined for kids »
    Examples of THREAT

    He was willing to use violence and threats to get what he wanted.
    She ignored their threats and continued to do what she felt was right.
    a country under threat of civil war

    Origin of THREAT
    Middle English thret coercion, threat, from Old English thrēat coercion; akin to Middle High German drōz annoyance, Latin trudere to push, thrust
    First Known Use: before 12th century

    • Would it make you feel better if we just agreed that the boycott is a coercion with an implied economic threat?

      I will and I will still say the boycott is not unethical to those who feel “harmed” by the statements of Cathy. BFD, he loses some fiat currency income.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        plainly

        I never said it was unethical.

        I said it was unethical for others to participate who do not feel harmed.

        And just because you don’t like someone’s view is not being harmed.

        But notice what the Gay folks did in protest. They did not organize a boycott but a “demonstration”. A Kiss-In at CFA locations. I see nothing wrong with this demonstration at all. But I bet you it doesn’t stop there.

        • JAC

          But I bet you it doesn’t stop there.

          So, once again, you apply some mythical future action to be the determination of whether a real current action is “harm” or not.

          Because a man may inflict violence in some unspecified way on some unspecified day, his action today – though non-violent – is henceforth declared violent.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            Some times you really do have a problem staying on the premise and its affects.

            WRONGO my boy. What might happen is not the measure of harm. And nothing I said can be twisted into such.

            I simply said that I would bet it doesn’t stop there. Mr. Chicken will do nothing so the Boycott will begin to form. At first it will be against the innocent franchise owners. If that doesn’t get capitulation then it will move to the suppliers and advertisers and suppliers of the suppliers. Like a dog looking for hydrant, it will go until it finds someone who will CAVE. Then it will begin to cascade until Mr. Chicken, his franchisees and their employees are threatened with economic loss.

            Of course I could be wrong. It might just stop right here. In which case there has been no harm or coercive boycott.

            • JAC

              BF Some times you really do have a problem staying on the premise and its affects.

              No, I don’t.

              In almost every example you offer, you present a situation of real violence then point to it and say “See, that is how the non-violent coercion works”.

              So Wrongo, sir!

    • – an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage.

      So, to you, me not buying your product damages you….?!?!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        Is it your INTENTION to cause me evil, injury or damage?

        Or did you simply not want my product?

        • JAC,

          The reason for my decision is irrelevant. I can do or do not for no justification why I did not buy.
          The consequence:
          – you do not get a sale.

          If I choose to declare a reason, changes not one little bit of the consequence of that decision –
          – you do not get a sale.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            Did you kill my dog on purpose or was it an accident?

            Yes, the REASON matters.

            • JAC,
              It regards of directly destroying your property – I will agree – the reason is fundamental.
              Did your dog attack me and I was defending myself or I just hate your dog….

              But in acts of non-violence, such reasons are irrelevant – I do not have to explain or give any reason why I did not hit you in the nose – and equally I do not have to give a breath to why I did not buy from you.

              Should I give a reason why I did not hit you in the nose or why I did not buy from does not change the relevance of my decision, nor suddenly turn my non-action into an action upon you

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                What YOU do is your concern. Keep it to yourself or you can share it with me if you like.

                A Boycott BF is not simply you NOT doing something. It is YOU organizing others to actively try and interrupt my income stream.

                Its entire purpose is to FORCE me to do what you want me to do. Not what I want to do or what my suppliers may want to do.

                This intimidation of my suppliers and customers does not exist before your boycott, only as a result of your boycott.

              • JAC,

                A Boycott BF is not simply you NOT doing something. It is YOU organizing others to actively try and interrupt my income stream. Its entire purpose is to FORCE me to do what you want me to do. Not what I want to do or what my suppliers may want to do. This intimidation of my suppliers and customers does not exist before your boycott, only as a result of your boycott.

                It is me organizing, so now organizing is “coercion”.

                I am not forcing anything on you – you can ignore the boycott all the same – no gun to your head.

                You are arguing that you own future income of your customers – but you do not. You have zero claim to it. In your mind, you have already spent your customer’s future money and because of that, you fear you will not get it.

                But the problem is yours – your thinking that you own something that is not yours is the problem.

                This is why you believe it is coercion – someone is taking something away from you that you thought you owned.

                This is why you are up in arms – “you are taking my money away from me!!” – and why you declare such loss a threat – just like you would declare a thief who is holding up you a threat because you believe you are losing your property.

                But it is not your property. It my money in my wallet and it is not yours. Not one penny of your “future” customers is yours.

                And if they decide to not buy your product, you have not suffered a loss – you cannot lose what you did not own.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                Would the concept of Boycott even exist if it did not have the power to disrupt, interfere with, stop, some EXISTING condition?

                The relationships exist between me and my clients. You wish to interfere with those to cause them and/or me to make decisions we would not otherwise make if not for you sticking your nose in my business.

              • JAC

                It has no such power!!!

                Me yelling “Stop stop” is merely me yelling!!

                If people believe what I say (for whatever reason) — It is their own reason to stop buying, not mine. I am not in control of their money nor their decisions of buying or not.

                They are.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            Your argument carries a large flaw. You in fact have created a straw man, namely some theory that I claim future income.

            Couldn’t be more wrong my dear fella.

            You are deliberately interfering in what was a voluntary relationship between me and my customers, suppliers, advertisers.

            You are not competing for their services. You are simply trying to do harm to me, so because you are not threatening physical harm you feel justified in also interfering in their relationships with others just to MAKE ME DO WHAT YOU WANT.

            You wish to IMPOSE your will upon me. You are hoping that intimidating my customers and suppliers that your THREAT will appear strong enough to make me change. You have interjected yourself into the affairs of others, not for the purpose of trade or no trade, but to MAKE ME CONFORM TO YOUR WILL.

            I find it strange that you argue that no man should initiate violence but someone condone “initiating” an attempt to interfere with my income, life, relationships because you apparently think that by not doing physical harm it is OK to attempt to IMPOSE YOUR WILL UPON OTHERS.

            • JAC

              BF Your argument carries a large flaw. You in fact have created a straw man, namely some theory that I claim future income

              It is no strawman.

              It is the only way you can claim harm – you said it yourself “loss of income”.

              But you cannot lose what you do not own. For you to make such a claim can only mean you believe you own the future income of your customers – this is the loss you are declaring that you have used to determine your “threat”.

              So you must to some degree believe you “own” that income for you to claim its loss, and thereby declare such a loss a “threat” to you.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                No. I believe I have a right to a free association with my customers WITHOUT YOU INTERFERING.

                Boy you sure are a nosy fella. Wanting to get in the middle of all my relationships. WHY?

                Oh thats right ………. To FORCE ME TO ACT IN A MANNER YOU CHOOSE.

              • JAC

                BF No. I believe I have a right to a free association with my customers WITHOUT YOU INTERFERING.

                So, now – competition is coercion and force as it “interferes with MY customers!

                See – right there, sir, you claim ownership of the customers. You do believe you have a right to their money excluding all others.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        You not buying my product may harm me but it is NOT a threat unless you issue a threat to me.

        Again, this is not MY definition but that of the English speaking people going back to what was that, around the 12th century.

        • Again, I care not what a bunch of irrational people believe is a threat or not – their measures are dangerously faulty – which is why great human evil still walks the Earth.

          I cannot threaten you with a non-action, otherwise ghosts and dead people are threatening you all the time.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            Funny! It was their definitions and beliefs that invented the concept of Boycott in the first place. Apparently SHUNNING wasn’t enough.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    Had to step out for awhile.

    The THUNDERBIRDS were performing over and around my house.

    Nice to watch while watering the plants.

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    OK, one more related definition. Two smiley faces for the one who can explain why this relates to boycott.

    Wiki
    Fear is an emotion induced by a perceived threat that causes animals to move quickly away from the location of the perceived threat, and sometimes hide. It is a basic survival mechanism occurring in response to a specific stimulus, such as pain or the threat of danger. In short, fear is the ability to recognize danger leading to an urge to confront it or flee from it (also known as the fight-or-flight response) but in extreme cases of fear (horror and terror) a freeze or paralysis response is possible. Some psychologists such as John B. Watson, Robert Plutchik, and Paul Ekman have suggested that there is only a small set of basic or innate emotions and that fear is one of them. This hypothesized set includes such emotions as joy, sadness, and anger. Fear should be distinguished from the emotion anxiety, which typically occurs without any certain or immediate external threat.

    Additionally, fear is frequently related to the specific behaviors of escape and avoidance, whereas anxiety is the result of threats which are perceived to be uncontrollable or unavoidable.[1] It is worth noting that fear almost always relates to future events, such as worsening of a situation, or continuation of a situation that is unacceptable. Fear can also be an instant reaction to something presently happening. All people have an instinctual response to potential danger.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh boy, this gets better by the minute. Shout out to V.H. on this one, re your question about shunning vs. boycott.

    Again from wiki.

    Shunning can be the act of social rejection, or mental rejection. Social rejection is when a person or group deliberately avoids association with, and habitually keeps away from an individual or group. This can be a formal decision by a group, or a less formal group action which will spread to all members of the group as a form of solidarity. It is a sanction against association, often associated with religious groups and other tightly knit organizations and communities. Targets of shunning can include persons who have been labeled as, apostates, whistleblowers, dissidents, strikebreakers, or anyone the group perceives as a threat or source of conflict. Social rejection has been established to cause psychological damage and has been categorized as torture.[1] Mental rejection is a more individual action, where a person subconsciously or willfully ignores an idea, or a set of information related to particular viewpoint. Some groups are made up of people who shun the same ideas.[2]

    Social rejection was and is a punishment used by many customary legal systems. Such sanctions include the ostracism of ancient Athens and the still-used kasepekang in Balinese society.

    Shunning can be broken down into behaviours and practices that seek to accomplish either or both of two primary goals.

    To modify the behaviour of a member. This approach seeks to influence, encourage, or coerce normative behaviours from members, and may seek to dissuade, provide disincentives for, or to compel avoidance of certain behaviours. Shunning may include disassociating from a member by other members of the community who are in good standing. It may include more antagonistic psychological behaviours (described below). This approach may be seen as either corrective or punitive (or both) by the group membership or leadership, and may also be intended as a deterrent.
    To remove or limit the influence of a member (or former member) over other members in a community. This approach may seek to isolate, to discredit, or otherwise dis-empower such a member, often in the context of actions or positions advocated by that member. For groups with defined membership criteria, especially based on key behaviours or ideological precepts, this approach may be seen as limiting damage to the community or its leadership. This is often paired with some form of excommunication.

    Some less often practiced variants may seek to:

    Remove a specific member from general external influence to provide an ideological or psychological buffer against external views or behaviour. The amount can vary from severing ties to opponents of the group up to and including severing all non-group-affiliated intercourse.

    Shunning is usually approved of (if sometimes with regret) by the group engaging in the shunning, and usually highly disapproved of by the target of the shunning, resulting in a polarization of views. Those subject to the practice respond differently, usually depending both on the circumstances of the event, and the nature of the practices being applied. Extreme forms of shunning have damaged some individuals’ psychological and relational health. Responses to the practice have developed, mostly around anti-shunning advocacy; such advocates highlight the detrimental effects of many of such behaviors, and seek to limit the practice through pressure or law. Such groups often operate supportive organizations or institutions to help victims of shunning to recover from damaging effects, and sometimes to attack the organizations practicing shunning, as a part of their advocacy.

    In many civil societies, kinds of shunning are practiced de-facto or de-jure, to coerce or avert behaviours or associations deemed unhealthy. This can include:

    restraining orders or peace bonds (to avoid abusive relationships)
    court injunctions to disassociate (to avoid criminal association or temptation)
    medical or psychological instructing to avoid associating (to avoid hazardous relations, i.e. alcoholics being instructed to avoid friendship with non-recovering alcoholics, or asthmatics being medically instructed to keep to smoke-free environs)
    using background checks to avoid hiring people who have criminal records (to avoid association with felons, even when the crimes have nothing to do with the job description)

    Stealth shunning

    Stealth shunning is a practice where a person or an action is silently banned. When a person is silently banned, the group they have been banned from doesn’t interact with them. This can be done by secretly announcing the policy to all except the banned individual, or it can happen informally when all people in a group or email list each conclude that they do not want to interact with the person. When an action is silently banned, requests for that action are either ignored or turned down with faked explanations.[3][4][5][6][7][8]
    Effects

    Shunning is often used as a pejorative term to describe any organizationally mandated disassociation, and has acquired a connotation of abuse and relational aggression. This is due to the sometimes extreme damage caused by its disruption to normal relationships between individuals, such as friendships and family relations. Disruption of established relationships certainly causes pain, which is at least an unintended consequence of the practices described here, though it may also in many cases be an intended, coercive consequence. This pain, especially when seen as unjustly inflicted, can have secondary general psychological effects on self-worth and self-confidence, trust and trustworthiness, and can, as with other types of trauma, impair psychological function.

    Shunning often involves implicit or explicit shame for a member who commits acts seen as wrong by the group or its leadership. Such shame may not be psychologically damaging if the membership is voluntary and the rules of behavior were clear before the person joined. However, if the rules are arbitrary, if the group membership is seen as essential for personal security, safety, or health, or if the application of the rules is inconsistent, such shame can be highly destructive. This can be especially damaging if perceptions are attacked or controlled, or various tools of psychological pressure applied. Extremes of this cross over the line into psychological torture and can be permanently scarring.

    A key detrimental effect of some of the practices associated with shunning relate to their effect on relationships, especially family relationships. At its extremes, the practices may destroy marriages, break up families, and separate children and their parents. The effect of shunning can be very dramatic or even devastating on the shunned, as it can damage or destroy the shunned member’s closest familial, spousal, social, emotional, and economic bonds.

    Shunning contains aspects of what is known as relational aggression in psychological literature. When used by church members and member-spouse parents against excommunicant parents it contains elements of what psychologists call parental alienation. Extreme shunning may cause traumas to the shunned (and to their dependents) similar to what is studied in the psychology of torture.

    Civil rights implications

    Some aspects of shunning may also be seen as being at odds with civil rights or human rights, especially those behaviours that coerce and attack. When a group seeks to have an effect through such practices outside its own membership, for instance when a group seeks to cause financial harm through isolation and disassociation, they can come at odds with their surrounding civil society, if such a society enshrines rights such as freedom of association, conscience, or belief. Many civil societies do not extend such protections to the internal operations of communities or organizations so long as an ex-member has the same rights, prerogatives, and power as any other member of the civil society.

    In cases where a group or religion is state-sanctioned, a key power, or in the majority (Singapore), a shunned former member may face severe social, political, and/or financial costs.

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    BOB

    Just wanted to give a Big Congrats on the Brits picking up some Gold in Track.

  27. I have enjoyed watching the Olympics. I wish the politicians could realize that we can all compete without killing one another with bombs and missiles. That would be a utopia indeed! 🙂

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    plainlyspoken

    You are going to have to explain how the ethic I proposed or my use of “harm” is going to somehow REDUCE Freedom.

    When no man is imposing his will upon others, ALL men are FREE to exercise theirs without interference or intimidation.

    How is that LESS free than a society where men are constantly having to defend themselves against others who don’t like the color of their house, the way they dress, the way the speak, the ideas they have, or that they own goats.

    • JAC,

      I am tired of saying it – you just keep ignoring it anyway. Your concept that only boycotts that fit YOUR ethical standard are acceptable is reducing freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc. I have nothing further at this point that needs explanation.

      Hell, you still have not answered my question of just who will be the judge of whether a boycott is ethical and therefore may proceed?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        plainly

        Don’t recall you asking that question. YOU are the judge along with all your fellow citizens.

        You have NOT explained anything. You simply keep throwing accusations that I keep trying to show you are false. You have not shown me how your claims are linked to what I have posted.

        Nothing I have put forth will prevent you from saying what you want or from associating with whom you want.

        Its only claim is that you and your friends should not try to IMPOSE YOUR will upon me by any means other than rational argument.

        So is it a loss of freedom, speech or association to make such a requirement? HOW?

        • Don’t recall you asking that question.

          Then I suggest you clean your glasses and go back to my posts – I have asked the question more than once.

          YOU are the judge along with all your fellow citizens.

          You presuppose everyone will agree with your ethical stance. Hell, by your standard it is even wrong to speak to another about a boycott. With each being the judge then the people who choose to boycott can do so – and your policing structure would come arrest them I guess. Your concept is unworkable in human societies.

          Nothing I have put forth will prevent you from saying what you want or from associating with whom you want.

          Then you are blinded by your own beliefs. You won’t see it because you don’t want to.

          I also stated in a prior post that all your definitions were a waste of time, what this debate comes down to is the application of “harm”. You say the business owner is harmed. I say loss of voluntary income (from his patrons) is not a harm, it is their choice to patronize – even if a boycott is in progress. You disagree and won’t allow others to protest – as a unified group. You restrict the freedom of others to discuss, organize and assemble a protest/demonstration/boycott, unless it meets your ethical standard.

          All of which I have stated before – so again, maybe your glasses need cleaning.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            plainly

            “You presuppose everyone will agree with your ethical stance.” No I don’t. It is in fact impossible. I am simply explaining an ethical standard that advances Freedom. If most of society were to live by that standard you would have MORE freedom, not less. Some will not accept it. If a majority reject it you will continue having what you have, or WORSE. If most accept it you will have more freedom and I suspect a more civil and peaceful society. But in the end, it is the choice of each us whether we see this as truth or something else. I am not going to try and FORCE you to accept MY will. So you won’t have to worry about me organizing a boycott of you or your family in order to make you accept my opinion about ethics.

            ” Hell, by your standard it is even wrong to speak to another about a boycott.” Not at all. As I said before, I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make to Mathius.

            ” With each being the judge then the people who choose to boycott can do so – and your policing structure would come arrest them I guess.” Yes, they are free to organize a boycott, whether unethcial or not. I have NO policing mechanism so your second accusation again falls into the pot of FALSE.

            “Your concept is unworkable in human societies.” Again, I think you are misunderstanding MY CONCEPT. Now, is the existing one working out well? MY concept has been in existence for centuries. It is not dominant because of tyrants, not because it is “unworkable”.

            Your definition of HARM here seems to rely on the intent of those doing the act which results in harm to someone. If YOUR income were to suddenly stop would you not feel harm? Regardless of the reason?

            Is a decision to deliberately withhold business in order to force you to comply with my will not intended to cause you harm? If not then why would I threaten boycott?

            ” You disagree and won’t allow others to protest – as a unified group. You restrict the freedom of others to discuss, organize and assemble a protest/demonstration/boycott, unless it meets your ethical standard. ” I do not RESTRICT nor propose restricting anything, except by voluntary action. I have no intention to IMPOSE my will upon others. I will however continue to explain, debate, dialogue, argue or whatever it takes in hopes of others coming around to my view, or me modifying mine.

            • Mathius™ says:

              PS: ” Hell, by your standard it is even wrong to speak to another about a boycott.”

              JAC: Not at all. As I said before, I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make to Mathius.

              That’s sure how I understood it..

              Let’s read back the tape, shall we:

              Mathius: Explain to me where I crossed the line.

              1. I shun you.
              2. I call up Buck and suggest that he shun you as well.

              JAC: You crossed the line when you “asked” Buck to join you. This assumes you were “harmed” but Buck was not.

              You have no right to impose your will upon me. My behavior is not an issue if it does not cause you harm.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                PS is using “to speak to another” which includes simply explaining your view.

                Your #2 stated “suggest that he shun”, so this is your first attempt to “organize” against someone. By crossing the line I was pointing out that you have crossed a line from straight forward adherence to the first step in violating that ethic, you are beginning to organize an effort. Each “step” you take from here gets you farther and farther from the standard.

                Run back the tape and replace #2 with: Share my frustration with Buck and tell him I am going to boycott. In this you have not crossed the line as yet.

                Also lets not forget my limitation. Assuming you were harmed and Buck was not.

                Now to be more technical, and if you were harmed, you are certainly able to discuss it with others and even ask them to participate. But the real violation of the ethic is if Buck decides to join you and Buck has not been harmed or there is no threat of harm.

              • JAC,

                What is the difference between Mathius telling me “Hey, I’ve decided to stop purchasing from X because of Y” and Mathius telling me “Hey, I’m not buying from X because of Y; maybe you shouldn’t buy from X either”?

                It would be my choice whether or not to purchase from X either way. And moving along, if I decide that Y is important to me as well and make the choice to stop purchasing from X, why is this a violation of ethics on my part? Don’t I have the right to make my own choices as to where I spend my money? Don’t I have the right to refuse to shop at a given store for any reason under the sun?

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    HAPPY SUNDAY SUFA.

    Colonel, you would have enjoyed it here yesterday. After having NOT been over 90 since a year ago the temp went to 102 yesterday. SHOCKING to the system is an understatement. Oh yeah, the humidity was at around 40%.

    With any luck our heat wave is the signal of a break in temps across the midwest and Southeast.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    You can do what is RIGHT and live, or you can do wrong and walk around dead.

  32. Happy Monday SUFA 🙂

    Another mass shooting has occured in a place of worship this time. That’s two in short time and I believe it is only the beginning. As these incidents grow in numbers, keep an open mind, it is not just a coincidence. Conservatives will be coming under fire, as they already have, as the new enemy of the State. THe Police state is here and going to get much worse before the election is cancelled. Hope your ready!

    • Mathius™ says:

      That’s two in short time and I believe it is only the beginning. Based on what? I have seen nothing to suggest that these are related in any way.

      As these incidents grow in numbers, keep an open mind, it is not just a coincidence. Based on what? If it’s not a coincidence, what is behind this?

      Conservatives will be coming under fire, as they already have, as the new enemy of the State. My BS meter just exploded. Conservatives aren’t the “enemy of the state”! I’m not going to get into a debate over this other than to point out that I find it endlessly annoying how massively powerful groups can consider themselves to be victimized minorities. Conservatives make up roughly half the country. You have WAY too much political and media clout to be pigeonholed as the ‘new enemy of the state.’ This is right up there with the ‘war on Christmas.’ BAH HUMBUG!

      The Police state is here and going to get much worse Sigh. It was CONSERVATIVES who created and pushed the PATRIOT Act and other “War on Terror” nonsense. Conservatives created this mess. Warrentless wiretaps? Extraordinary renditions? Gitmo? Torture of prisoners? NSA programs to read everyone’s emails? All Republicans’ doing. If there’s a police state in America, I’d appreciate it if you’d point the finger in the right direction.

      before the election is cancelled. Hope your ready! Riiiiiggggghhhttttt……. I suspected Bush might do this – especially the way he raised the terror level right before the election. In hindsight, of course, it was ludicrous, even someone like Bush Cheney couldn’t pull that off without a full-scale uprising. Why would Obama cancel an election he’s going to win, anyway? That makes no sense. But, you know what, why don’t you tell me: other than your feelings, what do you base this statement on? Anything? Or do you allow your ‘gut’ to dictate all your political opinions?

    • Mostly I’m in a wait & see mode, but I thought this was interesting….

      http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48586

      • Mathius™ says:

        It is also likely that it will facilitate the implementation of other prohibitions as well, including but not limited to criminalizing any form of critical speech of certain religions perceived to be victimized by discrimination. Indeed, both issues have been on the agenda of Barack Hussein Obama and his globalist cohorts since the 1990s.

        ::sigh::

        No.. no it won’t. There will be no limiting / criminalizing of ‘speech critical to certain religions.’ There are already laws on the book against speech which incites to violence, but no.. they will not suddenly be enforced. Free speech will live on. RELAX!

        And the idea that Obama will push gun control right before an election is so laughable… Read This. Yet, somehow, we persist in the belief that Obama is coming for our guns. HE DOESN’T CARE about gun control. Or he’s too afraid of the gun lobby. But either way, it’s absurd. But, again, when have facts ever gotten in the way of a good Obama conspiracy theory?

        • Matt,

          I find the article interesting, which is not to say I agree with it on all points. Seems to me they are jumping the gun, per say, this time. Not heard any calls for new gun control because of this yet. What interested me:

          “Preliminary media reports suggest the perpetrator of yesterday’s shooting to be both a U.S. military veteran and a “white supremacist,” designations clearly identified by previous bulletins issued by the Department of Homeland Security as national security threats. Even before the identity of perpetrator had been released, the establishment media was leading with these characterizations.

          Additionally, the FBI has taken the lead in the investigation, and has already classified the incident as “domestic terrorism” and a “hate crime.” The elements absent in the Colorado shooting are conveniently present in this shooting, and will likely act as catalysts to redefine and limit our present rights under the facade of reason and tolerance. Despite calls by the very people to avoid exploiting this tragedy for political gain, that process is already in full swing.”

          Why was the Ft. Hood shooting deemed “workplace violence” and this is domestic terrorism? And as should be obvious, I have issue with the first, which makes me look at this thru my PC/BS scope…. And tell me I’m wrong in thinking both sides are looking to use this as a political tool.

          • LOI,

            the establishment media was leading with these characterizations

            Does it matter that they were right?

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    Do you have a right to impose your will upon a person or persons who have done you no harm?

    • I DO! Ooops, sorry , not Buck. I have two children and share with my wife the right and responsibility to impose my will on them until they can be responsible for themselves.
      Thereendeth the interruption..

      • Mathius™ says:

        I, absolutely, have a complete right to assert my will upon anyone else in any legal and moral manner as I see fit. I can bend anyone to my will who I am able to bend. Provided I am moral in my methods and within the confines of the law, it is the strength of my character which enables me, as much as my mind and wallet, to get what I want out of life. You would deny me the ability to control the world around myself – through peaceful means – because of some notion that a CEO somewhere has the right to be free of my will? Oh, I think not.

        There’s a great part in Shawshank Redemption (the book goes into more detail than the movie) where Andy is asking the guard if he trusts his wife and the guard, Hadley, is threatening to throw Andy from the roof. But Andy, calmly, by force of will, turns the situation.

        Suddenly it was Andy who had the upper hand. It was Hadley who had the gun on his hip and the billy in his hand, Hadley who had his friend Greg Staminas behind him and the whole prison administration behind Stammas, the whole power of the state behind that, but all at once in that golden sunshine it didn’t matter, and I felt my heart leap up in my chest as it never had since the truck drove me and four others through the gate back in 1938 and I stepped out into the exercise yard. Andy was looking at Hadley with those cold, clear, calm eyes, and it wasn’t just the thirty-five thousand [dollars] then, we all agreed on that. I’ve played it over and over in my mind and I know. It was man against man, and Andy simply forced him, the way a strong man can force a weaker man’s wrist to the table in a game of Indian wrestling. There was no reason, you see, why Hadley couldn’t be given Mert the nod at that very minute, pitched Andy overside onto his head, and still taken Andy ‘s advice. No reason. But he didn’t. ‘I could get you all a couple of beers if I wanted to,’ Hadley said. ‘A beer does taste good while you’re workin’. The colossal prick even managed to sound magnanimous

        Will power is king. It is law that he with the strongest will wins in the end. If you would deny the right of physical force as a means of asserting control, and rightfully so, then you cannot strip out peaceful means or we would be left at the mercy of the strong.

        If you’d like another movie reference, check out truly excellent the boxing / fight scene in Cool Hand Luke.

    • I have every right in the world to refuse to purchase from JAC Inc. for whatever reason I want. Or do you deny me this right?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Answer the question please. And you can add this one: Do you have a right to freedom?

        • I did answer the question within the context of the discussion. Care to answer my question?

          But to play along….no, I cannot impose my will on another who has done me no harm. But me refusing to purchase from you is not imposing my will. Me refusing to purchase from you unless you do X, is still not imposing my will on you. It is establishing a condition for you to freely meet (or refuse to meet) prior to my purchase. If you want me to purchase, you will do X. If you do not, you will not. Does this make sense?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            Then asking a woman for sex in exchange for a pay raise is OK with you?

            • Not at all. But I knew you were going to go there. Let’s continue that discussion at another time. For now, I’m interested in focusing on your views on boycott and imposing.

              So once again — Do I have the absolute right to decide whether or not to purchase from a given store for any reason whatsoever?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                No. You have the right to FREEDOM, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and other such things.

                What you are calling a “right” is actually part of your right of association as it relates to trading with others.

                Freedom is constrained by ETHICS.

                I have a Right to live my life according to my own free will. I do not have the freedom, thus right, to impose upon others. This destroys my own right and freedom.

                So you can decide to boycott me if you like. But the REASON does matter in terms of human interaction.

                I also find it pretty funny how you, Mathius and even Plainly are trying to use BF’s arguments when you don’t accept his philosophy. You seem to want your cake and eat it at the same time.

                If you have the right to withhold trade for any reason you see fit, then the business owner should have that same right. Yes?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                I have to step away for an hour or so. Don’t want you to think I am shunning you if I don’t respond for a while.

                🙂

              • The reason is completely irrelevant in this scenario. Why I purchase or refuse to purchase from you is completely besides the point.

                Does a business owner have that same right — to refuse service to any one for any reason? I’m torn on this in the context of racial/sexual/religious discrimination. But at the end of the day, yes, I believe that is a private business owner’s right. But I’d be the first to start calling others and organizing a boycott of that store! Too bad in your world I wouldn’t be able to if I wasn’t myself harmed….

              • No worries JAC – I actually need to run in about an hour and will be out for the rest of the day. For another time then!

              • I also find it pretty funny how you, Mathius and even Plainly are trying to use BF’s arguments when you don’t accept his philosophy. You seem to want your cake and eat it at the same time.

                No JAC, I am using what I believe to be common sense. Because we may be debating from the same general area doesn’t mean we accept all of his philosophy. Same goes for you, I agree with some and disagree with some of your stated philosophy – like this debate here.

                Generally a business owner does have the right to refuse service to anyone. They are under no obligation (provided they comply with the laws of society) to accept someone’s patronage (though, since profit is his goal that would be kind of stupid of the business owner).

                The idea that I am unethical because I organize a protest/demonstration/boycott that withholds patronage of a business is not realistic. In my opinion (and maybe Buck and Mathius agree) I believe there is no harm being done to the business owner because we choose to publicly display our disdain to him through a boycott of his business. People are free to choose to join us, or not.

              • Mathius™ says:

                You seem to want your cake and eat it at the same time.

                OF COURSE I DO! What would be the point of having a cake if I can’t eat it? That just makes no sense at all.

                Truth is, of course, that I agree with some and disagree with some. But I just cannot grasp why you think I have no right to harm someone’s business through peaceful and legal means.

                If you have the right to withhold trade for any reason you see fit, then the business owner should have that same right. Yes?

                Yes.

                Yes he should does. I’m not always comfortable with the ramifications of this (for example, refusing service to someone due to race), but I don’t see why I have the right to interfere. Now, I might subsequently join/lead a boycott against them for such an egregious decision.. but that’s a different matter. They have a right to act and I have a right to re-act.

                We should never forget that acting within your rights does not necessarily mean that doing so will not come with a price. If I insult your family, I am perfectly within my rights to do so, but it’s going to cost me your friendship – I would have no recourse to cry foul that I was within my rights so you have to stay my friend. And, if we have mutual friends, I would have no right to say that you can’t suggest they stop being my friends as well. Why? Because I was ‘moral’ in insulting your family, I should be immune to the repercussions and somehow be entitled to hold onto all my friends? Not hardly, pilgrim. And it is the same in any at-will interaction whether personal or business.

                I have a Right to live my life according to my own free will. I do not have the freedom, thus right, to impose upon others. This destroys my own right and freedom.

                How so? You are free to decline, no?

                If I ask if I can borrow your car and you say no, that’s fine. But then I say PLLLLEEEEEAAAAAASSSSE! And you say no. And then I start making a scene. And you capitulate. Have I imposed upon you? You bet. But have I “destroyed your right and freedom’? No. You could still say no, walk away, whatever. No one FORCED you to do anything. You made a FREE choice.

                I “impose” my will all the time. When I haggle with a vendor to get a better price on something. When I argue with a coworker to get them to do something the way I prefer. When I fight with my boss over an unreasonable request. When my wife wants to watch some god-awful Hugh Grant movie and I’d rather watch the Discovery Channel. When I’m trying to merge into traffic and some guy doesn’t want to let me in. All day long, interactions are a question of will. Whenever people negotiate any joint decision, it’s a question as much of leverage as it is imposing the stronger will. And there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

                If you could never impose, you could never merge into traffic, settle on a movie with the Mrs., get a discounted price, make your coworker do things the right way, et cetera. And then what? How would anything ever get accomplished?

                PlainlySpoken: I believe there is no harm being done to the business owner because we choose to publicly display our disdain to him through a boycott of his business.

                Nope. I think there absolutely is harm being done. And that’s, of course, entirely the point. But it’s economic harm. It’s not a violation of his rights or of his property or of his freedom or of his liberty. He has no RIGHT to his continued prosperity beyond what he can continue to achieve through legitimate enterprise.

                If you sell buggy whips and I invent the horseless carriage, my decision to start selling them is going to harm your business. But you have no right to continued prosperity selling your buggy whips. I’m going to economically devastate you, and that’s perfectly ok. Want to stay in business? Make economically sound decisions. In your case, convert your factory into something else. In the C-F-A-guy’s case, don’t piss off your customers. Failure to do so will HARM your business.

              • I think there absolutely is harm being done

                I see it as an economic loss, but not a harm per se. Economic loss can occur for many reasons, natural and man-made. But, that is the price of doing business as the saying goes. As long as the man-made loss occurs in a lawful manner – no harm is being done.

                It’s not a violation of his rights or of his property or of his freedom or of his liberty. He has no RIGHT to his continued prosperity beyond what he can continue to achieve through legitimate enterprise.

                Exactly! Besides, isn’t this a free market operation where the forces of the market should prevail? Seems to me in a free market the lawful actions of one, or a group, are a part of the forces of the free market. (I’m figuring I get taken to the woodshed for this one. 🙂 )

    • Mathius™ says:

      Yes, and while that image makes its rounds around the interwebs and on blags and on the tubes and that facing book, maybe 1 in 1,000 people are going to actually read the original website and see the caveats.

      President Obama came into office in the middle of a recession

      In fact, he came in the middle of a recession that was worse in terms of job loss than anything any other president in this chart had to deal with. Now, he did split those job losses about half-and-half with George W Bush, so it’s not as bad as it could have been for him.

      Now, for a better graph: http://www.thefinancialphysician.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/MW-AL335_payrol_20110708090950_MG.jpg

      I’d argue that you can’t fault Obama for anything before 2010, and even then, he should only get partial credit (primarily due to the fact that Presidents, as your site put it, “only have a certain amount of control over job growth”). So, while growth may have been lackluster, your version is disingenuous at best. I’d credit him with the second half of 2010 and onward.

      That’s not to say Obama’s campaign doesn’t / hasn’t / won’t use similar distorted graphs, but being dishonest “because he did it first” doesn’t make it ok.

      Adding, from the propaganda arm of the GOP: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/06/28/updated-worst-chart-ive-seen-all-day/166862

      • “I’d argue that you can’t fault Obama for anything before 2010, and even then, he should only get partial credit ”
        Hmmm, when was he elected to the senate and when did they take control of both houses? I think it’s very fare to lay this at his feet because he campaigned on fixing it in four years or he shouldn’t be re-elected. He promised to work with the Repugs, and you can blame them all you want, but there is no way you can claim Obama tried to work with them.

        Judge him on his performance. Compare that to what he said he would do. Or do as he wants, judge him based on how you think Romney will act on the Chick-Fil-A manifesto. Or how Romney has offended all our allies. Anything except how Obama has done on the economy/jobs.

        “JOCELYN FONG ” ??? 1. Who would believe anything MM says? 2. Who is Ms. Fong & why would he opinion of good/bad charts matter?

        “your version is disingenuous at best.” I think not, but would agree both sides play games with the numbers.

        “I’d credit him with the second half of 2010 and onward.” OK, and how does that make him look? Worst ever since 1948? How about going back to FDR? He got us out of Iraq….How’s things going since then? Did the big defense savings start turning things around on the homefront? Did it start reducing the deficit as he promised? (No? That’s right, deficit reduction per Obama will start in 2016, after he’s out of office & it’s someone else’s problem)

        • Mathius™ says:

          So your theory is to blame Congressman Obama for what happened under President Bush? Then, by that logic, the current economy is the fault of whoever is elected next from congress.

          Employment numbers have been ROUGHLY flat since 2010. Look at JAC’s graph below. See how it dives off a cliff right before Obama takes over (and a little bit into his first year, which I don’t think we can fault him for.. it’s not like he can just snap his fingers and fix that kind of damage immediately).

          I think it’s very fair to lay this at his feet because he campaigned on fixing it in four years or he shouldn’t be re-elected. Riiiggggghhhttttt.. because we don’t understand that politicians all promise more than they can deliver while running for office. OK, fine.. he shouldn’t be elected because he didn’t live up to his campaign promises.. that still doesn’t make the current shambles of an economy HIS fault. It just means he failed to fix what someone else left him.

          Adding, the economy turned out to be far worse than it appeared while he was campaigning.. a lot of things didn’t really come to light until after he was elected. Perhaps, knowing that, he shouldn’t be held 100% to assurances based on an inadequate information?

          He promised to work with the Repugs, and you can blame them all you want, but there is no way you can claim Obama tried to work with them.

          He didn’t? Really? The Republicans have made it their first and more most goal to deny Obama any legislative accomplishments. They’ve filibustered everything under the moon, tons of his appointments, et cetera. They refuse to allow his suggestions to come up for a vote. Hell Obama care is virtually identical to the Republican alternative to HillaryCare and he didn’t get ANY support on it from Red Shirts, even after dumping everything the Blue Shirts really wanted including single payer. The Red Shirts simply refused to work with him, and as a result, Obama is being criticized for trying too hard and extending too far to work with them. I love how he can be hit from both sides (Charlie et al for being too far to the right and caving in too much to the Republicans and from you for not trying to work with them at all). Amazing. Just like how he got an F from the Brady Institute and an F from the NRA at the same time..

          What rock have you been living under? Is the Mars lander going to bump into you?

          • (sigh) Sometimes wish I was creative, could come up with catchy phrases or thoughts. RomneyHood-“It’s like Robin Hood in reverse”..

            President Obama, speaking at a rally at the Marriott in Stamford, Conn. a short while ago, blasted Mitt Romney over his economic plan, relying again on a study that Boston has sought to discredit.

            From the pool report:

            “This economic crisis didn’t change our character. It didn’t change who we are. It just made our mission that much more urgent.”

            “We’ve got the best workers in the world, we’ve got the best entrepreneurs in the world.” He said what’s standing in our way right now “is our politics.”

            He blamed “the uncompromising view that says we should be going back to the old top-down economics that got us into this mess in the first place.”

            “The entire centerpiece” of Romney’s economic plan is a $5 trillion tax cut, he said.

            The president spoke of the Tax Policy Center’s analysis of Romney’s plan again. “It’s like Robin Hood in reverse — it’s Romney-hood.”

            The crowd laughed and roared and whistled its approval.

            “That’s the choice in ths election. That’s why I’m running for a second term as president.”

            (Also on POLITICO: Romney outraises Obama yet again)

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Since we are putting up charts.

      I really love this one. Now lets see if anyone can explain why this may or may not be of concern, and WHY?

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    US population distribution by age over time. One graph but it changes. be patient.

    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/08/us-population-distribution-by-age-1950.html

  35. Just A Citizen says:
  36. Just A Citizen says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Obama is not responsible for the population change. But he certainly owns a portion of this graph. How much he “caused” is open to endless debate. But he certainly OWNS his share.

      • Mathius™ says:

        So, on another note:

        1. We launched a rocket into space.
        2. Flew 150-something million miles to another planet.
        3. This rocket released a payload which independently navigated into position in orbit around Mars.
        4. This then fell at 1500+ mph using a heat shield.
        5. This then deployed a supersonic parachute.
        6. This then used exploding bolts to drop the heat shield – though still traveling at 900 mph.
        7. This then fired up it’s own rockets to slow and then hover in place.
        8. While hovering, it lowered a 1-ton vehicle gently 60ft onto the surface of another planet.
        9. The “sky crane” then released the vehicle using more exploding bolts and flew away.

        All this was done without any direct human control.

        While this was going on, NASA was able to use another satellite to take a picture of this while it was hurtling through the Martian atmosphere.

        ….

        ….

        ….

        And then it sends us back black and white grainy photographs.

        • LOL…..pretty ironic, isn’t it….amazing.All this technology and pinpoint accuracy and they use a Brownie Camera……..sigh. You would think that they could have used an Oompah Loompah to take a picture with a Polaroid.

          • Mathius™ says:

            The truth is that it has plenty of great high-res cameras. But there’s limited bandwidth and those pictures were just the navigation / hazard avoidance cams. The good ones will come online in a few days, but it still takes a long time to successfully transmit any high-res pictures due to a high noise to signal ratio. We’ll probably have a few amazing photos by the end of the week – I, for one, really look forward to seeing the place where Black Flag comes from.

  37. @ Mathius: I have tried to stay out of this but a correction………..you said “Sigh. It was CONSERVATIVES who created and pushed the PATRIOT Act and other “War on Terror” nonsense. Conservatives created this mess. Warrentless wiretaps? Extraordinary renditions? Gitmo? Torture of prisoners? NSA programs to read everyone’s emails? All Republicans’ doing. If there’s a police state in America, I’d appreciate it if you’d point the finger in the right direction.

    D13: Correct me if I am wrong here.: Patriot Act Senate Vote 2001 = 98 for. 1 against and 1 not present. Patriot Act Senate Vote 2006 = 89 for and 1 against and 1 did not vote. The 2001 House vote was 357 for and 66 against with 9 not voting. The 2006 vote was 280 for, 138 against and 14 not voting.

    It seems to me, this was incredibly non partisan. Both votes.

    However for four years, the Dems had control of both houses and a filibuster proof Senate and the Patriot Act was not brought up for a vote. For two of those four years, there was White House and Congressional control over both houses and a filibuster proof senate…..and no vote or repeal…….

    So, one could conclude that it was neither the conservative nor liberals that pushed this…..If the liberals wanted this act out….they had four years of total control. Wonder why it did not happen?

    • Mathius™ says:

      Do you mean the years during which George “With us or against us” Bush was in charge terrifying liberals everywhere with the accusation of being soft on ‘terrism’?

      • Yes, I mean exactly that.

        • But, let us give that consideration…there is still 2 years of complete control and a filibuster proof senate…and Bush was gone.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Yes, the Blue Shirts blew their chance.

            Doesn’t mean they’re responsible for it in the first place.

            I think, while the Dems ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY SUCKED ROYALLY during the Bush years, it was the Republicans who were gung-ho war mongers, fear mongers, hate mongers, fish mongers, and rage mongers. It was the Republican party which gave us ‘kill ’em there so so they don’t come here’ and ‘questioning the President in a time of war gives aid and comfort to the enemy’ (whatever happened to that one, by the way? Obama could really use it these days..). It was the Bush secret programs which tortured, renditioned, and spied with reckless abandon. It was Bush who beat the drum on Iraq and cowed the Dems into going along based on trumped up “slam dunk” intelligence. It was Bush and the Red Shirts who gave us “freedom fries” and who brow beat our allies in joining the “coalition of the willing’ against the ‘axis of evil’ and who gave us the Department of Homeland Defense. Homeland Defense.. how Orwellian. And Bush who, literally, called for a crusade.

            Yes, the Dems blew it. Royally. And, CERTAINLY, they have their own failings. But this one is squarely with the Red Shirts… with credit for the assist to the Blue Shirts.

            • Sorry…does not wash. As I tell, or told my troops,……it matters not what happened….what matters is if you are in place to stop an atrocity and do not….you condone the atrocity and that makes you no less guilty. ( I thought that was particularly profound of me ). And I believe that….and what is more…..so do you. ( I know you, I have your house bugged). It takes personal fortitude and it takes integrity to hit a lick for what is right and stand up against what is wrong. (Waaa Haaa in best John Wayne voice ). To keep silent…..is actually worse, in my opinion and before you ask…I railed against the Patriot Act….vociferously… and was reprimanded for it. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. As a matter of fact, Ted Cruz, the man we elected down here over the Rhino……..he is for repeal of it and he is a Tea Party Conservative………………….and Texan.

            • USWeapon says:

              ‘questioning the President in a time of war gives aid and comfort to the enemy’ (whatever happened to that one, by the way? Obama could really use it these days..)

              Obama ended the war in Iraq and started drawing down the war in Afghanistan (or better put Obama followed the plans for withdrawal that Bush already had in place). So by removing troops he gave away this BS defense ploy… 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              This would have been Democratic Party hero and Progressive extraordinaire, Woodrow Wilson: “‘questioning the President in a time of war gives aid and comfort to the enemy’. Or maybe it was the original Progressive….. Teddy Roosevelt.

    • D13’s conclusion: If there is to be any finger pointing, I would point it in the direction of the state and the inevitable control it wants….Repubs and Dems alike. This is a police state in the making and it is totally bi partisan and socialist leaning. It is regretful and it is dangerous. However, as Obama put it…” I am out to fundamentally change the United States. I know there are those that disagree with me but the people are with me”. If this is a mindset that anyone agrees with, then I suggest that they do not have the best intentions for this country.

      Europe is not the way to emulate. It is a failed social experiment that is playing out in front of us.

    • D13,

      However for four years, the Dems had control of both houses and a filibuster proof Senate and the Patriot Act was not brought up for a vote. For two of those four years, there was White House and Congressional control over both houses and a filibuster proof senate…..and no vote or repeal…….

      We’ve been over this before. At best, the Dems had 60 members in the Senate for 9 months, and even then it was not a tight caucus.

      So, one could conclude that it was neither the conservative nor liberals that pushed this…..If the liberals wanted this act out….they had four years of total control. Wonder why it did not happen?

      This is nothing more than a straw man argument. You’re trying to justify the conservative’s actions by blaming the liberals for not fixing it. ppphhht!

  38. @Mathius, Matt, let me clarify. I don’t care what homosexuals do as long as it doesn’t involve me directly. They can marry if they can find a church do do so. They can do whatever behind close doors. I do not want to see them in public engaging in sex, no more than I want heterosexuals doing it in public. Now, homosexuality is a choice, not a natural thing. To think otherwise is showing no understanding of nature. I will not allow them to force acceptance on me or my family, I can accept or not on my own, without the liberal talking heads telling me whats right or wrong, screw them anyway.. If this makes me a homophobe, let me know, I1’ll show you what a real homophobe should act like.

    On the other subject, if you are stuck in your little liberal world with all the liberal media, your loss. I would have to right an article to explain to you what is really going on around you, because you are brainwashed in to ignoring it. Example, the shooting in Wisconsin against the Sikh’s. A white supremest would not attack the Sikhs, see if you can figure out why!!!! It’s media bullshit. All reports say one shooter, witnesses are saying 4 (wonder why). If you keep believing the MSM, you will never hear the truth. What’s next? Blowing up something bigger (like a govt building or a bank), just wait and see!

    • Mathius™ says:

      I don’t care what homosexuals do as long as it doesn’t involve me directly. Great!

      They can marry if they can find a church do do so. Great!

      … or, if they’re agnostic / atheist, then by a justice of the peace ..

      I do not want to see them in public engaging in sex, no more than I want heterosexuals doing it in public. Perfectly fair.. I don’t want to see this either. However, to be fair, I don’t think we have a right to stop this behavior either as it does not directly impact me unless they happen to be having sex AND blocking a fire exit at the same time… but this is off topic. Moving along…

      Now, homosexuality is a choice GOOONNNNNGGGGGG!!!

      Says who? I’ve seen maybe a handful of homosexuals who claim to have chosen it and dozens upon dozens who were ‘born this way’. I demand you supply some scientific evidence to back up this claim.

      not a natural thing I swear to God, next time I see someone say this, I’m going to start posting youTube videos of gay monkeys, gay dolphins and gay penguins all having gay sex. I once knew a gay dog named Ziggy. When you say something isn’t “natural” that’s such a weasel word – what do you mean by “natural”? I take it to mean “found in nature” and, for the record, here’s wikipedia’s list of animals found in nature which exhibit homosexuality. Now tell me what about a friggin’ caribou isn’t “natural”?

      To think otherwise is showing no understanding of nature. How so? I see lots of gay animals IN NATURE. We didn’t cook this up in a lab somewhere. It’s always been there. How, exactly, are you defining this word?

      Are you defining “unnatural” as “things I find icky”?

      I will not allow them to force acceptance on me or my family Accept, don’t accept.. whatever makes you happy. Just as long as you aren’t using your opinions to push / support laws with are biased against homosexuals. If you want gov out of marriage entirely (as I do), then that’s fine, but if you want gov involved at all, it should be equal regardless of sexual orientation. You’re entitled to be bigoted if you wish, but you’re not allowed to use that bigotry to oppress others.

      • Yes, and prisons too. but you have to ask why. You have to ask why for everything. Sex is the strongest human drive, related to the need to procreate related to the demand of nature that the species survive. When the normal outlet is blocked, no females for instance, the drive is not reduced, just re-directed. Are their mistakes in brain wiring? I guess you could ask the victims of the temple shooting, the movie shooting and anyone unfortunate enough to cross paths with Ted Bundy. No argument from me there.

        My point in the past, not argued strongly or convincingly enough apparently has to do with social psychology, mob psychology, peer pressure or whatever else you want to call it. There is never one reason for anything. Human beings are infinitely variable, we are not animals because we reason.

        Can people be convinced that they are homosexual and believe it to the point where they could pass a lie detector test? Well, in answer to that I point out Flying Saucers, Assassination conspiracies, an entire nation (Germany) going off the boards in 1933. Humans are perhaps the only species, because they reason, capable of deluding themselves and living in a fantasy world.

        • Mathius™ says:

          When the normal outlet is blocked, no females for instance, the drive is not reduced, just re-directed. So you think people are gay… because they can’t find members of the opposite sex?

          Have you ever met a gay man? I’m sure – I’m sure – there are some people for whom this is the case, they can’t find a woman and resort to men (or vise versa) and particularly in jail. However, jail is the exception, but it’s a different case. Nobody’s talking about homosexuality due to a shortage of the opposite sex. We’re talking about people who simply prefer sex with members of the same gender.

          Human beings are infinitely variable, we are not animals because we reason. Sure we are. We’re just smart animals. Our brains are built on top of older, simpler brains. We are animals, pure and simple, and we do a disservice to ourselves when we deny our genetic heritage.

          Humans are perhaps the only species, because they reason, capable of deluding themselves and living in a fantasy world. Yup. And that sure explains your stance on this subject..

      • Mathius, Other animals are not gay, and you can’t ever proove otherwise. It is not uncommon for male or famale dogs to grab a leg of a human and hump it. that is not gay, that is not knowing better. Obviously, humping your leg is not going to equate to what we call as sex. To believe that any animal is gay is totally stupid, except those that CHOOSE to be. Because you can show a video of a dog humping the leg of a male human, it does not equate to a gay animal kingdom. you are brainwashed if you think so!

        • Mathius™ says:

          How about male monkeys performing oral sex on each other. Seems to me hard to accept that they “don’t know” what they’re doing.

          Ziggy the gay dog ignored female dogs. He wasn’t interested in them. When he saw a male dog, that’s when he got interested. He knew the difference. He wasn’t confused. He was gay. He wanted to have sex with other male dogs (often without their consent). Now, I don’t know how we discuss whether a dog “chose” to be gay, but insofar as you seem to be the one making the claim against any evidence, I’d really like to see something resembling a logical case. Evidence, perhaps? A scientific consensus? A Wikipedia article? Something?

          So,
          My argument: tons of animals in nature are gay, therefore homosexuality is de facto ‘natural’.
          Your argument: they aren’t gay! They don’t know what they’re doing! Some even hump human legs!
          Me: Yes, but some also show a specific preference for members of the same sex.
          You: LA LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!

          I swear to God, next time I see someone say this, I’m going to start posting youTube videos of gay monkeys, gay dolphins and gay penguins all having gay sex

          You can’t say I didn’t warn you…

          That was the tamest video I could find. Some of them… well, they’re not pretty.

          • Sometimes I am very curious as to what your google search history looks like…

            • Ditto 🙂 Mathius, just because Professor Shmo says something (or guesses), does not make it factual. Of course, in your world, if it’s on the internet or television, it must be true. Prof Shmuck says “If people don’t stop urinating, all the trees in the world will die”. Sadly, far too many people will believe this 🙄

              • Gman, no, what Mathius is posting is true. Its been confirmed ad nauseum. Some animal species exhibit homosexual behavior. There is no debate here.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Professor Shmo says something, then backs it up with evidence and video. He, and hundreds of other scientists study and conclude the same things. This does not necessarily make it factual. That’s true.

                But you’re just obstinately digging your heals in and screaming that it’s false. Yet you present nothing to the contrary other than some vague assertion that the animals are confused. Now, I’ll give you that an insect may be stupid enough not to know a male from a female.. but dolphins sure do. And chimps. And octopuses (octopi?). These are not dumb animals.

                So, yes, presented on one side with logic, evidence, and a scientific consensus and on the other side you with your tin foil hat, petulant insistence, and complete dearth of proof, I’ll side with the scientists, thank you.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Thank god my office doesn’t track internet usage…

              • Mathius™ says:

                Apparently I’ve disabled my Google search history.. nothing to see here.. move along..

          • What is the incidence in the population?

            I think that this would be a really valuable piece of information. With the availability of females, what percentage of the dolphin, monkey, dog population evidences and acts on the homosexual impulse? Since the argument generally devolves into “we are all animals” then the percentage should closely approximate or exceed the percentage in humans since their is no moral/psychological restraint.

            Also, in the animal kingdom, there are a number of species where one male and one male only (the strongest) controls and impregnates all females in the herd. What is the incidence of homosexuality in the remaining male population?

            Your answers raise interesting questions. We need a good field biologist on this blog.

            • I’m no field biologist, but I can tell you that it is pretty widely exhibited amongst bonobo chimps

            • Just A Citizen says:

              SK

              Among some species, deer and elk for example, the theory of the “herd bull” has been debunked by closer study.

              It turns out that the younger males do much of the breeding as they conduct hit and run operations while the herd bulls fight for CONTROL. They are also not nearly as tired from fighting so are more nimble and “vigorous” at their mission.

              • “drive by breeding”?

              • Know anything about big cats? Lions are polygamous and the weaker, younger ones are, s— out of luck.

                As I said, interesting studies. Buck’s chimps are randy little devils and seem to use sex male, male-female,female for many reasons. Question again is it exclusive? Do the little guys normally have male-female relationships? Again, this is not to say that some may be improperly wired by nature but the question is are they bi-sexual?

              • Mathius™ says:

                is it exclusive Who cares? Are you saying you believe bisexuality is ‘natural’, but homosexuality is not?

                this is not to say that some may be improperly wired by nature OBJECTION! Assumes intrinsic superiority of one over the other, which is not supported by evidence in the court record. All the data shows is that it’s not typical / normative, not that it’s ‘improper’.

              • Matt,

                Nope and Nope.

                Most Homosexuals I have known and have read of consider themselves exclusively homosexual. They do this to the point that they object to bi-sexuality claiming that it too is closeting and at best lying to oneself. While I do not agree with this stance it has some limited merit in that human beings are quite capable of any type behavior. So, question is, if bisexuality exists on a regular basis in animals who engage in homosexual conduct then their actions go quite beyond “same sex attraction” a current euphemism for homosexuality. Then, the question becomes, why?

                Au contraire mon ami! Exclusive homosexuality is by definition contra survival therefore, the jury is in and has voted in a quite Darwinian manner. From a natural standpoint, heterosexuality or even bi-sexuality (like those Spartans were supposed to be) is not just superior but essential to the continuation of the species. Once again you err by judging the past by the present. Yes, women may conceive through A I or in vitro, Men may adopt or pay a surrogate. Two mommies can raise a child or two daddies or for that matter or six transsexuals and a partridge in a pear tree but from a purely biological standpoint which is where I am coming from, it ain’t the same. The term improper as you take it is probably subject to current mores and not relevant. Improperly wired speaks to an error in programming. Someday there may be evidence of genetic causation. Right now, the evidence seems to be more based on chemistry shifting brain development in the early months of pregnancy.

                We know that in a few years it will be quite possible to gestate a child in a lab for the whole nine months. We also are pretty sure that one will be able to clone oneself without benefit of sperm and egg. Lastly I recently read that it is quite possible for a man to bear a child some day in a fully male body. Sooner than that I suspect, there will be full transplants of female genitalia into males allowing a transsexual to have normal delivery. What we are looking at is a brave new world of possibilities, all engineered by man, not nature.

              • Mathius™ says:

                SK,

                Most Homosexuals I have known and have read of consider themselves exclusively homosexual My guess, and it’s only a guess, is that gender preference is a spectrum. Much like you can be conservative or liberal to varying extents (extreme as BF or Charlie, or center-left like Buck and me), it is my guess that biology predisposes us all to a position somewhere on the the spectrum. Evolution would suggest a strong bias toward the hetero- disposition. Strong societal pressures would further push the distribution to the hetero- disposition. What then, logically, would happen is that most people in the middle of the spectrum are squeezed by societal pressure to “become straight” and they either suppress their attraction to the same gender or buck the system and pull all the way to the other side.

                If you continue the comparison with politics, you’ll see how all the moderates got squeezed out of congress leaving only the extremes. I don’t have anything to back this up, but it’s just my logical interpretation of the situation and seems to fit pretty well with the facts as they stand.

                Exclusive homosexuality is by definition contra survival therefore, the jury is in and has voted in a quite Darwinian manner. Well… it was contrary.. we can do in vitro these days…

                But, regardless, your point is wrong. If “contrary to survival” meant that something cannot exist from a survival standpoint, there would be no recessive defects. Some people are born sterile. Surely, you would agree that’s contrary to survival, yet it happens. Some people are born with Downs, surely you would agree that’s contrary to survival. Some people are born really really ugly, surely you would agree that’s contrary to survival. Some people have all sorts of RECESSIVE genes which run contrary to survival. The fact that they’re recessive means that they can continue without eliminating themselves – only when they express completely are they eliminated from the individual’s branch, but not from the whole of the family tree. Let me know if you need a crash course in this, but I assume you understand.

                heterosexuality or even bi-sexuality (like those Spartans were supposed to be) is not just superior but essential to the continuation of the species. Agreed. Though, again, from a historical perspective – it’s no longer a requirement. Though, to be fair, just because someone’s gay doesn’t mean they can’t have one-off sex with a member of the opposite sex just so they can have children. I’m sure lots of gay people lied to themselves and had kids, especially in the days when admitting homosexuality was a death sentence. Or in Saudi Arabia.

                There’s such a stigma to being gay that there’s a huge incentive to hide / suppress it. Reminds me Ted Haggard: homosexuality is an abomination… while the was secretly using male prostitutes… and he has five children. If homosexuality is genetic (or at least, has a genetic component, then those children may very well be carriers of those genes).

                Improperly wired speaks to an error in programming.
                An error is still connotatively a BAD thing. That is, when I mess up my code, it’s BAD. When a “error” occurs causing a gay trait to express, we don’t have anything to suggest that’s intrinsically BAD. Just that it’s different. It’d be as if I made a CHANGE to the code to do things a different way.

                You’re making the ERROR of assuming that genetic procreation is ALWAYS the goal, and it’s not – not for everyone. And, as always, if they still want children, even absent in vitro, they are still physically capable of doing things the old fashioned way, just like Rev. Haggard.

                Right now, the evidence seems to be more based on chemistry shifting brain development in the early months of pregnancy.

                Can you substantiate this? My understanding is that this is still completely speculation.

                We know that in a few years it will be quite possible to gestate a child in a lab for the whole nine months.

                Start to finish? Probably more than a few years.. my guess would be 15-20.. pretty cool, eh?

                We also are pretty sure that one will be able to clone oneself without benefit of sperm and egg.

                Yup. I totally plan to have a clone of myself made and raise him as my son – it’s going to be awesome! Maybe I’ll get one of Emilius, too, and raise them together..

                Lastly I recently read that it is quite possible for a man to bear a child some day in a fully male body.
                Already done.

                Sooner than that I suspect, there will be full transplants of female genitalia into males allowing a transsexual to have normal delivery. Probably. My guess would be lab-grown form your own DNA rather than a transplant (ie, from another donor).. but it’s interesting, anyway.

                What we are looking at is a brave new world of possibilities, all engineered by man, not nature. Yup.. and I, for one, can’t wait!

                Adding, there’s no reason to believe that “engineered by man” is in any way inferior to “engineered by nature.” Man has engineered some pretty impressive things (*cough* Mars lander *cough*).

                Adding further, “Brave New World”… now that’s one excellent book. Aldus Huxley. I really enjoyed this. I am an Alpha.. I am happy to be an Alpha..

              • My friend, you are really reaching on this one. Love to cite chapter & verse on the chemical-brain shift causation theory but it has been a number of years since I not only ran into it but kept running into it.

                Contra survival would mean either unable to survive on its own or more generally a mutation which would not allow the species to continue. Obviously the inability to breed would be one and in a less sophisticated or more frontier society so would hereditary blindness, deafness, or some physical malformation impeding movement. Now allowances can be made in our society but not in the Amazon, Sahara or the new Guinea jungles.

                “Engineered by man”, Communism, holocaust, Nuclear weapons. Plusses and minuses there.

              • Mathius™ says:

                “Engineered by man”, Communism, holocaust, Nuclear weapons. Plusses and minuses there.

                Engineered by nature: The hantavirus, black holes, brain prions, and Barbara Streisand.

              • Yup!

    • Gman,

      A white supremest would not attack the Sikhs, see if you can figure out why!!!! It’s media bullshit.

      Why wouldn’t a white supremest attack the Sikhs?

      And since a white supremest did attack the Sikhs, you obviously haven’t figured anything out.

      So much for media bullshit, hey?

      • Todd, You are brainwashed by the MSM, so trying to convince you otherwise is a waste of time. Yes, it is media bullshit. But you and Captain Canolli keep pounding down that viagra, it’s working real well 😆

    • Now, homosexuality is a choice, not a natural thing. To think otherwise is showing no understanding of nature

      No, actually, G, it’s your choice to be a homophobe …:) smarten up already!

  39. RE; Wag the Dog……cool movie.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I saw it in theaters at 14. I liked it… but I didn’t really appreciate it.

      Then I saw it again, maybe a year ago… well now it’s much more interesting..

      • Had Al Gore been President on 9-11, the same things would have happened, exactly the same way. I remind you of Vietnam and Lyndon Johnson. It was, until ’67 considered unpatriotic to object then mostly because the 2-S student deferments were running out for Republicans and Democrats alike. I can think back to that sudden change among my friends at college from being Rah!, Rah! Drop the Bomb to “Hell No We Won’t Go!” all coincidental with getting that notice to report for the physical.

        The one thing we have all learned and I thing D-13 would back me up is the Powell doctrine was correct. Have an objective, a definition of winning or mission accomplished and an exit strategy. Bush gave us none and the democrats demanded none.

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    response:

    I have a Right to live my life according to my own free will. I do not have the freedom, thus right, to impose upon others. This destroys my own right and freedom.

    How so? You are free to decline, no?

    You misunderstood the statement. If I impose upon you I give you the authority to impose upon me. That is how human nature works.

    Thus I have the right to “pursue” my life as I see fit, provided I do not impose my will upon others. If I do, “this”, being my actions, “destroys my own right and freedom”.

    Same applies to RIGHTS. This is why I say Rights CAN NOT be in conflict with each other or the same right held by another. My RIGHT to association means you must have the same RIGHT.

    By the way, while your boycott may not harm my existing property or body, you are certainly harming my “Right to the pursuit of happiness”. 😉

    • “By the way, while your boycott may not harm my existing property or body, you are certainly harming my “Right to the pursuit of happiness”.”

      Absolutely untrue JAC. You still have that right. You are still completely free to run your business as you choose, to meet my demands or to forego my business. You are likewise free to run your own campaign against my boycott, to gin up support for your business and cause. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but didn’t CFA see record profits during this boycott? Not exactly infringing on their right to the pursuit of happiness….or profits.

      • I have joined Buck’s Boycott. I don’t agree with him on the reason he’s called it but I like Buck and I’m a follower, not a leader. Or maybe, because it’s voluntary. It’s free! It will save me money and give me an excuse not to buy JAC’s ChickenTrout sandwich. (I was becoming addicted) Also hoping for free stuff from Buck, T-shirts, caps, etc….

        • What’s your point here? You’re free to join me or not, as you choose. I could care less why you are supporting me. Though I never did take you for a follower…

          • Just A Citizen says:

            His point is that many people join boycotts because they like to JOIN in such things. They don’t give a damn whether they were harmed or whether their actions might harm others.

            • Again….so what?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                You can’t pick and choose when it comes to arguing ethics, morality and their relationship to political philosophy. Well you can, but you create massive contradictions.

                “its my money”???? Really? I do recall you arguing that it is really the Govt’s money. Or was that someone else?

              • Context JAC, context…

                When have I argued that the money in your pocket is really the Govt’s money?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Technically, all federal reserve notes are federal property.. that’s why it’s illegal to deface or melt currency.. so, yes, the money in his pocket really is the government’s money.

                Just saying…

            • My point is, I’m having fun and it’s voluntary. Convincing a bunch of people to not do business with someone may “harm” them, but the voluntary action to spend your money elsewhere is always our choice. They are also free to try and persuade me to spend my money there, and most businesses do so with advertising. Add to that, I do “boycott”. There are businesses I do not buy from because I have an issue with them. My money, my choice. Does it matter if I’m influenced by advertisements or by Buck? There’s no force involved, just persuasion.

              • “My money, my choice. Does it matter if I’m influenced by advertisements or by Buck? There’s no force involved, just persuasion.”

                Precisely!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        You ignore the fact of what BOYCOTT is and how it becomes effective. It is not JUST YOU deciding to withhold trade with ME.

        It is you and others organizing even more people and then acting to DISRUPT my relationships with customers, clients, suppliers and associates. The organized boycott of Limbaugh for example was aimed at his advertisers and others associated with him. As Todd noted, the nature of boycott assumes all those associated with the target as guilty of enabling the target.

        So you are in fact interfering with and attempting to disrupt or prevent my ability to pursue my happiness. That is the entire purpose of boycott. To create a credible THREAT to the target. If it did not create economic harm it wouldn’t exist.

        This leaves you only one choice to legitimize it. To declare that economic harm is not really harm because I have no “right” to trade that has not happened. But the coercion is against my ability to pursue that trade. You stand in the way, You create barriers that are outside the normal expected in that process.

        And all of this for what? You still have not answered why you think boycott is acceptable when nobody was harmed by the target of said boycott. Again I go to the Dixie Chicks and Limbaugh. They used words……. how do those words harm others who were not the target of those words?

        You do not want others running around trying to impose their moral standards on you. Yet you justify one of the primary mechanisms used by those who want to do exactly that.

        You support the use of Govt law to regulate society. You believe it necessary to further a civil society. Then you support the use of a mob to disrupt someone’s life when they have done nothing to you.

        Again, YOU deciding of your own free will to NOT TRADE with me is really not a boycott. Not unless we are personally connected and that boycott affects that relationship in a non-economic way. But in either case, it is COERCIVE.

        Also, the support CFA day was NOT a boycott. But neither was the “kiss-in”.

        • “You ignore the fact of what BOYCOTT is and how it becomes effective. It is not JUST YOU deciding to withhold trade with ME.”

          Completely irrelevant. Who cares how many people decide to withhold trade with you? Who cares if they were directly harmed or just oppose your policies or just support me (self-declared boycott leader!)?

          “You do not want others running around trying to impose their moral standards on you.”

          There is a huge difference between people attempting to change the law to impose their standards/beliefs on me and people voluntarily withholding trade from a business in hopes that the business owner comes around. That you cannot see this concerns me. A boycott is a civil response — except when it crosses the line and begins to physically impose upon others (e.g., physically blocking people from entering the premises), at which point I do completely disavow those practices.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            The same ethical standards should apply to the population and govt. So to claim there is a difference between making Govt law and use of boycott is wrong.

            The PURPOSE of each is the same. The only real difference, at least theoretically, is that an actual majority of people are needed to affect Govt Law. Where as a small group within society can FORCE their will upon someone via Boycott.

          • That is a great point –

            So a boycott that is ineffective, JAC doesn’t care about, it isn’t coercion
            But if it is effective, it is.

            Really coercion is never like that – if it isn’t effective, we call it “Attempted murder”, and if it is effective, we call it “murder” – there is no “oh you missed, so it wasn’t coercion” concepts

            • Just A Citizen says:

              BF

              NOPE. Coercion is coercion and a threat is a threat.

              EFFECTIVENESS, however does dictate the nature of the threat and magnitude of coercive affect. It obviously affects how one might react.

            • Attempted coercion perhaps?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              BF

              Upon further reflection you are also correct to an extent. This is a point I tried to make the other day. That and that an individual deciding not to trade is not a boycott. It doesn’t fit the original meaning nor intent.

              So some of the arguments here really center around what boycott is in reality vs what they think it means, namely and individual choice to not trade.

              Note that the original BOYCOTT involved more than withholding trade. It also included withholding any social interaction. It turned to Shunning for the sole purpose of forcing Boycott to comply with the will of a group within the community.

  41. To start an entirely different chain….. This being the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, attached is a link to Hirohito’s address to the nation on the surrender. I have heard for so many years how important that broadcast was but have never read it. “Air Force Magazine” was kind enough to print it this month. I was appalled at the contents. I think it speaks well for Harry Truman that he accepted their “surrender” rather than lining up # 3 on the Imperial Palace.

    The Japanese must have invented Chutzpah!

    http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/August%202012/0812keeper.aspx

    • SK, where did you see a problem? Looks kinda like every WH press release today….or a page from “Brave New World”?

      To our good and loyal subjects:

      After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining to our empire today, we have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure.

      We have ordered our government to communicate to the governments of the United States, Great Britain, China, and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration.

      To strive for the common prosperity and happiness of all nations as well as the security and well-being of our subjects is the solemn obligation which has been handed down by our imperial ancestors, and which we lay close to heart. Indeed, we declared war on America and Britain out of our sincere desire to ensure Japan’s self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement.

      But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone—the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the state, and the devoted service of our 100 million people—the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.

      • Maybe that’s where they got it from. I really like the part, “The war situation has developed not necessarily to japan’s advantage”. You think?

        • “our sincere desire to ensure Japan’s self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement.”

          Would like to hear from China on that remark!

  42. Vetting Conference Exposes More of Obama’s Marxist Ties
    James Simpson

    Now that Democrats are demanding extensive documentation of Mitt Romney’s financial history, President Obama’s veiled past is definitely in play. And rest assured, the vetting of Barack Obama will happen.

    On Thursday, July 19th, Cliff Kincaid of America’s Survival held another one of his National Press Club events. This one was appropriately titled: The Vetting: Obama, Radical Islam and the Soros Connection.

    In kicking off this conference, Kincaid announced:

    Our July 19 conference fulfills the late Andrew Breitbart’s promise to finally ‘vet’ the president. The diabolical dangers of Marxism and radical Islam must be exposed. It is time for the shocking truth about Obama and his agenda to emerge.

    “The Vetting” is a fitting title for this conference, for it explicitly detailed, with a host of new facts and evidence, from extensive, highly credible sources, the dangerously extremist nature of President Obama and the true goals of his virulently anti-American, radical leftist administration.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/vetting_conference_exposes_more_of_obamas_marxist_ties.html#ixzz22rn34w7F

  43. Mathius™ says:

    SUFA: I think we need to define the word ‘natural’.

    Any takers?

    (Context: “Homosexuality isn’t natural.”)

    • nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/
      Adjective:
      Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        So Humans are NOT natural?

        How can something natural make something that is NOT natural?

        • Huh?

          I didn’t realize the first human was created (or caused by) humankind…

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Are you arguing that humans were created by someone else?

            • Mathius™ says:

              Yes, we were sneezed out of the left nostril of a giant space walrus.

              Haven’t you been following along?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Sorry, I missed that.

                So where did the walrus come from?

                Is the walrus “natural”.

              • Mathius™ says:

                No one knows where he came from or where he went. All we know is that one day he will return with a giant space kleenex and such will be the end of days.

                All praise be to his mighty tusks!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        The definition offered by Buck begs the question “what is nature”? So here you go, from wiki

        “Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. “Nature” refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.

        The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, or “essential qualities, innate disposition”, and in ancient times, literally meant “birth”.[1] Natura was a Latin translation of the Greek word physis (φύσις), which originally related to the intrinsic characteristics that plants, animals, and other features of the world develop of their own accord.[2][3] The concept of nature as a whole, the physical universe, is one of several expansions of the original notion; it began with certain core applications of the word φύσις by pre-Socratic philosophers, and has steadily gained currency ever since. This usage was confirmed during the advent of modern scientific method in the last several centuries.[4][5]”

        Thus my question, how can things created by man, who is natural, be considered as “unnatural”?

        So lets take the offered definition : “Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.” and tweek it to make it more consistent with the original meaning of “nature”. You get something like:

        “Existing within the universe.”

        • Mathius™ says:

          “Existing within the universe.”

          Which begs the followup question: Does homosexuality exist within the universe?

          if YES Then: Homosexuality is perfectly natural.

          If NO then: Huh?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      I think you did quite well at explaining it yesterday and Gman did a great job of showing the two possible meanings.

      One part of your argument, which is widely accepted, which I struggle with is that we are talking about behavior and a behavior in particular that falls far outside the norm.

      Much like considering philosophy or normative ethics. One considers the broader norm not the wild exceptions. That is why philosophy generally ignores the mentally ill.

      So it is a fact that homosexual behavior exists in many species in “nature”. But it is equally correct that this behavior is not natural in the sense that it violates the prime directive of all species. But so do those individuals who happen to be born sterile.

      I also have a problem when folks try to equate “natural” with other species behavior and then equate that as equivalent to human behavior. We may be part of the natural world but humans are vastly different. This is where the manifestation of sex drive in animals when mates are unavailable comes into play.

      During college we studied the homosexual behavior of rats and mice. At that time the studies showed the incidence of this behavior increased disproportionately with increasing population density. Other anti-social behavior also increased, like attacking and eating your neighbor. So while there was an inherent existence of this trait, external factors somehow affected its incidence. But nobody knew how or why.

      So in summary Matt, this is not one where I think we can simply “define” away the conflict. But we should admit that homosexuality is not a “lifestyle choice” among most people who are that way. We should also not act as though it is some “normal” condition. It is clearly not the “norm”. And obviously if not for other social structures it would act against the prime directive of reproduction.

      But all of this really doesn’t matter when it comes to HUMANS. Because ours is to determine the moral and ethical standards by which to live that gives ALL peaceful and productive humans the same dignity and treatment under Govt.

      And this by the way is where I have some serious heartburn with the GLBT community as they call it. Some of their “public displays” are abhorrent to most civilized sensibilities. The images of that SF display posted by V.H. are burned in my brain. 😦

      But the real issue with that example is NOT that they are homosexuals but the in your face public display of sexual behavior. The scenes of the Hippies doing it on the sidewalk and in the parks of the 60’s was just as offensive to most people as those creeps in S.F..

      You would think that a minority group fighting for respect and equal treatment would realize that acting outside the norm of acceptable behavior is not a way to endear yourself to those you are trying to win over.

      • Mathius™ says:

        This is where the manifestation of sex drive in animals when mates are unavailable comes into play. SOMETIMES. Sometimes this is the case. In the case of Ziggy the Dog, who hung at my high school, he was simply gay. There were lots of other dogs. He simply chose to hump the male ones. It wasn’t a shortage of females – it was a preference.

        Other anti-social behavior also increased Objection! I do not accept the lumping in of homosexual behavior as anti-social as implied here. Perhaps other ‘non-normative’, but gay people tend to be quite social in my experience – far more social than I am, anyway.

        So while there was an inherent existence of this trait, external factors somehow affected its incidence Sure. So…..?

        So in summary Matt, this is not one where I think we can simply “define” away the conflict. That’s not what I’m trying to do. What I’m trying to do is knock down a fallacious and, I think, condescending argument against homosexuals. By calling them somehow unnatural, you can write them off and pre-judge them and their deeply personal feelings. If you want to argue about gay rights, you can’t start the discussion from a position so heavily biased.

        But we should admit that homosexuality is not a “lifestyle choice” among most people who are that way Good start.

        We should also not act as though it is some “normal” condition. It is clearly not the “norm”. Agreed. It is a minority condition. But so is being 6.5 ft tall. Neither is intrinsically ‘bad’ or ‘immoral’ or ‘wrong’.. they simply are what they are. I will readily concede that it’s not “normal” just as being black isn’t “normal” in America since they make up only 10-ish% of the population. But this does nothing to establish that there is anything wrong or inferior about it.

        Some of their “public displays” are abhorrent to most civilized sensibilities. Some. But the whole shouldn’t be judged by the actions of “some.” More to point, I think there’s a difference between ‘gay culture’ and ‘gay sexual orientation.’ That is, the men who dress up like Dorothy and parade down main street are making a cultural statement. But most gay men are simply normal, average Joe’s, who happen to prefer penis to vagina. I think it’s best if we separate these two issues.

        You would think that a minority group fighting for respect and equal treatment would realize that acting outside the norm of acceptable behavior is not a way to endear yourself to those you are trying to win over. They don’t think there’s anything wrong. As Mystique said: “I shouldn’t have to hide.” But, again, I think that’s a separate issue – and one which I think harms their goal, but that’s just my opinion.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          “Other anti-social behavior also increased Objection! ” Your objection is misplaced. But it does serve a useful example of how we can read a meaning into a comment that is affected by our bias, or assumption about someones intent.

          If you had read the entire thing first then this objection should have never been raised. Unless it was for the OTHERS in the audience.

          “So while there was an inherent existence of this trait, external factors somehow affected its incidence Sure. So…..?” So myself and other science types found it of great interest and curiosity. I have never seen any more work on this to explain the connections. That is other than from behavioral sciences.

          But it did confirm in my youth my already forming opinion that Cities were destructive of civil society.

          • Mathius™ says:

            During college we studied the homosexual behavior of rats and mice. At that time the studies showed the incidence of this behavior increased disproportionately with increasing population density. OTHER anti-social behavior also increased, like attacking and eating your neighbor. [emphasis added]

            Perhaps what we have here is a failure to communicate?

            You studied homosexuality as it relates to population density.

            You noticed that it increased with density.

            Then you noticed that OTHER anti-social behaviors also increase, like attacking and eating your neighbor.

            The work OTHER can only serve to distinguish the FORMER subset from the later. That is, homosexuality as a subset of anti-social behavior from cannibalism as a subset of anti-social behavior.

            But it does serve a useful example of how we can read a meaning into a comment that is affected by our bias, or assumption about someones intent.

            What am I missing? Where is my bias? Are you, or are you not, saying that homosexuality is an anti-social behavioral trait?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              I am NOT.

              The studies looked at a variety of behaviors. I am not sure I could have mentioned that in any way that would have led you to a different notion. I could have said “Other behaviors also increased, like eating each other.” Maybe that would work but then you probably would have said “Are you equating homosexuality with cannibalism”?

              So now it should be cleared up. Right?

              Re the homosexuality part. What was interesting and unexplained was the disproportionate increase in the behavior as population increased. Why wouldn’t the same percentage of the population be maintained?

              I have never seen an answer to that question. But then again my curiosity moved to other areas of science and I made no effort to follow more RAT behavior.

              I can report, though, that cannibalism was a primary means of reducing competition among both leopard frogs and crawdads (crayfish). Seemed counter productive though because in both studies I wound up with only ONE survivor. My conclusion was I probably had only one sex represented in the population. 🙂

              • Mathius™ says:

                So now it should be cleared up. Right? All better now. 🙂

                Why wouldn’t the same percentage of the population be maintained? Two theories spring to mind.

                1. The lack-of options scenario mentioned above. That is, that a small number of males monopolized all the females, leaving the rest of the horny males to seek alternatives.

                2. With an increase of population, the NUMBER of available partner-pairs increases exponentially. As such, there are now more gay members with whom to have sex. In this scenario, it would seem that they didn’t have sex before the increase in density because there were fewer options.

                My suspicion would be option 2, though it should be relatively easy to test for this. If you think about it, it makes sense. If you are the only gay Eskimo in your tribe, you’re not going to have a lot of sex. If, then, you are a member of a city, there are tons of options and you may wind up having sex to excess – gay straight or otherwise. This can be studied by considering a number of factors (A) prevalence of gay male couples vs gay female couplings to control for option 1 (B) the rates of gay sex vs no sex amongst the individuals (C) do the animals tend to ‘hold’ their preferences.

            • Mathius, Where do you think the Zombie Apocalypse is going to start?

  44. Tim Hawkins..Again! 🙂

    • Kiss Off: Networks Spike Coverage of Chick-fil-A Kiss-in After Poor Turnout

      By Paul Wilson
      The broadcast networks promoted gay activists’ protest of the fast food company Chick-fil-A, but when that protest fizzled, they did little to cover the failure.

      ABC’s Steve Osunsami hyped the protests ahead of time, saying “nearly 100,000 friends and family have been invited online.” After the apparent lack of turnout at the kiss-in, however, the networks stopped reporting on the protest. Only ABC briefly mentioned the results of the kiss-in, after all three networks talked about the protests on the morning of Aug. 3.

      NBC’s Natalie Morales also gave a shout-out the kiss-in on “Today” Aug. 3, declaring: “Same-sex marriage supporters plan a ‘kiss-in’ at Chick-Fil-A restaurants around the country today to protest the fast food chain owner’s comments against gay marriage. This after Wednesday’s demonstration to support Chick-Fil-A’s stance on same-sex marriage set a one-day sales record for the company.” Morales at least acknowledged the wild success of Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. But after the morning of Aug. 3, the kiss-in was not mentioned by NBC.

      There are two obvious reasons for this discrepancy. The lack of coverage may be because the kiss-in was sparsely attended. Or it may be because gay activists did not exhibit the tolerance they demand from others at several of the protests. Or it may be because some Chick-fil-A outlets evenprovided water and sweet tea to protestors, free of charge.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2012/08/07/kiss-networks-spike-coverage-chick-fil-kiss-after-poor-turnout#ixzz22sb0rdJg

      I have no objection to anyone deciding or calling for a boycott such as with Chick-Fil-A. I think the backlash became the more interesting story, because of 1st Amd or other reasons, anti-boycotters vastly overshadowed the boycotters. But that wasn’t news…..Hundreds of thousands, possibly millions voted with their own money in favor of C-F-A. Hundreds or thousands of gay protesters failed to gain support or attention.

  45. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    Maybe it wasn’t you. It was an argument about taxation being theft. Someone argued that it couldn’t be theft because the money is really the Governments property, not mine.

    But as to whether it is yours or not is irrelevant to the question of an ethical standard to NOT IMPOSE YOUR will upon others, or to not interfere in others lives.

  46. August 7, 2012
    Voting fraud? Sometimes, it changes history
    Rick Moran

    Democrats are crowding courtrooms across the country, fighting tooth and nail to eliminate reasonable laws to prevent fraud at the ballot box.

    As Byron York points out in the Examiner, sometimes, the consequences of voter fraud can change history:

    On the ’08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.

    Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman’s lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.

    During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons — all ineligible to vote — who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.

    Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted — not just accused, but convicted — of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. “The numbers aren’t greater,” the authors say, “because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and ‘knowingly’ voted unlawfully.” The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.

    Still, that’s a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes. With 1,099 examples identified by Minnesota Majority, and with evidence suggesting that felons, when they do vote, strongly favor Democrats, it doesn’t require a leap to suggest there might one day be proof that Al Franken was elected on the strength of voter fraud.

    And that’s just the question of voting by felons. Minnesota Majority also found all sorts of other irregularities that cast further doubt on the Senate results.

    The election was particularly important because Franken’s victory gave Senate Democrats a 60th vote in favor of President Obama’s national health care proposal — the deciding vote to overcome a Republican filibuster. If Coleman had kept his seat, there would have been no 60th vote, and no Obamacare.

    The idea that there is no voter fraud in Chicago, Philadelphia, or any other large city run by Democrats is laughable. Republican poll watchers are routinely kicked out of Democratic precincts in Chicago and intimidated. One wonders what goes on in those precincts without a Republican to stop the shenannigans. Or are we to believe they kicked the GOP poll watchers out for some kind of innocent reason? Sorry, it doesn’t pass the smell test.

    They still buy votes in the hills and hollers of West Virginia and Kentucky. Big city machines still play fast and loose with ballot boxes (See 2004 governor’s race in Washington and Seattle area vote fraud). There are still tens of thousands of bogus voter registrations across the country. And there is still the motivation for both parties to cheat.

    Resistance to Voter ID is for one reason only; if your side is planning to cheat. The Democrats wrap their opposition to ID laws around a sanctimonious charge that it would suppress the votes of minorities and the young. But when the opportunity presents itself for fraud, are we to think that the Democrats are so pure and noble of heart that they wouldn’t go for it?

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/voting_fraud_sometimes_it_changes_history.html#ixzz22souFzZk

    • “Resistance to Voter ID is for one reason only; if your side is planning to cheat.”

      Resistance to Voter ID is not because your side is planning to cheat…it is because no eligible voter should be denied their right to vote. Out of curiosity, did you take a look at the GOP arguments in PA in favor of Voter ID? Or their statements to the effect that absent restrictive Voter ID laws, they can’t hope to win an election? Interesting stuff! I guess it could be said that: “Support for Voter ID is for one reason only; if you can’t garner support of more than 50% of the electorate”

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Having an ID is NOT PREVENTING you or anyone from voting.

        I know the PA comments are a favorite of the left but look at the context more closely.

        If the R’s believe there is rampant voter ID fraud among the Dems then their statement that a voter ID law would cause a change in the results is accurate and NOT PROOF of some nefarious attempt to suppress LEGAL voting.

        Far more than 50% of the population support voter ID. Opposing voter ID then kind of flies in the face of your “Democracy” concept don’t ya think?

        In fact, trying to use the courts and other means to suppress ID is in fact because you don’t have 50% on your side.

        The sword has two edges.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Additional, on the issue of the PA declaration regarding known cases.

        The Fed Govt has NO AUTHORITY to determine election requirements or methods within a State. It’s only authority comes in enforcing the Rights as outlined. So the legal question is does the law deliberately discriminate?

        PA forced the proper question by simply eliminating whether they have proved a NEED. That is NOT the Fed’s business.

        The issue of NEED only comes to play because of the BS established by prior courts, namely your rights are subject to “compelling interest of Govt”. Well that is not really the legal issue here, and PA has forced the court to deal with the real issue. PA has the authority to devise what ever laws it wants. It should be the FED responsibility to PROVE it is discriminatory in REALITY.

        It should not be PA’s responsibility to prove that the law is necessary in the eyes of the Fed or the Court.

        But of course, we all know how SHOULD works out in these cases.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      With all due respect to the author, this sounds a lot like the GARBAGE spewing from the DNC over Romney’s tax returns:

      “Resistance to Voter ID is for one reason only; if your side is planning to cheat.”

      Both are bull shit.

      Now, despite that Voter ID fraud DOES EXIST and I witnessed some of how it works. But requiring a picture ID at the voting booth will not solve all of the problem with ID theft nor some of the bigger places where fraud occurs.

      • JAC….make no mistake about it. Resistance to voter ID has only one premise……to cheat. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less.

        • D13,

          One question, how’s does voter ID work when it comes to people (like me) who vote absentee? Who do I have to show my ID to in order to cast my ballot?

          Okay, so it’s two questions…… 🙂

          • I always vote absentee or early voting….I have always had to produce an ID or a proof of residency.

            • I am a registered voter who always votes absentee. I show no ID to get my absentee ballot, it is mailed to me and I return it by mail. The only time I ever showed ID was when I first registered (back in 2003 when I moved to Colorado again). I have also changed residences while here several times and never showed any ID to change my residence. So, why should someone have to prove who they are at the polls and I do not? How will that stop any potential absentee voter fraud?

              It makes the case for showing ID at the polling place ridiculous.

    • Just remember, this has nothing to do with voter-id. Last I checked felons can get drivers licenses and id’s.

      • Todd,

        First, I agree with JAC, some of Moran’s conclusions are garbage. But it drew you out, started some conversations. I think it is very well established there is voting fraud in the USA. I think that is near the ultimate sin for our nation. We are so full of ourselves to the world, how we are free and what democracy means and does for it’s citizens. And then, year after year, there are documented cases of corruption in our “democratic” elections….

        And on voter I.D., don’t 26 states require it already? Do those states repress their voters? Might want to check before you jump on that one. Another thing to consider, congress has the power to regulate (to make regular or the same) between the states. Obama-Pelosi-Reid had the power for two years to reform voting law for the entire nation as they saw fit. After all the outrage over the 2004 recount, you would think they might want to fix things…
        Unless they like them as they are now.

        • LOI,

          I think it is very well established there is voting fraud in the USA.

          It’s a tiny fraction. Even in your example of a close election, the 177 would not have changed the outcome, even if they all had voted for Obama, and there’s no proof of that (only the right-wing assumptions). And aren’t you guys always spouting off about how elections don’t matter? So then how could the tiny fraction of voter fraud matter?

          I think that is near the ultimate sin for our nation.

          Seriously?? The tiny fraction of voting fraud is “near the ultimate sin for our nation”? What about slavery? What about the treatment of Indians?

          How many nations have better elections with less fraud? Probably not many.

          And then, year after year, there are documented cases of corruption in our “democratic” elections….

          Show me the documentation for all this corruption.

          don’t 26 states require it already?

          So? If 26 people jumped off a bridge, would you follow?

          Do those states repress their voters?

          I don’t know about all, but in every case I’ve seen voter-id eliminates more eligible voters than the total number of possible voter fraud cases.

          Might want to check before you jump on that one.

          Oooo – is that a challenge or a threat??? 😉

          Another thing to consider, congress has the power to regulate (to make regular or the same) between the states. Obama-Pelosi-Reid had the power for two years to reform voting law for the entire nation as they saw fit.

          You’ll have to take this up with JAC:

          The Fed Govt has NO AUTHORITY to determine election requirements or methods within a State.

          After all the outrage over the 2004 recount

          What outrage was that?

    • Hello AndyFlorida and welcome. Not up on computer things so sorry you were kicked into moderation for a while. Not sure what reblogging is about but you are welcome to freely use anything I have written. Hope you will join in and comment here, some great people frequent the site, most a lot smarter than me. (not Matt, of course, he thinks he’s a pirate)

    • Mathius™ says:

      Ooh, look, we’re getting attention beyond our little madhouse asylum!

      Andy, come, stay awhile.. Staaay forever!

      • Sssshhhh! You’re going to scare Andy away. Staaaay forever reminds me of the Comcast commercial where the cultish neighbors say “We aaaaaallll buuuunddllee”. 🙂

        • Mathius™ says:

          Who me? Why would anyone be scared off by me? I’m as lovable as a teddy bear.

          “Staaay forever” is from an old video game on the Commodor 64.

  47. Delphi, a General Motors company, is one of the world’s largest automotive parts manufacturers. When the government bailed out GM, 20,000 Delphi workers lost nearly their entire pensions. But Delphi employees who were members of the United Auto Workers union saw their pensions topped off and made whole.

    D13: This is the left’s idea of fairness.

    • Buon Giorno, Colonel, from Pluto.

      No, the left’s (the actual left–not the So-called “liberal” democrats”) idea of fairness would’ve been to nationalize the industry and make damn sure EVERYBODY had a pension … and that the geniuses who put the company into the position it was in prior to the bailout (the CEO’s who earn millions while complaining about workers seeking cost of living adjustments and pensions) would’ve been fired and replaced with new management that earns very little more than the grunts in the field.

      And cannoli for everybody!

    • Emails obtained by The Daily Caller show that the U.S. Treasury Department, led by Timothy Geithner, was the driving force behind terminating the pensions of 20,000 salaried retirees at the Delphi auto parts manufacturing company.

      The move, made in 2009 while the Obama administration implemented its auto bailout plan, appears to have been made solely because those retirees were not members of labor unions.

      The internal government emails contradict sworn testimony, in federal court and before Congress, given by several Obama administration figures. They also indicate that the administration misled lawmakers and the courts about the sequence of events surrounding the termination of those non-union pensions, and that administration figures violated federal law.

      Delphi, a 13-year old company that is independent of General Motors, is one of the world’s largest automotive parts manufacturers. Twenty thousand of its workers lost nearly their entire pensions when the government bailed out GM. At the same time, Delphi employees who were members of the United Auto Workers union saw their pensions topped off and made whole.

      The White House and Treasury Department have consistently maintained that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) independently made the decision to terminate the 20,000 non-union Delphi workers’ pension plan. The PBGC is a federal government agency that handles private-sector pension benefits issues. Its charter calls for independent representation of pension beneficiaries’ interests.

      Former Treasury official Matthew Feldman and former White House auto czar Ron Bloom, both key members of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry during the GM bailout, have testified under oath that the PBGC, not the administration, led the effort to terminate the non-union Delphi workers’ pension plan.

      “As a result of the Delphi Corporation bankruptcy, for example, Delphi and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation were forced to terminate Delphi’s pension plans, which means there are Delphi retirees who unfortunately will collect less than their full pension benefits,” Feldman testified on July 11, 2012.

      The emails TheDC has obtained show that the Treasury Department, not the independent PBGC, was running the show.

      Under 29 U.S.C. §1342, the PBGC is the only government entity that is legally empowered to initiate termination of a pension or make any official movements toward doing so.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/07/emails-geithner-treasury-drove-cutoff-of-non-union-delphi-workers-pensions/#ixzz22xxlzqtz

  48. charlieopera says:

    @Homophobes … how ’bout those Eagle scouts handing in their Boy Scout cards and saying “shove it, haters!”

    I look forward to when the boy scouts of Ameri-cha are reduced to the nazi’s their leadership appear to be and start wearing their swastikas … 🙂

    • Jeez, you just get wackier and wackier on this one! Again. is it better for inner city kids, suburban kids, rural kids that the scouts and their positive program and message disappear from the planet or not? Who will provide the new role model in their absence, you?

      Create your own damned scouts and stop your bitching.

      • charlieopera says:

        I’m having fun, Stephen … but you make a good point. I should create my own scouts. The SUFS scouts of America. One problem: Kids get on my nerves.

        The other message the scouts are sending, by the way, isn’t so positive: Discrimination is okay. Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, wrong.

        • Well. the message that Troop 27 sends is that we respect all people no matter their differences until and unless they impact others. On the God/Atheism issue, I have run into a scout or two on the eagle trail where, without actually coming out and saying it, I have followed the don’t ask, don’t tell format just encouraging them to keep their beliefs to themselves. Go public at your own peril.

          Kids are fun. Watching them grow and mature, assume leadership roles, watch them interact with younger kids and learn to “set the example”. I could never be a teacher, I’d be up on charges the first time a kid raised a hand at me or cursed me. But, being an occasional scout leader is quite satisfying.

          Since the statute of limitation is up now I can confess to having decked a kid. I pulled two 16 year olds off each other who were in a disagreement. In my best Father O’Malley Mr. Chips, Fred MacMurray way, I intervened trying to explain that this is not the “scout way”. One took a shot at me and without even thinking, I dropped him with a hard right to the gut. Since it was after dark and at a camporee attended by several thousand scouts, I slunk off into the shadows hearing him say , in surprised moan, “A leader hit me!” I’m generally an upstanding kinda guy but I’d rather not get into a he said, he said argument on that one. Take a punch at me at your own risk. I’m not particularly good but for some reason I am fast.

        • Charlie, maybe the message you just don’t get, the Boy Scouts are not about sex. They don’t offer merit badges for any sexual activity. They don’t offer sex-ed. Anyone that tries to bring sex into the Boy Scouts is rejected. I think most parents prefer organizations that are anti-sex. You want you kid to learn about sex, you take him to whatever strip club you want. Just don’t expect to see a Boy Scout troop there!

          • Who is talking about teaching kids about sex or making the Boy Scouts about sex? Why is it that if, horrors of horrors, there was a gay scout (or gay leader) the scouts would suddenly be all about sex and sexual activity?

            • Buck, there almost have to be gay’s in the scouts. What chance is there that no (ZERO) scouts are not sexually active? None of that is recognized as a scouting activity. If they come out, they are making their sexual activity public. A scout master might be a male stripper. If he keeps it private, it’s not an issue? I think their viewpoint is if you publicly define yourself in a sexual manner, they do not want your agenda brought into their organization…. I will admit, I have not researched this, so could be way off base. They may ask sexual orientation questions before accepting them as scout masters. 4H did not ask any such question, just ran a background check each time I certified.

  49. @Buck, Good Morning wise lawyer 🙂

    I’ll try to explain the best I can without writing a book. The Sikhs are not Muslim or Middle Eastern. Basically they are caucasians from India (Indians). The shooter was in the Army and worked in the field of Psychology. He would know, that the Sikhs, are not a target of White Supremists. In short, him being a White Supremist is a non-issue (except for the media and those that control them). In early reports, witnesses (who have been silenced) reported 4 shooters. But for now, you have a dead shooter, who recently broke up with his girlfriend, who is said to be a White Supremist, who attacked a religious group of people, of caucasian origin.

    The Media is focussing on the White Supremecy and veteran issues (most likely because that’s what the DHS wants). The shooter, disturbed by a breakup with a girlfriend and an alcoholic, lost it and went on a rampage. But the media (and government) wants to lead everyone down a different road (fear white supremists and veterens).

    Note: The Colorado shooter looks like he is totally stoned in court. It has been reported by those inside the jail he is being held that he has no recollection of the shooting ( he has been compared to Sirhan Sirhan, as far as how he is acting). His parents were involved in DARPA as well.

    All of this is following a pattern. This is just the beginning. (remember, I’m batshit crazy 🙂 ). The next event(s) will be far worse.

  50. PET PEEVE:

    Calling out someone as a HOMOPHOBE.

    Google search, first definition: Homophobe:a person who hates or fears homosexual people

    I doubt anyone here at SUFA HATES or FEARS homosexuals. Myself, I don’t AGREE with the lifestyle. I do, however have several gay friends, and have a great time with them. But I don’t HATE or FEAR them. Could we come up with a different word?

    • I think Mathius had coined a new term somewhere above. What was it again?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Anita

      One of mine, being called anti-Semite because one doesn’t support Israel’s behavior or policies.

      Or, Islamophobe because one can see how the religion is designed to support conquest and conversion.

      • Mathius™ says:

        The thing I never understood is that Semite is a racial identification. I’m Jewish, but I’m not a Semite. So antisemitism is a racial designation. If you were against the Jews, you should be anti-Jewish or a Jewphobe or a misjew or some other such term.

        That said, lack of support for Israel does not necessarily equate to lack of support / hatred of Jews. Some people are easily confused by this concept. Try not to let it bother you.

        Or, Islamophobe because one can see how the religion is designed to support conquest and conversion. So is Christianity. What’s your point? *cough* crusades *cough*

  51. charlieopera says:

    When someone claims homosexuality is a choice, they’re homophobic in my book. Gman, care to comment?

    • Mathius™ says:

      Eh.. in my book, “misinformed” would be a better descriptor.

      • charlieopera says:

        I want to agree, except … what is the basis of their misinformed opinion? Choice suggests (to me) they believe homosexuality isn’t “normal” (see Gman) … that suggests (again to me), less than … something to fear, etc…. but I’m probably too emotional …:)

        Speaking of emotion and the Penn State sanctions and rational thought … a guy goes to jail for swindling (embezzlement, etc.) and thus his family (all innocents) suffer the economic consequence of his incarceration (same for murderers, etc.) … they did nothing wrong. Why must they suffer? That kind of “rational thought” can extend to the outer limits of absurdity (or, if you will, bizzarness) …

        Anybody see Olympic lifting this week? (to quote a cartoon character wrestler from back in the day): “Iran, number vone!” (in the SHW division). Mattius (not you) Steiner had some accident … lucky to be alive.

        http://deadspin.com/5932575/weightlifter-matthias-steiner-dropped-432-pounds-on-the-back-of-his-head-somehow-got-back-up

        • Oh, great arbiter of all that is true and untrue. How exactly do you know that it is NEVER a choice? Does not that put you right up there with those who said before the 1970’s that it is ALWAYS a choice. The reality is that it is either/or. You completely ignore societal pressure or mental instability. Go ahead, tell me there are no mentally unstable gay people you have met. But then again, what is unstable? Perhaps it is merely a different way of looking at things?

          I think the word is hubris. “I KNOW BETTER!!” or maybe you emulate that Sherman Helmsley voiced character from the old “Dinosaurs” TV show, “Because we say so!!!”

          Don’t have very much faith in your fellow man do you?

          • Mathius™ says:

            Oh, great arbiter of all that is true and untrue. Whoa whoa whoa! That’s MY title!

            How exactly do you know that it is NEVER a choice? Who said “never”? Not me? Just not always. And, probably, a small percentage of the time. I mean, why would you choose to join a persecuted minority? If you had the “choice” and were living in the ’60’s, would you “choose” to be black or white?

            Don’t have very much faith in your fellow man do you? Nope. No, sir, I don’t.

            • ..small percentage of the time….

              and getting larger by the minute. Wait til your daughter is a teenager. I have been forced to deal with MTVs Real Life…talk about ridiculous! Those folks were not ALL born to screw whatever is human and walks. Girls today, guys tomorrow, or girls and guys all together..those kids are duplicating the stuff they see from places like SF or wherever the PRIDE roams. They CHOOSE to do what they think is cool. Check back with them in 20 yrs and see how many regret what they did back in the day.

              ..and then I hear the stories from the middle school crowd..where guys on guys or girls on girls getting it on (sounds like just heavy petting) in the hallways is an everyday occurence. You can’t believe that they were all born that way!

              It’s more than a small percentage. and the way that crowd pushes and nudges all the time..it will be mainstream soon. Talk about population control!

              • Bravo, we can see it here in NJ too. Just like the Clinton oral sex deal, monkey see, monkey do, especially if it is perceived as cool. The joy of oldness is not the creaky joints in the morning, it is the fun of seeing different but repetitive behavior from “lost” souls. I can’t tell you how many people I knew in the ’60’s who were against the war or for civil rights who knew nothing, nothing about the issues. It was just cool to be on the downtrodden side to the point where the downtrodden became the ones doing the trodding on everyone else. But of course, all right thinking people everywhere know that that NEVER happens.

                Using the Christian analogy again. When the Roman Empire recognized and adopted Christianity, it became the Christians burning the pagans at the stake for a while.

            • Not you Matt, this time, it’s for Charlie. If you don’t have faith in your fellow man, well, that’s what makes you dangerous. You’re up there with Robespierre then.

              And, believe it or not, it’s fun to be a persecuted minority for some folks. Outside of giving them, finally, a sense of belonging to a group, they can “stand” for something. All things being equal, why would a reasonably sane, intelligent human being choose to cover themselves with tattoos and piercings which, c’mon, let’s be real here, cut their options in life pretty thin.

              When “Barabbas” with Anthony Quinn premiered, I was taken with his end of movie conversion to Christianity, for all the wrong reasons.

  52. @ Buck. I haven’t gone off the cliff at all. I wrote an article long ago about how the media spins things to make the sheeple believe what they want them to believe. Based on that article, I have trained myself to see through their lies and call them out. I was right about it when they called Zimmerman a racist, and I was right about the arizona shooter too! This is just another case of exploiting an event by making it something it is not for political reasons.

    @Charlie, I too have some gay friends. They do not scare me, and in fact, have told me that they do not hit on non-gay people. Most of them have also told me they prefer the gay lifestyle (some were previously married and have kids) . That is choice in my book. However, it really don’t matter to me, homosexuals can live as they choose, I don’t even care if they get married. They should have equal rights under the law. But I can’t change the religious folks who are against it either, they are entitled to their beliefs and opinions too!

    • Mathius™ says:

      But I can’t change the religious folks who are against it either, they are entitled to their beliefs and opinions too!

      They are….

      But they’re not entitled to use those beliefs and opinions to impose on others.

      • Neither is the other side,,,,Sir Mathius.

        By the way,,,,I had a call the other day…said you were a neo nazi homophobe…..Is this true? 🙂

        • I took up for you though….I told them that you may be a blithering idiot who is brain damaged by In n Out burgers and Red Bull andyou were friends with the Walla….but in NO WAY were you a homophobe…..or neo nazi….( I did not tell them about your goose stepping drills while trying to find the cheerleaders).

        • Mathius™ says:

          neither is the other side True, but OUR side is trying to stop THEIR side from telling people what to do. THEIR side is trying to control people’s lives. If someone tried to pass a law that you, D13, must wear a bowler hat, and a different person tried to stop that law, then it wouldn’t be an imposition by the second person to try to protect your freedom to live your bowler-hat-free lifestyle choice.

          said you were a neo nazi homophobe…..Is this true? Does that mean I hate / fear gay neo nazis? Sure, I guess…

          Or does that mean I am a neo nazi who hates / fears gay people… because then, no.

          But I sure do hate/hear raptors. Does that make me a misraptor (mis = hate, raptor = raptor.. ‘ hater of raptors’).

          • Personally I think the Colonel would look good with a bowler hat…I think I’ll get to work on drafting that law.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Remember my post about the city law requiring businesses to allow opposite sex to use the other’s restroom if they IDENTIFY with that sex?

            If that is not a law to impose your sides views on the majority then what is it? It has nothing to do with equal access to govt privileges or immunities.

            • Mathius™ says:

              I do not support that law. I happen to agree with the principle / idea behind it, but that doesn’t make it a good law.

              However, by the same logic, I do not support the inverse law (ie, that ONLY men can use the male restroom and ONLY women can use the female restroom).. insofar as there is a law, the former is better, however, I think that a privately owned bathroom should operate according to rules established by the owner of that bathroom.

              That said, we’re not talking about this (stupid) law. We’re talking about marriage. And for marriage, one side wants the freedom and equality of being able to do the same thing as everyone else. And the other said, wants to control / restrict what the other is allowed to do. While I freely admit that “gay rights” advocates have overreached in places (see your example), the reality of the situation is that they are oppressed and discriminated against by a powerful majority. They may overreach is places, and I think it tremendously harms their cause, but in most instances, they just want you (royal you, not you personally) to stop imposing on them.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                No, we are talking about one side using Govt Law to impose its beliefs on the “others”.

                That sword slices both directions.

                Gays are “oppressed”??

                That is a broad statement you are assigning to an entire group and society as a whole. Sorry but I don’t see that at all.

    • Am I a ‘Homophobe’?
      By Karen Norling

      Can a person with close friends who are homosexuals be called a “homophobe” if she thinks homosexual behavior is wrong?

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/am_i_a_homophobe.html#ixzz22y6XyVcu

      • Aaallllright! Good article. How do you always come up with current articles that match the beef of the day? 😉

        • Have become a newshound… I start with Fox in the AM, go online, newsbusters(a lot of humor there), then Drudge, Daily Caller, American Thinker and Canada Free Press. Somewhere in there I check out SUFA.

          I think the whole ‘Homophobe’ thing is PC intolerance. Consider what you can’t call a crazy person today, nut, psyco, must not offend the deranged… So if you accept homosexuality and agree it’s legal, should be treated the same as marriage, etc, but think it’s a “choice” people make, not “natural”, you’re still a ‘Homophobe’? If you find blonds more attractive, is it choice or “natural”? And what’s next on the demands on accepting homosexuals? Do we all have to bend over at least once and become “bi-sexual” to prove we aren’t a ‘Homophobe’? Sorry, but no way! I’ve been called much worse. And as the article points out, the name calling shuts down communication. To me, a ‘Homophobe’ is going to be a vocal opponent to any/all gay issues, calling for their oppression.

  53. Sorry to inform the world that John Conyers, John Dingell, Debbie Stabenaw and Pete Hoekstra have all won their primaries yesterday. And the madness continues….

  54. Mathius says: ” but OUR side is trying to stop THEIR side from telling people what to do.”

    D13…..(picture hysterical laughing)…….Bull dookey…………The one thing that I have noticed in all the back and forth is that….the ones using the term bigot in referring to someone else……is themselves a bigot.

    If I wear a bowler hat……would I have an insatiable desire for tea and crumpets?

    • You just might. But only if you forego the cane.

      • Hmmmm…..forego the cane, huh…..If I wore a bowler hat in Texas, I would need more than a cane.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          No shit!

          Good morning Colonel. Hope all is well in the Republic.

          Was hoping that little storm in the Gulf would direct some rain your way but its looking like a fizzle. Maybe the next one!

          Weather here has gone schizophrenic. From 80’s to 102 and now back to low 80’s and 70’s. Summer thunder storms now starting fires all over the place. Bug killed trees all over the place. It could get interesting over the next three weeks.

          • @ JAC……When a H pressure area settles over this part of the country….it takes a lot to move it. A cat 4 would remove it..but that little wind in the gulf is no more than a flea fart. We need rain badly….

        • We all know you employ a minimum of 3 raptor-guards at any given time. I think you’ll be fine.

          • Have a proposition for you…..

            Buck comes to Texas dressed in tweed suit, bowler hat with cane and monocle, goes to restaurant and orders fish n chips and a pint.

            D13 goes to New Jersey in western style suit, Stetson (cattlemen’s cut), full quill Ostrich skin boots and orders fajitas and a marguerita.

            The winner is the one that gets back home…….alive.

            • I think I’d win that one — I can be pretty damn charming if I do say so myself.

              Plus, I’d offer everyone else a pint as well to be on the safe side…

            • Mathius™ says:

              Where in Jersey?

              Danger Will Robinson I was never really a fan of Lost in Space.. didn’t really do anything for me.

    • Mathius™ says:

      D13,

      the ones using the term bigot in referring to someone else……is themselves a bigot.

      So I’m a bigot for calling people bigots when they show intolerance for an entire class of people based on no evidence or logic?

      I’m a bigot for calling people bigots when they advocate laws to arbitrarily restrict the rights of one class of people while allowing others to enjoy those rights unencumbered?

      I’m a bigot for calling it bigotry when someone suggests that homosexuals should have “separate but equal” clubs like the boy scouts?

      No, sir, I think not.

    • Mathius™ says:

      How did we establish that he’s a “liberal”?

      Is it that he supports abortion? Because I’m pretty sure that there are plenty of conservatives who do too.

      Is it that he’s brown skinned? I mean, there aren’t a lot of those in the republican party these days but still….

      Is it that he’s clearly not born in America? Because I know sometimes conservatives confuse ‘liberal’ with ‘foreign’..

      When he’s ranting about not wanting to pay taxes, does that sound like a “liberal” stance to you or a Tea Party stance?

      No question that he’s a piece of shit, but I humbly submit that he’s a conservative piece of shit, not a liberal one.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Two comments on GMans link that have relevance to society. They have a large Ring of Truth to them. Some may not like that notion but the debate should not be over its truth but its nature and magnitude.

      libertyorslavery says:
      August 8, 2012 at 7:44 am

      The most powerful element in the dynamic of abortion politically is that it separated women from their core spiritual inclination to be mothers… and to protect… children and by doing so they were the font of any society’s moral structure.

      Their is a quote of a famous Britain forget which … Who says that when a society’s women lose their moral sense…that society is in deep decay.

      Women were targeted… By a group who sees itself as outside of society…a racist force in itself…and as fulfilling exact words in their holy books.

      Positively that group too is waking up and… young women too are realizing the mind control on this issue that they were subjected to.

      It was a level of abuse of our daughters that is as ugly an event… as any in history in its cold calculated malevolency.

      TBL10 Reply:
      August 8th, 2012 at 8:31 am

      @libertyorslavery Your statement is very true. Satan knew what he was doing in the very beginning, that is why he tempted Eve and not Adam. Furthermore, later he tainted the gene pool through women when the sons of god came to earth and begot children with them. In the 1920′s women came under attack through Madison Avenue propaganda by Edward Bernays. Women never smoked before Bernays came along and used Hollywood to promote through film that if you were a woman smoking was cool. In today’s society the Jezebel spirit has taken its toll on women as well through Feminism. Every day women act more and more like a man and not a woman. In the best days of this country children got their work ethic form their fathers and their morals from their mother. Can we honestly say that this the case anymore. We are looking at a total collapse of society.

      • Mathius™ says:

        And a woman’s place is in the kitchen!

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          As usual, an absurd leap in your arguments. What’s the matter? Can’t handle the truth?

          • Mathius™ says:

            Kaffee: Mr. J. A. Citizen, did you order the Code Red?
            Judge Wala: You *don’t* have to answer that question!
            JAC: I’ll answer the question!
            [to Mathius]
            JAC: You want answers?
            Mathius: I think I’m entitled to answers.
            Col. Jessep:*You want answers?
            Mathius: I want the truth!
            JAC: You can’t handle the truth!

      • JAC, The decay of our society has been going on for awhile. Many of us see it and it’s causes, others ignore the facts and call those like me names, like homophobe and racist. I’m not totally sure where this will lead us in the future, as I can only guess, but I see nothing good coming of it. Unfortunately there are far to many BLISSFUL people 😦

        • Mathius™ says:

          Don’t worry, be happy!

          Change does not necessarily equate to decay. I think things are much better these days than they were when you were a pup.

        • Mathius, When I was a pup we didn’t have a rust belt (cuz we had steel mills operating day and night). We had a great auto industry in the Detroit area (have you seen Detroit lately?). Teenage pregnancy was shameful and I never knew of any in school. Youngs kids could have lemonade stands on hot summer days, public swimming pools were full of hot swimmers trying to cool off, not factions of gangs trying to gain control of that part of the hood. Having a job at age 16 was common, we didn’t have video games and 300 channels on TV to make us couch potatoes. Neighbors respected each other, had bar-b-ques, and helped care for one another when bad storms hit. While we have much more technology, we have less tolerance on the highways, far more crime and an entire class of people dependent on the government teat. Things are NOT better than when I was a pup, and back then you still weren’t swimming around in your fathers testicles yet, so, claiming things are better now is not to bright 🙂

          • Mathius™ says:

            Yes. Things were much better then.

            Unless you were black.

            Or a woman.

            Or if you had cancer.

            Or if you were gay.

            Or if you were laid off.

            Or if you were old without children.

            Or if you were disabled.

            But, you know, if you were a straight white male with a stable job and good health, it was an awesome time to be alive!

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              I thought you were one of those Greater Good folks. You know, “On balance” Society is better off…….. blah, blah, blah.

              So given your own criteria………YES, things were better back then.

              I object to your inclusion of “woman” and “laid off” on your list. With respect to women you are projecting the progressive/NOW view of womanhood on all women.

              Laid off: You could usually find another job in a few days or weeks. And the Govt would only take about 5% from your paycheck.

            • BS my friend, pure BS. With the exception of the race issue which I happen to agree was a national disgrace, all your other “issues” were crap. There was NO inflation. Social Security lasted and when there was actual industry in this country there were benefits that went with those jobs. I remember my dad’s plan for retirement where his health care was taken care of through union benefits and the cost was minimal to boot. Nobody was ever turned away from a hospital and private charity took the place of government.

            • charlieopera says:

              Bingo, but don’t bang your head against the wall, Matt … they will see what they want to see … everything Fair and Balanced (sound familiar?) …

              Oy friggin’ vey …

          • Mathius, The elderly were cared for by family and friends, and many had SS. There was very little racism in the early/mid 70’s, at least where I grew up. Layoffs were rare, but we had unemployment benefits (not much though). Jobs were plentyful till I hit 10th grade, that’s when the rust belt was born, Carter was President and Iran had the hostages from the U.S. embassy. Things went down hill after Carter was elected, hence why I say he was a horrible President. Homosexuality was not a subject of discussion back then. THe mob was on the verge of being taken down by the law, only to be replaced by gangs who are much more violent (and mostly minorities). Soon, the birth of the welfare queen came to be. Archie Bunker made racism look stupid, M*A*S*H helped stop the hatred of our vets from the hippy drug addict left wingers who were balless cowards.

            Today, our inner cities are shitholes run by gangs, our politicians are openly corrupt, your treated like a criminal just to get on a plane and if you believe in freedom, for some reason, some people think you are dangerous. Yep, things were great back in the day. Not so much now, no jobs, many have no hope much less any change in their pocket. I doubt you have struggled Mathius, but your time will come, all of us struggle at some point.

            • Ooooh, this looks like FUN!

              Things went down hill after Carter was elected, hence why I say he was a horrible President.

              And you’re still clinging to the same faulty “cause-n-effect” logic now, as you did in the 10th grade???? That explains a lot!!

              Homosexuality was not a subject of discussion back then.

              Right – if we just ignore them, they’ll go away!!

              THe mob was on the verge of being taken down by the law, only to be replaced by gangs who are much more violent (and mostly minorities).

              Oh yeah, the mob was so much better because they “weren’t minorities”…

              Archie Bunker made racism look stupid

              And my favorite! Except you have it backwards:

              Archie Bunker didn’t make racism look stupid.

              Racism made Archie Bunker look stupid.

              And racism still does that to people today. Something to think about…

            • Mathius™ says:

              The elderly were cared for by family and friends, and many had SS. Social Security? THAT’S SOCIALLISM!

              There was very little racism in the early/mid 70′s Because those lazy n****gers knew their place, dagnamit!

              at least where I grew up. Well then you didn’t grow up in Mississippi or Alabama then…

              Homosexuality was not a subject of discussion back then. Because those f****ts knew to say in the closet where they belonged!

              M*A*S*H OK.. I’ll give you MASH.. that was a great show. Alan Alda is hysterical. (Adding, the actor who played Winchester recently came out of the closet.. go figure, huh?) It’s a shame about Harry Morgan.. I really liked him too (in Dragnet as well). And, oh man, did I ever have a crush on Loretta Swit..

              Today […] our politicians are openly corrupt Riiight.. because corruption is a new invention…

              if you believe in freedom, for some reason, some people think you are dangerous As opposed to back then, when if you believed in freedom [for minorities, women, homosexuals, or foreigners], some people would have thought you were dangerous… and then you probably would have had an ‘accident’ or someone would have burned a cross on your lawn.

              Not so much now, no jobs A temporary situation brought about by 30 years of Reganomics. I assure you that we’re working to repair your damage.

              I doubt you have struggled Mathius I guess we’ll just skip over the part where I spent my first 15 years or so being routinely tortured by a sadistic sociopath…

              • See, it is FUN! 🙂

                But you have to pick and choose which stupid statements to respond to – because there are just too many to do all at once…

            • charlieopera says:

              There was very little racism in the early/mid 70′s, at least where I grew up.

              Where did you grow up, under your couch?

              Tell me you’re joking, Gman.

  55. Just A Citizen says:

    Just listened to an Obama Campaign rep distance the campaign from the latest Super Pac adv. that links Romney to killing some guys wife because he shut down a steel plant when with Bane.

    The adv was repugnant enough that the media actually did some checking and found it grossly FALSE in its claims. But that is not the point I wish to make.

    Citizens United and its affect on Super Pacs has been a campaign issue for Obama all year. It is a tool to inflame his base and try and win over a few Independents. In the past month there were attacks on Romney’s Super Pac for making false allegations and calls for Romney to “personally” chastise the Super Pac.

    So now that Obama’s spokeslady has argued that campaigns have no control or association with Super Pacs and therefore need not respond to them, will the Main Stream MEDIA call them hypocrites when they attack Romney next time?????

    Anyone want to place bets on the answer?

  56. Just A Citizen says:

    Want to understand the type of thinking that drives the “P”rogressive Movement? Pay attention to the economic argument presented by this “University Professor”. Some articles simply deserve complete reproduction:

    Some People Take Robert Frank Seriously — and They Live in Afghanistan
    By Joseph Salerno
    Sunday, August 5th, 2012

    Robert Frank is a Cornell University economist who has written a series of books and articles kvetching about the enormous social damage allegedly wrought by competition in American life.

    One of Frank’s more remarkable arguments is that “expenditure cascades” initiated by the rich have “caused undue harm to others.” An example of such harm occurs in bidding for a house in a superior school district. Frank’s story goes something like this. In the U.S., the best schools are usually located in more expensive neighborhoods, mainly because local property taxes fund a lion’s share of a school’s budget. In order to get its children into a school of average or better quality, therefore, a family must outbid at least one-half of the families with children of school age for a house in a more expensive neighborhood. This is a matter of simple arithmetic, as Frank admits, because half of all schools must be of average or lower quality. But this is meaningful nonetheless, he argues, because school quality is defined in a relative sense: a “good school” generally means one that compares favorably to others. Thus prices of homes in more expensive neighborhoods with better schools get driven up even further. But such consumption spending is purely wasteful. Like a military arms race, the spending by the competitors does not change their relative positions: one-half of all students will still attend above-average schools and the other half will be trapped in below average schools

    But how do the rich figure into all this? They exacerbate the problem of expensive neighborhoods by unleashing an expenditure cascade on society. You see, the top earners in the U.S., who, according to Frank, have captured the largest share of income gains for the past three decades, have been purchasing larger and more expensive homes. Now this would be okay, or at least not socially harmful in itself, except that this behavior “shifts the frame of reference” for those of slightly lesser means moving in the same social circles as the rich. These almost, nearly, wannabe rich begin to feel that they too must now build larger homes to maintain their social position. And so the frenzy of spending on over-sized housing cascades downward to the upper- and middle-middle classes who rush to build McMansions. Of course, no one is any happier though because — you guessed it — relative housing sizes and social positions of the various classes have not changed much. The only effect of the expenditure cascade is an enormous waste of scarce resources which could have been used to improve social welfare but have been irretrievably sunk in unwanted and underused housing capacity.

    Frank here invokes John Stuart Mill’s harm principle — government can legitimately restrain people only when their actions cause undue harm to others. He uses Mill’s principle as a scientific cloak for his Ivy League professor’s value judgment that the housing expenditure cascade launched by the rich not only is wasteful but has ”unduly harmed” middle-class families. According to Frank, existing property rights, which include the existing tax laws, therefore violate Mill’s principle and must be reformed to encourage an efficient use of resources. In particular, a steeply progressive consumption tax that starts out at 10 percent and rises to a marginal rate of 100 percent — that’s right 100 percent — would suppress these wasteful expenditure cascades. Furthermore, Frank opines, while inducing the wealthy to build smaller mansions, it would leave them just as happy as under the earlier tax regime, because after some point it is the relative mansion size that matters.

    These pernicious and self-defeating expenditure cascades have also been loosed on society by the rich in other areas such as weddings, for example, where the inflation-adjusted average cost of a U.S. wedding has tripled in from 1980 to 2007. Of course a middle class family victimized by the expenditure cascades could have refused to make bigger and better weddings, Frank concedes. But in this case, he laments, “it can do so only by disappointing loved ones, or by courting the impression that it failed to appreciate the importance of the occasion they were celebrating.”

    And this brings us to Afghanistan. Last year, the Afghan Justice Ministry proposed a law aimed at preventing Frankian expenditure cascades in the size and lavishness of weddings. For example at some weddings hosted by wealthy Afghan families there are one thousand guests and brides change their outfits ten times. This sets an example for and puts pressure on poorer Afghan families to throw more lavish wedding receptions and some are driven into debt, while the children of others are discouraged from marrying. The law would limit the maximum the number of wedding guests to 300 and the amount of money spent per guest to $5. In addition the bride would be permitted only one engagement party dress and one wedding dress. The law would also set up wedding committees to police compliance and these would include members of the Religious Ministry. Such committees are reminiscent of the committees set up by the former Taliban rulers to ensure adherence to Shari’a Law that banned dancing and music at weddings. This may be one of the reasons why over a year later the law still has not been enacted by the Afghan Parliament. But even if the law is not a cover for re-imposing the Taliban’s draconian restrictions on weddings and other aspects of Afghan civil society as some fear, it would still mandate government involvement in the most intimate details of planning for every wedding, such as counting the number of guests, approving the attire of the the bride-to-be, and monitoring costs.

    As one young Aghan law student protested: ”I am against monitoring weddings. It is inadmissible to interfere into either the personal or family affairs of people.” To that I say, “Amen.” Now it is of little consequence whether lavish weddings are discouraged by Talibanesque police squads or Frankian 100-percent marginal rate consumption taxes, and whether such polices are designed to ”protect” poor rural Afghan families from incurring too much debt or to enforce the pseudo-scientific social welfare standard of “avoiding undue harm” fancied by Robert Frank. The plain truth is that these policies constitute an attempt to forcibly impose the arbitrary values of an arrogant and self-appointed intellectual elite on the most intensely private affairs of the productive majority who are choosing to spend their money according to their own preferences and personal welfare evaluations.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Sorry, stopped after the first paragraph when I decided this guy was full of sh*t.

      If I understand the gist, it goes something like this: Being rich and spending lavishly harms others because it makes them feel like they have to compete and they spend themselves into oblivion trying to do so. To that end, having an expensive house in a good school district makes less wealthy people want into the neighborhood so they can gain access to the school (sort of a prisoner’s-dilemma-in-reverse problem) so as to be “above average.” Because the wealthy can outspend the poor, they drive up the price (scarcity problem), which forces the poor to over-extend themselves. This despite the implication that ‘below average’ education is really just fine and only reason they want the higher caliber education is because people judge merit on a relative basis. Did I get that right? ::sigh::

      Yes. There is some truth in there. But sadly, all the truth was smothered to death in the avalanche of stupid.

      “Progressive” is a big tent. Just like “conservative” is a big tent. Just because there are some crazy people in my tent doesn’t mean we’re wrong – it means he’s crazy. Similarly, with stark raving lunatics like BF in your tent, we can’t adjudge the whole of’ conservatism’ to be nuts.. just his portion. My two cents.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        You are so funny at times. Trying to claim BF is somehow part of the “conservative” group! How freaking funny.

        Here is more from the same fella, one of the “P” intelligentsia.

        Who was the greater economist–Adam Smith or Charles Darwin? The question seems absurd. Darwin, after all, was a naturalist, not an economist. But Robert Frank, New York Times economics columnist and best-selling author of The Economic Naturalist, predicts that within the next century Darwin will unseat Smith as the intellectual founder of economics. The reason, Frank argues, is that Darwin’s understanding of competition describes economic reality far more accurately than Smith’s. And the consequences of this fact are profound. Indeed, the failure to recognize that we live in Darwin’s world rather than Smith’s is putting us all at risk by preventing us from seeing that competition alone will not solve our problems.

        Smith’s theory of the invisible hand, which says that competition channels self-interest for the common good, is probably the most widely cited argument today in favor of unbridled competition–and against regulation, taxation, and even government itself. But what if Smith’s idea was almost an exception to the general rule of competition? That’s what Frank argues, resting his case on Darwin’s insight that individual and group interests often diverge sharply. Far from creating a perfect world, economic competition often leads to “arms races,” encouraging behaviors that not only cause enormous harm to the group but also provide no lasting advantages for individuals, since any gains tend to be relative and mutually offsetting.

        The good news is that we have the ability to tame the Darwin economy. The best solution is not to prohibit harmful behaviors but to tax them. By doing so, we could make the economic pie larger, eliminate government debt, and provide better public services, all without requiring painful sacrifices from anyone. That’s a bold claim, Frank concedes, but it follows directly from logic and evidence that most people already accept.

        Sounds like a Progressive to me.

  57. Just A Citizen says:

    The following provides two point for consideration.

    1. An example of an Anarchist state, or nearly so, that was successful.

    2. Why there are no examples existing today. And it is not because they fail on their own.

    http://mises.org/daily/6145/Anarchy-in-the-Aachen

  58. Just A Citizen says:

    D13

    Colonel, if you haven’t seen this already I thought you might be interested. Cleaning up Agent Orange in Viet Nam.

    http://www.kgw.com/news/world/165395296.html

  59. Mathius…Buck,
    Where were you guys this afternoon? 🙂

    This is just too funny!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/mitt-romney-orthodox-jews_n_1757479.html

  60. Just A Citizen says:

    The myths of the health care debate. I suggest you take time to read and ponder.

    “This theme of hiding costs is consistent throughout the progressive march to bigger and bigger government. Step number one, present great “benefits” you will bestow on the populace and present them as if you are nicer people than the other side who want to deny these benefits. Step two, hide the costs, either through the complexities of the tax system, or more overtly through off-the-books regulation like ObamaCare. Step three, continue to advance the progressive myth that if government provides something, or mandates something, it’s “free.” Step four, get the people hooked on the freebie until they are too scared to give it up even if it costs them well more than it’s worth to them. Step five, move on to destroying the next part of our economy and freedom.”

    Full Article:

    http://www.american.com/archive/2012/june/the-healthcare-myths-we-must-confront

  61. I wonder…….has anyone on here, besides myself, read the Affordable Health Care Act……in its entirety ( not once, not twice, but three times)….put a pencil to it…???

    To those of you and especially Buck……do you see or even believe that the Affordable Health Care Act will raise the taxes of the middle and poor class, 14% ….the over 250K class by 22%? Do you even know where all the taxes are? Buck, you should be especially aware since you are in the estate planning business…..especially the sur taxes.

    No, I will not provide links……..read the damn Act. It is very scary.

%d bloggers like this: