Open Mic Part 16

thX7JY7UCKWinter just keeps hanging on up North as another cold spell takes over.   The good part about a cold winter….less bugs in the summer!  Look, I found a baby picture of Anita!  🙂

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Gmanfortruth says:

    😎

    • Just realized you put my baby pic up! I’m honored 😎

      • Gmanfortruth says:

        It fits the moment 🙂

        Making Cajun sausage today with beef, venison and pork. One of the recipes in new cookbook. Just got one on marinades yesterday!

        • Jealous! I gotta quit being so cheap and get that grinder. 2 weeks straight now I wouldn’t buy burger because of the price. Have you messed around with any venison jerky? I’m not fond of venison, but some spicy venison jerky? mmmmm

          • Gmanfortruth says:

            Been making venison jerky for years on the smoker! I like it spicy as well and I can freeze it for hunting season when a spicy piece of jerky warms the belly on a cold snowy day in the woods 🙂

          • plainlyspoken says:

            With the ranchers selling off their beef herds due to lack of water we may well find beef prices will make beef a luxury for many people. That I can deal with as their are alternates like chicken, turkey, pork, venison etc. What concerns me more is the loss (especially out of California) of the vegetable crops that won’t be available.

            My canning plans have really been increased this year for those kind of foods. I plan on my pantry being overstocked (if that is even possible) to carry through my family into the harvest of 2015.

            I also plan to try some new things – like kimchi (my wife loves it) provided I can find a good canning recipe for it.

            • Gmanfortruth says:

              The high beef prices will cause a spike in all meat prices, due to increased demand. Veggies won’t be an issue with me, but I expect most to pay a lot more at the store. It’s only the beginning!

            • Gmanfortruth says:

              Plainly, Good article pertaining to California drought: http://daretoprepare.com/NEWS/14_Food_Water/140223.CA.drought-food.impact.html

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                One more example of “Single Source” production gone bad. A disaster in manufacturing. Example in Japan years ago they had a fire that destroyed the only photoresist plant in Japan for semiconductor manufacturing. It took a full two years to bring another one back online. A boon for the US semiconductor manufacturers but a disaster for Japan. I believe the auto makers use single source parts and they become targets for strikes that will completely shut down the entire product lines. Huge mega corporate farms may be financially effecient many times but if the individual farmer is smart they can compete. Saw an article the other day that there is an uptick in purchasesz of small farms.

          • I have a B-I-L that makes venison jerkey. Have no idea how, but can find out for you.

  2. Gmanfortruth says:

    “The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming,” Moore said.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-evidence-of-man-made-global-warming/#ixzz2uQpgE8t4

    Contest time! Let’s coin a term for the Global Warmers who cling to this fallacy like it’s a religion. I’m a “denier” and a “flat earther”, what are they?

  3. Gmanfortruth says:

    What the Elite Ruling Class, aka the “eminent persons”, have in store for all of us subhumans in the world.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/17704-un-plotting-to-dramatically-alter-your-views-and-behavior

    • One surefire way to break the back of the schemers is to elect members of Congress who will support legislation getting the U.S. government to de-fund and withdraw from the dictators’ club known as the United Nations

      :::::tries soooo hard to not lau… aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahhaahhahahaha aaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha oooo hahahahahahaha……… :::::::

      • Gmanfortruth says:

        Anita, you should not laugh, UNTIL, those do gooder Congressmen get elected. Right now, we’re screwed if the Progressives get their way. Since the choices are given on who can be elected by the two political cartels, the likelihood of electing the do gooders is slim and NONE! 😉

  4. Gmanfortruth says:
  5. Gmanfortruth says:

    One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

    • SKTrynoskySr says:

      Anybody who knows me knows I have a more than passing knowledge/interest in the military. So, I was surprised and shocked today to find out the Navy is scrapping the USS Miami.

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/07/navy-drops-plans-to-repair-uss-miami-sub/

      Now the surprising and shocking part to me was that the ship had been badly damaged in an arson fire in Bath Maine in 2012. The fire was set by a disgruntled employee at the shipyard.

      I had, with my Boy Scout Troop been guests on the Miami in New London back in the late ’90’s and always felt good about the ship and its crew. How was this act of domestic terrorism/sabotage downplayed to the extent that I never even heard about it? The FBI can arrest people all over the place whom they recruit in their “stings” to become part of some plot to deliver exploding pizzas to Ft. Dix but the destruction of billion dollar submarines goes unmentioned. Snowden is looking better and better to me.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        I believe it was at the Portsmouth Navy Yard in Kittery, ME. BIW does not due nuclear sub overhauls. Used to work at BIW and did electronics work on aviation and weapons control systems for 9 frigates and destroyers. Always was proud of the work done there and especially if I saw one of the ships at sea and was able to talk to the crew.

  6. plainlyspoken says:

    😀 GREAT picture! lmao

  7. plainlyspoken says:

    “Immigration reform is important in our country,” she said. “We have a lot of employers over on the beaches that rely upon workers and especially in this high-growth environment, where are you going to get people to work to clean our hotel rooms or do our landscaping? We don’t need to put those employers in a position of hiring undocumented and illegal workers.”

    Says a Democratic candidate for Congress.

    http://freebeacon.com/florida-democrat-without-immigration-reform-where-will-we-get-our-landscapers-and-maids/

    • Gmanfortruth says:

      Simple answer to his problem, hire young people who have been booted from the fast food business. Democrats are idiots, well, almost all of them anyway. 🙂

    • So refreshing to hear how a Democrat REALLY feels about immigration. Nice to hear what plans they have for those ‘poor’ Latinos who ‘deserve’ a better life.

      • Gmanfortruth says:

        Actually, that’s a good point. Slave labor is alive and well in the minds of Democrats. What a sorry ass group of SUBHUMAN MONGRELS 😆

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      She really wants to be able to NOT pay SS Taxes and at least the minimum wage and unemployment for “LEGAL” residents.

  8. plainlyspoken says:

    When I first heard this story this morning I said to my wife that in future it will be like going to McDonald’s and you’ll order your specific baby traits off the menu.

    I even thought, just now, of a name for the genetic business – “Baby Creations!”

    It’s in our future – GMC (Genetically Modified Children). 🙄

    • plainlyspoken says:
      • Gmanfortruth says:

        Plainly, This is exactly the kind of stuff the Nazi’s wanted to do. It’s eugenics on steroids, nothing more. One shouldn’t mess with nature, it has a way of teaching very valuable and deadly lessons.

        • My question inevitably would be: What happens to the babies who don’t ‘work out right’ for the program?

          • Gmanfortruth says:

            Aborted. There’s a push now for “after birth” abortions due to defects etc. I’m quite serious when I equate today’s Progressives as Nazi’s, because that is exactly what they are. 👿

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Do you really think you will convince anyone by using NAZI all the time?

              Besides, the Nazis did not invent these ideas. They got them from the Progressives and their philosophers, who were located in the good ol’ USA and England.

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                Do you really think you will convince anyone by using NAZI all the time? I really don’t give a shit about convincing anyone of anything. Based on THEIR BS, I’m a racist homophobe extreme terrorist. Therefore, they are Nazi’s. The term fits perfectly based on their desire to control the black population and love of eugenics. I really don’t care who invented the stuff, the Nazi’s made them famous. Therefore, Progressives will henceforth be equated to Nazi’s! It’s also called FREE SPEECH!

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Gman, I have to agree with JAC. The constant use of NAZI isn’t productive. In fact it fits in with the idea of what I read in an opinion piece on CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/opinion/bergen-sochi-terrorism-predictions/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7)

                Sochi is only the most recent example of the hyperventilating hyperbole of the doomsday terrorism prognosticators.

                And when the hyperbole becomes tiring it becomes something that is ignored, or the topic where it is used is ignored. Just my opinion of course.

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                Plainly, agree with JAC all you want. I tell it like I see it. As I see it, Progressives are fascist Nazi pigs. I also think they are the enemy of freedom. You feel free to be nice to them all you want, I prefer to call them out and tell them what I think of them. Free Speech my friend, you should try it, it feels good! 😉

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                But, I will digress and only use the term when the subject is pertinent. I don’t think of Mathius or Buck as Nazi’s, but, should they wonder why I see things the way I do, they can look back in history and see for themselves 😉

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Dang, too many snowballs shoved down your pants today?

                Yes, it is free speech and will turn off those you should be trying to sway – the lurkers and occasional visitors to SUFA. But, whatever.

                I find it funny though you apply it so much to the left and ignore the right. It was the right that brought us the NDAA, the Patriot Act, two wars, increased monitoring of society, “legalization” of ignoring the Constitution etc., over the past 13 years (at a minimum). Why don’t you rant about those people as Nazi’s? They certainly do the same things.

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                Plainly, I have stated many times that the D’s and the R’s are on the same team, correct? The only reason I don’t equate ALL politicians as such, is because there are good people who would like to fix this mess, only to find out they can’t play with there toys. If we want the D’s and R’s to change their ways, then make it clear what they are acting like. Make it clear to those who support the Progressive’s that what they espouse is EXACTLY what Hitler promised to the Austrians. Make it loud and clear, stop sugar coating it. Being nice has gotten us to this point, continuing down the same path is STUPID! Is their a better term you would like to apply?

            • And they were SOOOO outraged when some Conservatives compared Obama to Hitler!! It’s starting to look a whole lot more apt to me.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              So, how often have you screamed NAZI in posts about the Right in the past week? You use it regularly and heavily about the Left.

              Better term – I guess that depends on your point of view. Anti-American? anti-freedom? One-worlders? UnConstitutionalists? National-Socialists? I am sure you could come up with even more if you thought about it a while.

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                National-Socialists? = NAZI’s You do make me laugh sometimes. Yes, I do attribute it to progressives, because they push it. Generally, conservatives don’t push the stuff, but the R’s in Congress just follow their puppet masters orders and go along with it, even joining in the fun at times. To be fair, Nazi’s is being nice for me 😉

            • Mathius™ says:

              Anita: “There’s a push now for “after birth” abortions due to defects etc.”

              Umm.. Where? Who?

              I guarantee you it’s nobody mainstream or with serious influence, that’s for damn sure.

              • Gmanfortruth says:
              • plainlyspoken says:

                I guarantee you it’s nobody mainstream or with serious influence, that’s for damn sure.

                I don’t know that there is a push on, but then even if not – should it become more possible there may well be. And it would likely become mainstream at some point. I seem to recall gay marriage wasn’t mainstream once upon a time either.

              • Don’t put me in that mess. Where did my name come from?

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                Anita, your fine! Mathius made a boo-boo. 😆

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                Mathius, did the link help your curiosity?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Anita:
                Sorry, thought the original post was from you.

                ——————-

                G-man:
                My thoughts:
                1. She’s an idiot. She is unclear and poorly spoken.
                2. She was sticking to talking points (all decisions should be left to doctor and patient).
                3. I am 105% sure that PP’s position is not to abort children after birth.
                4. It seems (to me) that the objection is that she’s just fighting generally against any regulation/intrusion into the clinics, certain (unspecified) problems with wording, and this hazy requirement of transporting babies to nearest hospitals.

                From my point of view, I can certainly see where PP would be coming from – they’ve been legislated nearly out of existence in several states and (justifiably) see any regulation as a potential threat to their ability to operate. Take a look at what Texas(?) did where they required doctors at clinics to have admitting privileges to nearby hospitals – it’s just a back door to shut down the clinics.

                I think PP sees any restriction on their operations in the same manner as the NRA sees any restrictions on firearms. Sure, there are common sense points of agreement, but you can never give an inch or the other side will drown you in regulations as a roundabout way of shutting you down.

                ——————-

                Plainly:
                I don’t know that there is a push on, but then even if not – should it become more possible there may well be. And it would likely become mainstream at some point.
                There isn’t a push on.
                No such push would succeed anyway.
                This is a law in search of a problem – it’s made to look like it’s doing something when, in fact, it’s doing nothing but increasing the burden on clinics in terms or compliance.

                I seem to recall gay marriage wasn’t mainstream once upon a time either.
                The right of association between two consenting adults is a fundamental human right regardless of gender. If two men which to marry, they have every right to do so. And the law should be completely blind to such.

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                Mathius, while I mostly agree with your thoughts on the speaker, non the less, it was said. I doubt you will agree, but abortion is nothing more than eugenics and population control. After birth abortion WILL be mainstream before you know it, because it is the next logical step in Eugenics. As we get more kids being born with the ever growing diseases that keep children from growing into useful members of society, this will become a main talking point about what will become known as a societal problem that should be addressed. It will, it’s all been part of history that will repeat itself at a higher level that before.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                RE: Nobody in the mainstream or that is credible?? Really???

                Philosophers of ethics who have professorial status at Universities….not credible people??

                So lets try this:

                1965: JAC says “See these lefties are trying to get Homosexuals to have the same Marriage License as everyone else”.

                Mathius says, “Oh that is BS because it certainly isn’t anyone in the mainstream or with any real credibility that is making that argument”..

                Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock………….that my friend is the sound of your Rationalizations being destroyed.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          As I said previously, Eugenics is alive and well. The history of eugenics around the world was always based on the leading edge of “SCIENCE”. We have seen how it has turned out in the past. It will only lead to a bigger disaster than before.

  9. Gmanfortruth says:

    It’s disheartening to think that our government has something to do with the cause of all this. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568251/UN-calls-Syrian-warring-sides-allow-aid-flow.html

    This is one reason why I’m on the side of Black Flag when it comes to government. We should be able to do much better in managing our needs WITHOUT giving a bunch of politicians POWER that they will ALWAYS end up abusing.

  10. Gmanfortruth says:

    He’s back — our poker-playing friend from Southern California, O.E. MacDougal. He came up here to fish. I thought he was after salmon, but this time he came for the surf perch. He bought one of those (expensive) out-of-state fishing licenses and now he’s whiling away his days on the gravel spit that stretches most of the way across the mouth of the Rogue River, between Gold Beach and Wedderburn, Oregon. He cooked up a mess of them here at the office. For those who complain about fishy or oily fish, surf perch are neither. (Mac, Dave, and I happen to like all kinds of fish.)

    “Any complaints about the current social or political climate?” Dave asked him as we ate.

    Mac didn’t answer for a moment and I thought he had nothing to say. But, suddenly, he said, “The militarization of our police forces … and the proliferation of SWAT teams in particular.”

    “What do you mean?” Dave asked.

    Mac shrugged. “We’re in an era of falling crime rates but we have more cops than ever and we’re arming them with weapons that are actually meant for the battlefield, not for policing American citizens.”

    After a pause he added, “Did you know that early Americans opposed police forces? They viewed them as a ‘standing army,’ an idea they dreaded because they felt that, eventually, that army would be used against them. Now, with the militarization of our police forces, we’re creating a standing army whose duty it is to enforce laws, even the most minor of laws, using military-grade weaponry, and Americans don’t seem to care anymore. My take on it is that this is a dangerous trend.”

    I was still stuck on the idea that there was a time when Americans didn’t want police forces. “What’s the problem?” I asked. “We need the police to protect us.”

    Mac didn’t seem to be impressed with my comment.

    “That’s why they have ‘To protect and to serve’ on the sides of their cars,” I added.

    Mac said, “It doesn’t matter what the slogans on their cars say. What matters is what’s in their charters, and no police charter in this country — or probably any other country — obligates the police to protect or to serve you. It doesn’t even matter if the Chief of Police promises to protect you, neither he nor his department will be held legally responsible if he fails to.” After another pause he added, “The only time the police have to protect you is when you’re in their custody.”

    “I don’t believe that,” I said.

    “Don’t believe what?”

    “What you said about ‘to protect and to serve.'”

    “Well, how about this: For decades, people have brought suits against police departments because the police didn’t protect them, in some cases even after having promised to protect them. But the citizens have almost never won those suits and the few victories they achieved have always been overturned on appeal in favor of the police. Finally, in 2005, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court ruled, once and for all, that law enforcement in the United States is not obligated to protect or serve you.”
    http://backwoodshome.com/articles2/silveira146.html

    • Gmanfortruth says:

      THis made me laugh because it is so truthful: “But the War on Terror is a big threat today,” I said.

      “There are so few terrorists and terrorist threats in this country that the police, particularly the FBI, have taken to entrapping crazy people to keep the so-called threat alive.

  11. “Shared Responsibility Tax” I cannot believe they got away with calling this a tax….but everybody had better read it….it is full of information and penalties.

  12. Conservatives should get off their high horse about his stance on immigration and take another look at Marco Rubio. Immigration is conversation we’re just gonna have to have one day, like it or not. They are not going anywhere. This guy is passionate about his beliefs and his beliefs are great! I think he would make a great President.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/02/marco-rubio-tees-off-on-cuba-venezuela-and-tom-harkin.php

  13. plainlyspoken says:

    Down here G.

    National-Socialists? = NAZI’s You do make me laugh sometimes

    Glad it made you laugh I guess, but it wasn’t intended to. I know damn well that the terms are equal. But, it sounds less antagonistic than constantly shouting “NAZI” all the time.

    • Gmanfortruth says:

      I won’t shout Nazi unless it’s warranted based on the subject at hand. Not all subjects warrant the need, so rest at ease. I will, however, call it like I see it and if calling Progressives Nazi’s offends them, then good, I will offend them and don’t care. Don’t want to be called a Nazi, don’t support similar positions. Want to support gun control, your a damn Nazi, simple as that! If they don’t like it, then don’t act like one. It’s called demonizing through truth, which they can’t comprehend.

      • Gmanfortruth says:

        But, it sounds less antagonistic than constantly shouting “NAZI” all the time. What are you afraid of? Offending them? Being honest with the reality we are now seeing in this country? We shouldn’t antagonize them? Really? Really? We should be kicking their Nazi asses all over the place every chance we get! They are winning, you do understand that right? You can sit back a cower down, I WILL NOT!

        • I have to agree that ‘they’ are winning G. They are winning because we are too busy being nice and being the bigger person and playing ‘fair’. While nice and gentlemanly, it isn’t getting us very far. They are getting much, much more by being nasty and playing dirty.

          I’m not exactly saying that we should do the same, but damn, we’ve got to take control over them somehow. And it’s hard to be nice as far as I’m concerned when the other a-hole is being nasty to me. Call me intolerant and uninformed if you want, I can give as good as I get.

          • Gmanfortruth says:

            I can give as good as I get. Time to start, don’t ya think?

          • plainlyspoken says:

            How does hateful anger help? Really? So you don’t like trying to dialogue reasonably? It seems neither of you get why the anger and hatred expressed by the term NAZI won’t do a damn thing to help? You got angry in your posting on the SoCV plates the other day and you spoke your piece – in which I didn’t see you let your anger flow into hatred with the use of derogatory and spiteful names so I know it can be done with.

            • I didn’t say hateful anger would help PS. I just said that they are winning, or seem to be because that is the tactics that they employ.

              You’re right. I got VERY angry and said my peace the other day. You should have seen the angry, nasty, spiteful thing that were said as ‘opinions’ on the site. Some of the nastiest came from people who weren’t even from GA so that it had no effect on them whatsoever. Most Georgians support the tags.

              Additionally, I let G use the NAZI term, I just call them MORONS! 🙂

              Respects Buddy!

            • There’s no point, Plainly … he’s never going to get it … he’ll just spit into the wind the rest of his life … but I do get a kick out of seeing my name still floating around here (G is so much tougher on a keyboard than in real life) … so this one’s for him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_TyrEUpZ8Y

        • plainlyspoken says:

          You can sit back a cower down

          That’s a BS statement and you know it. But feel free, no real skin off my nose.

          Now, you just don’t get it do you? It is not them the Progressives you hate or even us who are regularly here that you are offending. We are use to it and though it gets tiring at times, we know it’s just how you are. It’s all the lurkers who don’t really interact on here, just observe. I believe not too long ago you posted and crowed about the diverse number of countries/people who visited SUFA…..IT’S THEM you want to persuade and will turn off by the constant shouting of NAZI.

          I am not saying you have to be nice, but just shouting Nazi isn’t going to reach many with what you’re trying to say because they can’t get past your vituperative hatred.

          But, instead you’d rather paint yourself into a “box” making your thoughts sound harshly extremist and have them ignored like most extremists. Up to you, a free country with free speech rights (sort of).

          • Gmanfortruth says:

            I am not in the game of persuading anybody of anything. What about being nice that hasn’t worked is so hard to understand? Have they been nice to us? Hell NO they haven’t. You be nice, I’ll be honest!

            • plainlyspoken says:

              So you don’t give a damn about persuading anyone, I see. You just want to yell and bitch, moan, whine and complain and do nothing more? Well, you’re probably achieving that, so congrats.

              I find it interesting how my lack of using vituperative hatred makes me dishonest in your thinking. Thanks, now that I know what a liar I am I’ll go sit on the bench reserved for those in the world you prefer to yell at and condemn. At least I know where I stand with you now. There are days when you are so overboard………..

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                YES, I’m very unconventional. I’m also far from perfect. And, I intend on being controversial because people do listen to the controversial types (see talk radio stats). Your fine as you are, I have no problem with how you want to address things. Do your thing, and I will do mine :wing:

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Oh I will do my thing, elsewhere. Sayonara!

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                Maybe if you would go back and understand how the Nazi’s came to power, you would see my point. Running from the truth will get you where?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I understand how they came to power, spent decades studying them – you can’t school me on that subject one bit pal.

                Running from the truth – hardly. I’ll go find somewhere where they want to discuss the truth, not just scream out hatred with no concerning about persuading anyone of anything. I can understand why there is so much less participation around SUFA anymore – thank yourself for that.

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                Would you like to take the reigns over? I’ll gladly give them up to any taker. So my opinion of the progressives offends you? Interesting. Maybe I should just go away and let all the nice people express their opinion. What do ya think? I can do that, real easy. Maybe Charlie will come back and call people names all day long again. You can have it. Nobody wants to discuss the truth, because it’s clear no one can really handle it, it’s too damn mean!

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                I understand how they came to power, spent decades studying them – you can’t school me on that subject one bit pal.

                I do trust in your knowledge. Why haven’t you tried to prove me wrong?

  14. Gmanfortruth says:

    Isn’t it interesting that Obama was just so happy about a whole 4 million people who signed up for Obamacare. Using normal math (not that Nazi common core crap) we had 44 million without healthcare coverage when all this BS began. Then we had another 6 or 7 million “lose” their coverage that they were told they could keep (another Hitler type lie). That equals 50 million or so who started the year without health insurance. Basically, OCare has added to the problem, which of course is something to celebrate the world of Left wingers. Amazing!

  15. Gmanfortruth says:
  16. Mathius™ says:

    GMan,

    Down here!!

    Mathius, while I mostly agree with your thoughts on the speaker, non the less, it was said.

    People say and mis-speak all the time. It means nothing unless it’s the actual position of PP and, I think you’ll agree that it’s not.

    I doubt you will agree, but abortion is nothing more than eugenics and population control.

    I don’t agree.

    Population control is a concept of top-down control. That is, the powers that be have decided that you should have fewer kids and they make you get an abortion. That is not what’s happening. What’s happening (expect for a tiny minority) is that the pregnant women are independently deciding that they cannot have a baby for whatever reason (economics, too young, missing father, whatever). But the point is that they’re making a hard and deeply personal choice for personal reasons, not because they want to control the population growth – I promise you that never even entered the minds of 99% of women who get abortions.

    Neither is it eugenics. Per our friends at Dictionary.com:
    eu·gen·ics [yoo-jen-iks]
    noun ( used with a singular verb )
    the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)

    These women aren’t trying to alter the gene pool. They’re trying to remove a fetus from their own uterus because its presence is too much for them to handle (again, for varied reasons). I’ll stipulate that some not-insignificant percentage have abortions when their fetus is diagnosed with Downs or some other such. But eugenics is concerned with populations, not individuals. The women abort the Downs baby, not to improve the societal gene pool, but because they don’t want the personal responsibility for raising a special-needs child.

    This doesn’t change the logic of whether it’s moral or not – but it cannot reasonably be called eugenics – the term simply doesn’t fit. Eugenics was what the Nazis did by euthanizing murdering the mentally handicapped (aktion T4) or criminalizing gentile marriages to Jews or in the gas chambers. Eugenics is also what they did when they encouraged blond/blue Germans to have more children (positive eugenics). Note the top-down social-engineering aspect of it and the absence scattered/disparate personal decisions. In a sense, the result can be the same (elimination/minimization of certain genes / populations), but the way they got there is very different.

    After birth abortion WILL be mainstream before you know it, because it is the next logical step in Eugenics.

    There is no “next step” because there is no “plan.” There is no social engineering project of a shadowy group trying to manipulate people into aborting their Downs babies. There is no “goal,” so how can there be steps?

    As we get more kids being born with the ever growing diseases that keep children from growing into useful members of society,

    Huh? Like what? Peanut allergies? Autism? Progressivism?

    this will become a main talking point about what will become known as a societal problem that should be addressed.

    I think we, as a nation, have made a decision that we are not ok with the murder of innocent people.

    The reason many condone abortion is because we do not consider a fetus (before a certain point) to qualify as human in any meaningful way – and even then, the only reason it’s acceptable to terminate is because the woman has an overriding right to dominion over her own body.

    Now, you could assert that, eventually, we might come to think of those non-useful members of society as being “not-human in any meaningful way.” I rather think we’ve learned a lesson on this point from history. Impaired people are still people and I think it’s be an impossible sell to the American people to convince them otherwise.

    And, again, even if people did somehow classify them as non-human, that wouldn’t give us the right to just go around murdering them – and beyond that, why? To what end? To save a few bucks?

    Relevant question: do you consider it murder to euthanize a brain-dead coma patient? What is the difference between that and a fetus whose brain is only a couple of cells.

    It will, it’s all been part of history that will repeat itself at a higher level that before.

    The only ones who repeat history are the ones who forget history. We still have plenty of memories for why this is a bad idea. If we ever stop teaching our kids about the Holocaust, then I’ll start to worry about repeating it.

    • Gmanfortruth says:

      People say and mis-speak all the time. It means nothing unless it’s the actual position of PP and, I think you’ll agree that it’s not.

      Mathius, I have no idea if it is or not, I only hear what I hear. If it is not the position of PP, why have they not stated such?

      I think we, as a nation, have made a decision that we are not ok with the murder of innocent people.

      Wrong again Mathius. The people are just fine with killing innocent people in other countries, in the name of stopping terrorism. Happens almost everyday, but where are the Left Wing anti-war folks the last 5 years? Sippin the Kool-Aid, that’s where.

      Huh? Like what? Peanut allergies? Autism? Progressivism? Allergies? No, Autism, absolutely! that will happen one day. Progressivism, no, that will either be destroyed by war or because it will destroy itself. There are many diseases that will eventually fall into the category, give it time.

      eu·gen·ics [yoo-jen-iks]
      noun ( used with a singular verb )
      the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)

      Correct! Population control of the black population fits this definition. Why do you think a vast majority of abortion clinics are in black communities? Coincidence?

    • “by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)”

      By what right do you have to do such a thing of encouraging or WORSE discouraging people’s peaceful action?

      • Mathius™ says:

        By what right do you have to do such a thing of encouraging or WORSE discouraging people’s peaceful action?

        Encourage.. discourage.. there’s nothing wrong with it unless you IMPOSE upon them.

        People encourage me to do things all the time. And they discourage me from doing things all the time.

        Doesn’t your wife ever ask you to put the dishes in away?

        ——

        Anyway, all I’m trying to point out here is that abortions are not eugenics any more than individual mate-selection is eugenics.

        The result might be similar, but the way of getting there is very different. It still might, for example, minimize the number of people born with genetic diseases or reduce the population growth of certain races / classes. But that’s not what makes eugenics eugenics.

        That’s not to say abortion is moral or immoral or amoral – but it’s a PRIVATE, PERSONAL decision that (almost) never has anything whatsoever to do with “improving the gene pool” and, as such, is not eugenics.

    • Eugenics has been the core of the some of the worse atrocities visited by men upon other men.

      Remember, the roots of the Nazi extermination came from the simple bureaucratic extension of “discouraging” reproduction. If the people do not voluntarily restrain themselves, like the Slavs, then they shall be exterminated to prevent their sub-human population growth.

      • Mathius™ says:

        I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at here.

        WHO is discouraging reproduction? WHO is pulling strings to make these people have abortions.

        Yes, I absolutely agree that Nazi extermination camps are a perfect example of the (potential) evils of eugenics, but what does that have to do with private people making private decisions for individual reasons to have an abortion?

        You could claim (and I’m sure you would) that abortion is evil / murder but, even if exercised predominantly by certain demographics, how is that eugenics. No one is “trying to improve the gene pool.” No one is “encouraging” anyone to have an abortion.

  17. PS, if you haven’t left yet, perhaps you could tell me what you think of my proposal above about Marco Rubio and the Immigration problem. Mine is that we are eventually, like it or not, going to have a conversation on how best to integrate the ones already here into society.

    Although that may suprise you, it shouldn’t. I am believe it or not, reasonable. I know for instance that whether I or anyone else likes it or not you will never get 10 to 15 million people out of this country. AIn’t gonna happen. So a solution needs to be found.

    I was not outraged at Rubio and McCain like a lot of Conservatives were. To me, they were just trying to solve the problem, and I give them Kudos for that. I don’t believe that they should have consulted or joined with Democrats like Chuck Schumer, and the things Schumer and his cronies said later bear that out.

    I also believe, in fact, I know, that Obama needs to keep his but flapper shut. If his Administration would shut up and quit signing Executive orders trying to do immigration Reform by fiat, something might possibly be done. As long as he and the Democratic Party keeps poking the GOP bear and refusing to negotiate on ANYTHING, it will NOT ever get done.

  18. Gmanfortruth says:
  19. Gmanfortruth says:
  20. Will this be the first OCare death? (h/t to Sarah Palin)

    http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/02/25/death-obamacare/

  21. For the conspiracy theorists, some very thought provoking and troubling questions on Sandy Hook:

    http://beforeitsnews.com/u-s-politics/2014/02/sandy-hook-lies-come-crashing-down-ex-state-trooper-exposes-cover-up-is-threatened-2462586.html

    • Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre is just one small piece of the puzzle.

      Pay very close attention…

      כאן היא חוכמה תני לו מי שיש ההבנה לחשב את מספר החיה זה המספר של איש מספר שלו הינו שש מאות ששים ושש

      …in Gematria equals 6666

      18 – Here is wisdom. Let him who has the understanding calculate the number of the beast: it is the number of a man. his number is six hundred threescore and six

      “man” also means “one” in Hebrew. It is a reference to ADAM. Thus the translation also reads as follows…

      18 – Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast: it is number one. His number is six hundred sixty-six.

      Now, …check this out…

      18 <— RIGHT HERE is wisdom. Let him who has the understanding calculate the number of the beast: it is the number of A(alef, 1, 111, 216) MAN(ONE, 1, 311). his number is six hundred threescore and six

      6 + 6 + 6 = 18

      א = אלף = Alef = Aleph = A = 1 = 111 = 216

      איש = MAN = ONE = ADAM = (in Jewish Gematria) 311

      אחד (ONE) in Jewish Gematria Equals: 13

      האחד (ONE) in Jewish Gematria Equals: 18

      Here the wisdom is. The one having understanding let him count the number of the beast. Indeed a man's it is; and the number is six hundred sixty six

      Ὧδε ἡ σοφία ἐστίν ὁ ἔχων νοῦν ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ θηρίου ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτοῦ ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ

      ςαστνΛ ρετΠ μδΑ (ADAM PETER LANZA) = 1311

      א = 1 = A
      איש = MAN = ONE = ADAM = 311

      ςαστνΛ ρετεπ μαδα = 1317

      ANNUIT COEPTIS = 13 letters

      NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM = 17 letters

      How many people, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, …have it in their heads to rightfully get dollars into their hands?

      1317 is the number of ADAM PETER LANZA

      …any questions?

      • Yes! Let’s start with….

        “Pay very close attention……..”

        • Agreed

        • Okay, I will try to break it down for you. I gave you the condensed version.

          I will start with Hebrew.

          (Hebrew reads right to left)

          Each Hebrew letter, as well as some words,have corresponding sets of words, spiritual meanings, animals, objects, and numbers. When placed in the right order, they will produce words with sentences contained therein.

          Each letter is a word, thus each word is a sentence, and each sentence is a paragraph. It can contain a variety of meanings in one short piece of script.

          But it has to be in the right Order. It is ALL about order. One letter difference can change everything.

          You can also use it as a method of encryption. If you want to hide a specific message, you do so by recording the total of the numbers represented by each letter to produce that specific order that corresponds to that number. Putting things into order as such is a linguistic art commonly referred to as GEMATRIA

          For example, the word MAN( איש )… It is spelled Alef – Yud – Shin

          Alef means OX, gentle, leader, teach, water, thousand, as well as 1, 111, or 216.

          Yud is finished work, hand, the number 10, etc

          Shin is a peak, consume, destroy, fire, sharp/intelligent, 300 etc..

          So the number of the Hebrew word for man would be 300 + 100 + 1 = 311

          It could read ” thousand hands consume ” or ” the gentle intelligent work ”

          Get it? Good.

          Now…

          Take into account that the word Man ( איש ) also means ONE or ADAM. Use the Hebrew translation and replace the word איש with ONE and/or ADAM.

          It reads as “it is ADAM’s number ” ” it is number one ”

          And the word for ONE also equals 18 in Gematria, thus Adam and one and eighteen all correspond. ( 6 + 6 + 6 = 18)

          Coincidently, Alef also corresponds with ONE as well as an OX, which is a BEAST.

          When you start to play with the double meanings and gematria, you see just how well Adam Lanza’s information lines up.

          But Adam Lanza is not ” The Antichrist/Beast “, and Revelation 13 was written in Greek as I understand, …not Hebrew. Although If I am not mistaken, there parts of the NT that was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, as well as things destroyed that could have very well been a lot of Hebrew. I am simply not sure.

          It suggests there is a discrepancy in the interpretation.

          The Greek describes the Hebrew, which seems to fit better in context. And I doubt it means that the Mark of the beast is the dollar.

          But it all fits really well in such a context with Adam Lanza. It makes me wonder, …What was going through Adam’s head when he flipped out and killed people, …or whatever really happened.

          Adam Lanza had Asberger’s as I understand it, which means his thought process was built perfectly for pattern and correlation recognition.

          Adam Lanza and his actions are similar to others who have also done these sort of things. There seems to be a pattern in their behavior. Part of it is related to religion.

          What is happening to these people?

          Why are some people flipping out? Why are some of them killing people or assaulting others?

          • Ok now just a darn second. There’s way too many things at play here. Did Sandy Hook even happen as they say? If it did happen, was Adam Lanza even the killer? Did he kill his mom? If it didn’t happen as they say then how did Lanza and his mom end up dead. If it didn’t happen as they say then no matter how you try to decipher things into numerology, it doesn’t matter anyway. I’m not knocking your interest in numerology, there’s just too many variables here to make it a life’s work.

            • Yes, but it isn’t just Sandy Hook. It isn’t just Adam Lanza. It isn’t just killers.

              As I said, that is one piece of it. There are others.

              Something really weird is going on, and someone knows.

            • I will give you an example…

              There is a Russian man that wigged out years ago because he started discovering all these mathematical anomalies and patterns throughout written history.

              There is a woman doing something very similar, as well as having weird dreams and visions, and posting about it on the net. She was describing one of her visions and drawing symbols. She was rationalizing what it meant. Coincidentally, I found something that looks quite similar to what she drew.

              As you already know, I have been doing some weird shit too.

              It kind of reminds me of the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind, where they were all having the same visions of the mesa. They all put it in their artwork and mashed potatoes, …and the big pile in the living room.

              It is just friggin’ weird.

          • “So the number of the Hebrew word for man would be 300 + 100 + 1 = 311 ”

            *Correction*

            300 + 10 + 1 = 311

    • So I actually put this on in the background and listened to most of it. There are a lot of weird things about this situation. Just sayin’…

  22. This is the very insanity I have spoken of as a reason we need our troops OUT of Afghanistan now! I hope Karzai remains stubborn and forces Obama to pull ALL of our Military out.

    http://victoriajackson.com/10529/us-troops-fed-insane-rules-engagement

  23. Mathius™ says:

    JAC,

    1965: JAC says “See these lefties are trying to get Homosexuals to have the same Marriage License as everyone else”.

    Mathius says, “Oh that is BS because it certainly isn’t anyone in the mainstream or with any real credibility that is making that argument”..

    Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock………….that my friend is the sound of your Rationalizations being destroyed.

    ——

    The difference is that anti-gay marriage was a moral wrong. It was on the wrong side of history and was destine to fail (much like abolition was once a rare and un-serious idea). That position was on the wrong side of the tide of history.

    But the murder of living babies (past the point of viability) who are just sitting there on a table, having been delivered, is not a questionable debate. There is no leg to stand on. None. Zip, zero, zilch, nada. There is no debate that they’re not just things but actual babies. There is no question. Not by pro-choice, not by pro-life, not by you, not by me.

    For the consensus of the American people to shift far enough that we are willing to accept the idea of murdering infants (post-birth), we would have to travel so far that I would no longer recognize that society as my own. Nobody is pushing for this – nobody.

    You’re fighting a strawman.

    • There not saying we should kill babies past the point of viability-they are changing the definition of viability and then using autonomy to complete the rationalization. Sound familiar-I would have said the same as you about abortion many years ago. Believe me Matt-you believing that there is no possible argument to support such a thing-is you being naive. The general “they” are already starting to argue those points and they’re basically the same as “they” used to get abortion legalized.

      • Who is “they”?

        WHO!

        I keep hearing about this “they” as if it’s some shadowy master plan to (for reasons!) kill babies.

        WHO?!

        And WHY??

        • Who is they-who were the they that got abortion passed? Why-God knows I don’t know why? Because they think it’s the right thing to do-because they believe their on the right side of history.

          • Well, do “they” want to kill kids? I mean, is that the goal here?

            Or, more likely, do “they” think that women have a right of autonomy of their bodies which supersede the right of a clump of cells. Agree or disagree, this is almost certainly the stance of “they.” So, how do you get from this position to people having the “right to ‘terminate’ babies which are no longer withing the confines of the host’s womb?

            There’s no logical step here. No way to get from point A to point B.

            It’s a strawman.

            • The women are still responsible for the child-and haven’t you heard adoption might be to hard on the woman. Matt, think about all the reasons they wanted abortion legalized and apply them to a newborn-how much has really changed. The argument isn’t that the “fetus” isn’t alive, isn’t human-the argument is that they haven’t acheived “personhood” yet.

              • Agreed somewhat.

                100% correct: the argument isn’t that the fetus is alive, it’s that it isn’t “human” [before a certain point]. I award you 10 Mathius Points!

                But the right to terminate it stems from the right of a woman to evict things from their body. It’s not a right to kill, per say. Before a certain point, the two (eviction and termination) mean the same thing as there is no chance of survival – thus abortion. But after the point of viability, termination is no longer morally supported since it is no longer inextricably tied to the right of a woman to autonomy over her body. That’s why we can’t terminate our 3 year old children. There’s no right to kill, just to “get rid of.” The extension of this is that, as a mother, you may put your kid up for adoption. As a woman who has just delivered a living child, you may put that child up for adoption.

                But there’s still no basis for saying you can kill it “just because.” It is no longer inside her against her will – her authority has ended.

                And, while adoption might be hard on the woman, that is not moral grounds for killing a person.

            • No, the law isn’t based just on a woman’s right to evict things from her body up to viability-abortions are allowed past viability based on rape, incest, and the life of the mother-and that word life seems to be real flexible.

              Now I love to hear that you will be arguing with the “they” when it comes to extending this right to cover after-birth abortion. But as “they” will tell you that is just your opinion-you do not speak for the rest of us. I can hear them now-if you disagree with after-birth abortion-Don’t have one.

  24. Canine Weapon says:

  25. SKTrynoskySr says:

    Matt, the difference is that the camp you support has succeeded in moving the issue of homosexual marriage into a “moral wrong” category. I do not and have not seen it that way, not in ’65 not now. The tide of history turns. The current insane debate over “Nazi” proves that. These days you are precluded from using that word and the Communist word since their use is considered “over the top”. Regardless of how close your opponents tactics are to them, regardless of the historical parallels. This of course has been brought to you by the word benders. I’ve said many times that the meaning and proper use of words are critical in debate. It you say tomatos and I say tomatoes in these cases, it does make a difference.

    All I have ever said is that the words “homosexual marriage” are an impossibility. There are lots and lots of others words beside marriage which mean partnership, even for life but in this debate what I say is not only not acceptable but is vilified. Like “immigration” I support a legal bond between anyone, not that it would even be considered an issue fifty years ago. But then again, the tides of history for abortion have moved ahead even though we seem to be stuck on a word (viability) in some cases.We will always be stuck on words like that as people try to change their traditional meanings to fit a political/social agenda.

    • the camp you support has succeeded in moving the issue of homosexual marriage into a “moral wrong” category.

      The “question” about gay marriage was always in a “moral wrong” category. People just didn’t realize they were on the wrong side until recently.

      Morality doesn’t change over time – only our understanding of it.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Do you realize you just claimed that Morality is singular and thus can be discovered by Objective Reasoning?

        Welcome to the Objectivist society.

        • There are gray zones. This is not one of them.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Either morality is fixed or it is not.

            You cannot claim this as a moral truth that simply went undiscovered until now and then claim that morality can also be relative or gray.

            Well I take that back. Being who you are I suppose you can argue anything. But that does not make it true.

            • Mathius™ says:

              You cannot claim this as a moral truth that simply went undiscovered until now and then claim that morality can also be relative or gray.

              Sure I can. I just did!

              Being who you are I suppose you can argue anything.

              Yes. I do love to argue..

              I like to think I’m fairly good at it, too.

              But that does not make it true.

              Well that’s a debate for another day, I suppose.

    • All I have ever said is that the words “homosexual marriage” are an impossibility.

      And you are wrong.

      “Marriage” is a legal construct.

      It has been many things over many years and in many places. The idea that “marriage” is some fixed idea revolving around Leave It To Beaver era Americana is absurd.

      Marriage is – and should be – a union between two people who love each other. That is all.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Marriage is NOT a legal construct so your claim about what it “should” be is correct. Your claim of what it is, is incorrect.

        Remember that this “legal” issue does not arise until more recent history. When the Church and then monarchies decided they needed to sanction “certain” unions of MEN AND WOMEN. Note that this did not include all unions. The lowly riff raff of humanity continued on for some time living as “married” couples according their long held customs.

      • SKTrynoskySr says:

        No Matt, I have no problem in saying you are wrong. I talk definition and use of words. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Long before there was organized society, long before legal systems existed there was marriage. A union, bond, covenant between man and woman. as I have said, and I will not let anyone put words I did not say in my mouth, you can have your contract, union, partnership, whatever but it cannot be marriage.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

          A. No it hasn’t. It has also been between among a man and several women. It has also been between men and men (less common) and women and women (also less common). It has been between a man and his slave. It has been between child brides. It has been a lot of thing at a lot of times and in a lot of places.

          B. Even if that were true (it’s not), that doesn’t mean that it’s the right way to do things. For 99% of human history, might made right. Does that mean we should go back to might makes right? Just because something has “always” been a certain way doesn’t make it sacrosanct that we can’t change it.

          you can have your contract, union, partnership, whatever but it cannot be marriage.

          Who are you to tell me what bonds I can form with another free individual?

          As Mr. Flag is so fond of pointing out, if you give yourself permission to define for me my relationship, then you give me the right to define yours: so I have determined that you’re not married either – you’re in a civil union because I have – just now – decided that the sole purpose of marriage is for procreation and, since you’re not having any more kids, you can no longer be married.

          • However uncomfortable it has been lately, I’m once again on the side of Mathius.

            Marriage is a contract. It defines a “family”

            Its primary existence comes from the need to protect children, whose development to adulthood is long and risky, and typically beyond the capability and resources of the care of a single adult.

            A single adult typically cannot both protect and care for the child while at the same time go out into the world to obtain the necessary resources required for both the adult and the child to survive. Hence, a contractual division of labor where one adult tends the child and another obtains resources for the family unit has been found to be very successful.

            Marriage as a contract has been also used to politically merge two families for political and economic gain.

            None of this requires different sexes to be the parties.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Supposition, assumptions, and hypotheticals do not construct absolutes.

              The issue is the DEFINITION of marriage as accepted by the vast majority of humanity over eons.

              Marriage was the union of a man and woman in the state of matrimony. It did not matter how many wives or husbands what mattered was that it was a union of a man and a woman.

              Not men and men or women and women.

              An “adopted” family was not defined as a “marriage”. So “marriage” did not DEFINE family, except that in the sense of the “in-laws”.

              • JAC,

                No, as Mathius points out, is merely YOUR definition.

                It is utterly not required to declare a sexual union as “marriage”. We do not say a Lion and his pride are “married”.

                It is a CONTRACT to define a division of labor.

    • as people try to change their traditional meanings

      It’s not that “people try to change their traditional meanings,” but rather that meanings change and evolve over time.

      Language is not a static constant where a word’s meaning is locked-in at some fixed point in time never to be touched again. Language doesn’t work like that.

      Language is organic – it evolves. And the driving force of that evolution is the society in which it is utilized.

      • I have two friends..married lesbians. Their stance is that want to be accepted as a normal married couple. Trouble is they are a certain percentage of the population. It’s not a normal marriage, no matter how you want to play semantics with words. It has never been normal in any of our time as a country. I doubt that it will be normal at any time in the future. I’m talking marriage here, not just being gay.

        • It’s not a normal marriage, no matter how you want to play semantics with words.

          There is no such thing as a “normal” marriage.

          • Denial. That’s the words they used. THEY see themselves as not in a normal marriage. They don’t see themselves as not normal..but they do acknowledge their marriage as not normal. You are arguing something that you have no way of knowing since you are not gay. It’s the way THEY see it.

            • Slice it any way you want, no two marriages are alike. There can be no “normal” for something as disparate as marriage. What is a “normal child” like? What is a “normal home” like? What is a “normal person” like? It’s meaningless to ask – you can point out some common threads, of course, but there is no such thing as normal in these maters – they’re too varied.

              But I do understand what you’re getting at here – they want to be considered a having a normal marriage and, in the sense that they love each other, are legally wed, and are sharing their lives together, they absolutely do have a “normal” marriage. What, I think, they’re getting at is that they don’t want their “normal” marriage to be considered as somehow “other” than other “normal” marriages. And I think this is just a matter of time and exposure.

              As more gay couples get married, as they start families, as their kids go to school with my kids, et cetera, we will become more and more acclimated to the idea and stop seeing it as so “different.” We, as a society, just need to get used to the idea.

              Right now, I do not know a single marriage gay couple. Not one. And I’m a liberal living in New York. How are people supposed to get used to something when it’s so rare?

              • All marriages are exactly alike. One man, one woman. Civil unions come in two varieties..man/man woman/woman.

              • Nonsense, Anita, your two lesbian friends are married.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Mathias, a few points to ponder. When gay marriage stops being “en vogue”. It s popularity will wane, just like LSD did for the anti war hippee crowd in the early 70s .
                Just like biology 101 has been changed to fit the abortion agenda, when I went to school, life began when the first cell multiplied. Now, you callnit a clump of cells while ignoring the living activity within each cell. In 5 years, if a baby can’t feed itself, it won’t be considered viable, hence, post birth abortion.

              • callnit…I like that 🙂

              • Gman:

                When gay marriage stops being “en vogue”.

                It won’t stop being “en vogue” because gay people will always love each other and some subset will always want to marry each other. This isn’t a fad.

                In 5 years, if a baby can’t feed itself, it won’t be considered viable, hence, post birth abortion.

                I’ll take that bet.

                At the rate we’re going, that should be SUFA’s “Open Mic Part 390.”

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Life v viability, no comment?

              • Life v viability

                I think it’s fair to say that a clump of cells working its way toward becoming a baby is alive.

                The thing is, just because the DNA is human doesn’t make it any more of a “person” per say than a cancerous growth or a brain-dead coma patient. The pro-choice crowd doesn’t view a clump of cells (even if “alive”) to have rights which override the mother’s right to control over her body.

                Viability – as you know – is the point at which a fetus may be removed from a womb and still survive. That’s not the same as saying “survive unassisted,” by the way. As such, an infant, who can survive with assistance, is by no means subject to wanton termination.

                And, again, no one is suggesting it should be.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Mathias, after birth abortion is the next logical step in the process. You see abortion as choice, I see it as population control.

              • Ah, a more comfortable place – in opposition to Mathius.

                Absolutely abortion exists as population control. Abortion is far more chosen by low-income, low intelligent class of humanity and by its use, tends to reduce these sub-humans.

                The vast most of abortions is done by unwed, young, poor black women (I seem to recall they represent 75% of the cases).

                Abortion as a principle is utterly aberrant. Adherents of this always use aberrant excuses to support it.

              • Yes, Matt-people are suggesting it-or we wouldn’t be talking about it-they are simply in the beginning stages of this debate. As I stated above -We have already gone past the viability standard for abortion.

                One thing-you keep asking why people would want to kill babies-I don’t think people want to kill babies-but they do rationalize killing them. By claiming they aren’t people yet, by claiming compassion for the mother or the child-but what they are doing is trying to fix societies problems by coming up with reasons to allow them to kill without calling it killing.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                And, again, no one is suggesting it should be. *ahem*

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

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

                http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/27/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/

              • SKTrynoskySr says:

                Here we go again:

                normal, adj. 1. according to standard or rule; regular, natural, customary as normal procedure. 2. having average intelligence and physical condition.

                This horsehockey that words can change their meaning may well apply to little things or you may say that the term gay for example once meaning happy or lighthearted, now meaning homosexual is a forced change in usage. the original meaning still stands but is not used because of the misidentification of the word into the slang term it has become.

                Norms are norms. That is, if not a literary definition, certainly a scientific and factual one which does apply up until the majority of marriages are gay and become the new “norm”. .

        • It has never been normal in any of our time as a country.

          Sure, to the best of my knowledge this is true.

          But history did not start with America.

          It was common enough in Roman and Greek and biblical times. I’m not 100%, but I think the Egyptians had it too.

          So here’s the question: Why do you get to start the clock in Leave It To Beaver era Americana and lock-in the meaning of the word there? Isn’t that arbitrary? There were different meaning before. There are people who accept different meanings after. There are different meanings in other cultures (limited term-lengths, polygamy, polyandry, marriage with cousins, et cetera). There have also been times when it’s been more restrictive (Germany: no Jews with Gentiles / Jim Crow: no blacks with whites).

          What makes your definition (Marriage = one male + one female) so unique and overridingly special that it gives you grounds to tell two strangers who love each other that they cannot get married and must adhere to your definition over their own?

          • DUDE. They. My friends. MY GAY FRIENDS. See this as not normal. Who are you to decide for them what they see as not normal? (let’s stay in present day USA can we?)

            • MY GAY FRIENDS. See this as not normal.

              I cannot speak to the opinions of your gay friends. I don’t know them from a hole in the wall.

              All I can say is that “normal” is a complicated and shifting concept. Gay marriage will be considered normal soon enough.

              (let’s stay in present day USA can we?)

              No.

              You’re framing the debate on ideas of marriage as set in Puritanical America and then positing that that’s how marriage has “historically” been as if history began with Plymouth Rock. It didn’t.

              You either accept the “real” historical idea of marriage (and you don’t want to go down that road) or you accept the current idea of marriage – which is gradually shifting toward inclusion of gay marriage. You can’t cherry pick the time when the definition was set and force us all to use it.

              • Genesis 2:24. Genesis..Where the concept originated.

              • Anita, are you so sure you want to anchor your interpretation of marriage in the bible?

                Abraham had sex with his concubines.
                Samson was given the younger daughter of the girl he wanted and just accepted it as interchangeable.
                Samson also slept with tons of prostitutes.
                Adam and Eve had children – where did the next generation come from if not inbreeding?
                Deut (as mentioned elsewhere in the thread) says that a woman has to marry her rapist.
                Deut also says that a woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night must be stoned to death.
                If all the people of the earth were killed except those on Noah’s ark, we once again have to ask how the next generation started without substantial inbreeding (at least amongst cousins).
                If a man dies, his brother has to marry the widow.
                Exodus tells us that man may sell his daughter into slavery. The slave owner may decide to marry her to himself or his son (she does not have a choice in the matter).
                Also in Exodus, it permits multiple wives.

                ——-

                Now, now, Anita.. no cherry-picking allowed. If you want to premise your view of marriage in the bible, you have to take all of it or none of it, not just the parts that support your view.

              • Yes, I’m very sure. Besides it makes biological sense. Back in Genesis there were no sperm banks…so it only stands to reason..blah blah blah.
                How come you can cherry pick but I can’t.

              • Neither of us is allowed to cherry pick. I’m just pointing out that the “biblical” definition of marriage seems to encompass a great deal more than you seem to be willing to accept.

                Adam and Eve suggests that it’s 1M + 1F. Fine.

                But elsewhere, it’s man + woman + woman + woman + concubine. And elsewhere it’s rapist + woman. And elsewhere its master + slave. Yada yada yada.

                So I’m saying that, biblically, marriage is many different things, not just the one you want. Are you willing to open your definition to include polygamy? Sex-slavery? Rape-therefore-marriage? And more?

                Why not? These are bonified biblical marriages. Why do you get to choose the one you like and foist it on the rest of us as the “only” definition of biblical marriage?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Mathias, having sex with multiple partners does no equate to marriage, just because Sampson had sex with 50 different women, doesn’t mean he was we’d to them

              • Mathius™ says:

                having sex with multiple partners does no equate to marriage

                True.. but it does mean that monogamy is not a requirement of marriage.

                But, elsewhere…

                19 And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. – Genesis 4:19

                But maybe you don’t like Lamech because he’s decended from Cain. In that case..

                Elsewhere:

                3 So, after Abraham had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarah, Abraham’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abraham her husband as a wife. – Genesis 16:3

                That’s right, Sarah gave Abraham her slave as a second wife.
                That’s a hell of a gift – I hope it was a special occasion.

                Not clear enough?

                3 And [King] David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron, and more sons and daughters were born to David. – 2 Samuel 5:13

                Also, lest we forget:

                3 He [King Solomon] had 700 wives, who were princesses, and 300 concubines. And his wives turned away his heart. – 1 kings 11:3

                Yikes! I can barely handle one wife, nevermind 700 wives + 300 concubines!

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Homosexual marriage was NOT common in Greek, Roman or Egyptian times.

            The definition of marriage has been since its inception the union of a man and woman in matrimony. Living together for purpose of husband (man) and wife (woman). This definition appears BEFORE either churches or the State declared authority over the practice.

            There are only a few exceptions to this definition in the historical record. You commit the common error here by confusing the existence and acceptance of homosexual behavior with “marriage”.

            So yes, words can change meaning over time. But that is NOT what has happened with this definition. It has been a “deliberate” altering of the definition based on other political values.

            The definition is unique because IT IS THE DEFINITION. It was the meaning of the term as it was used by the vast majority of human beings over thousands of years. The argument that “who are you to decide” is utter bull shit when it comes to definitions and meanings that have existed with such narrow focus.

            It amount to “who are you to decide that gravity does not allow me to float freely”.

            • It was the meaning of the term as it was used by the vast majority of human beings over thousands of years. </b

              That meaning, over thousands of years, includes a not-insignificant amount of time when women were chattel, does it not?

              It, over thousands of years, includes a not-insignificant amount of time when men were not required to be monogamous, does it not?

              It, over thousands of years, includes a not-insignificant amount of time when men were allowed multiple wives, does it not?

              It, over thousands of years, includes a not-insignificant amount of time when marriages were arranged by third parties, sometimes between children, does it not?

              It, over thousands of years, includes a not-insignificant amount of time when men were allowed to keep concubines, does it not?

              It, over thousands of years, includes a not-insignificant amount of time when a husband was permitted to beat his wife, does it not?

              It, over thousands of years, includes a not-insignificant amount of time when infertility was grounds for divorce, does it not?

              It, over thousands of years, includes a not-insignificant amount of time when women were not permitted to refuse sex, does it not?

              The bible tells us that a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned to death ("purged") by the men of the town (Deut 22:20). Either this is God's view of marriage or men's view at the time it was written.

              Likewise, the bible also tells us that a man who is caught raping a virgin must marry her (Deut 22:28) and pay her a small fine. Note, by the way, that she does not have a say in the matter that she has to marry her rapist. Either this is God's view of marriage or men's view at the time it was written.

              —–

              But yea, let's just imagine the view for the last several thousand years was M+F in monogamous and mutually-respecting egalitarian union.

              HARRUMPH!

              • plainlyspoken says:

                But you overlook one small point – the act involved a man and a woman, a male and a female. Not a male & a male, or a female & a female.

                Just saying.

              • Well, allow me to quote you what Jesus said about homosexuality:

                ” “

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Hey, I didn’t drag up all those points from the Bible and I am just saying all those involve a man and a woman. lol. Trying to help you refine your future arguments to take in this small fact of biology sir.

                I could care less what they want to do/call it. I am, as I have said, unconcerned with it having any effect on my marriage.

                lol….but enjoy throwing in the smoke like that.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                One day so rational, the next NOT so much:

                That meaning, over thousands of years, includes a not-insignificant amount of time when women were chattel, does it not? YES AND NO, DEPENDING ON WHERE. HOWEVER, THIS IS IRRELEVANT. USE OF LOGICAL FALLACY, 5 YARD PENALTY.

                It, over thousands of years, includes a not-insignificant amount of time when men were not required to be monogamous, does it not? YES AND NO, DEPENDING ON WHERE. HOWEVER, THIS IS IRRELEVANT. USE OF LOGICAL FALLACY, 5 YARD PENALTY.

                It, over thousands of years, includes a not-insignificant amount of time when men were allowed multiple wives, does it not? YES AND NO, DEPENDING ON WHERE. HOWEVER, THIS IS IRRELEVANT. USE OF LOGICAL FALLACY, 5 YARD PENALTY.

                It, over thousands of years, includes a not-insignificant amount of time when marriages were arranged by third parties, sometimes between children, does it not? YES AND NO, DEPENDING ON WHERE. HOWEVER, THIS IS IRRELEVANT. USE OF LOGICAL FALLACY, 5 YARD PENALTY.

                It, over thousands of years, includes a not-insignificant amount of time when men were allowed to keep concubines, does it not? YES AND NO, DEPENDING ON WHERE. HOWEVER, THIS IS IRRELEVANT. USE OF LOGICAL FALLACY, 5 YARD PENALTY.

                It, over thousands of years, includes a not-insignificant amount of time when a husband was permitted to beat his wife, does it not? IN THIS CASE, MOSTLY NO. HOWEVER, THIS IS IRRELEVANT. USE OF LOGICAL FALLACY, 5 YARD PENALTY.

                It, over thousands of years, includes a not-insignificant amount of time when infertility was grounds for divorce, does it not? I DON’T THINK THAT WAS VERY WIDESPREAD. IN SOME PLACES THIS ALLOWED ANOTHER WIFE TO JOIN THE FAMILY. HOWEVER, THIS IS IRRELEVANT. USE OF LOGICAL FALLACY, 5 YARD PENALTY.

                It, over thousands of years, includes a not-insignificant amount of time when women were not permitted to refuse sex, does it not? NO. HOWEVER, THIS IS IRRELEVANT. USE OF LOGICAL FALLACY, 5 YARD PENALTY.

                The bible tells us that a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned to death (“purged”) by the men of the town (Deut 22:20). Either this is God’s view of marriage or men’s view at the time it was written. PROBABLY TRUE, ALTHOUGH IT WOUILD BE A MEMORY OF WHEN IT HAPPENED, NOT WHEN IT WAS WRITTERN. HOWEVER, THIS IS IRRELEVANT. USE OF LOGICAL FALLACY, 5 YARD PENALTY.

                Likewise, the bible also tells us that a man who is caught raping a virgin must marry her (Deut 22:28) and pay her a small fine. Note, by the way, that she does not have a say in the matter that she has to marry her rapist. Either this is God’s view of marriage or men’s view at the time it was written. AGAIN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HISTORICAL AND FURTHERMORE, LIMITED TO THE AREA IN QUESITON. YES HOWEVER, THIS IS IRRELEVANT. USE OF LOGICAL FALLACY, 5 YARD PENALTY.

                IF I AM COUNTING CORRECTLY THAT IS 50 YARDS IN OFFSIDE PENTALTIES FOR USING LOGICAL FALLACY TO MAKE YOUR CASE.

                WHICH BY THE WAY, IS THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE AND WHAT IT IS THAT MAKES A DEFINTION WHAT IT IS.

                —–

                But yea, let’s just imagine the view for the last several thousand years was M+F in monogamous and mutually-respecting egalitarian union. DIFFERENT LOGCIAL FALLACY THIS TIME. STRAWMAN. 15YARDS FOR THAT ONE.

                HARRUMPH!

                RIGHT BACK AT YA! TRY STICKING TO THE TOPIC NEXT TIME.

          • SKTrynoskySr says:

            Studied a wee bit of Roman, Greek and Egyptian History in my time. Homosexuality was never the “norm”. There are societies where it (as sex) would be the norm, prisons, the old non-coed Navy for example but it was never a societal norm for if it were, like the Shakers who were foresworn not to have any sex, the society would have died out.

            There is absolutely no reason in eh world to have a Biblical discussion here other than the Bible merely codified what already existed.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Homosexuality was never the “norm”.

              I’m not saying it was the “norm.” I’m saying that it was practiced and condoned (at least to some extent). The point being that the idea is not novel and without any historical basis.

              There is absolutely no reason in eh world to have a Biblical discussion here other than the Bible merely codified what already existed.

              There absolutely is.

              Anita defined marriage as a man and a woman based on Genesis. If she’s going to use that as her foundation, I’m going to make her swallow the whole thing. I can’t argue that ‘because the bible says so’ is a stupid thing to base policy on – because she (and many others) simply will never accept the idea of a truly secular government not dominated by Christian thought. So the best I can do in that situation is point at the bible and tell her (and others) that she’s got it wrong at the source.

              People cherry pick from the bible to suggest that the “biblical” definition of marriage is a simple life-long monogamous egalitarian male/female pairing and I would suggest that it was a lot more than that. Slave-becomes-wife, polygamy, rapist-becomes-husband, et cetera – they’re all in there, but conveniently ignored, and I’m not inclined to permit that in a debate.

              I would further suggest that, other than one line in Leviticus, homosexuality is completely absent from the books. (and, since Jesus’s death absolved Christians of the need to follow Levitican law, there’s nothing at all in the supporting texts to say that men can’t marry other men). So why should I permit her to tell me that the biblical definition says something it doesn’t?

              She (and many, many others) are insisting on a biblical foundation for the meaning of the word marriage that simply isn’t substantiated. If anything, the variety of types of marriage found in the bible / Torah suggests (to me) that marriage is pretty much an anything-goes type of institution.

              • An easy cop out except it has more or less been codified over the past few thousand years with certain exceptions that fall below the norm. No, I am not talking Homosexuality but I seem to remember that in Polynesian society, not more than a few centuries back, sibling marriage was allowed. That culture clashed with Western culture and western culture won out but it could just as easily been Eastern culture that won out.

              • You make some very interesting key points, Matt.

                One of my personal hangups with Christian Fundamentalism is that there often seems to be a certain disconnect and/or confusion between what the bible says and what the preachers teach. Often, what the preacher says differs and wins.

                As you pointed out, and as I suspect is the case, is that it is a matter of convenience.

        • I doubt that it will be normal at any time in the future. I’m talking marriage here, not just being gay.

          Care to place a wager?

          One more generation, maybe two.. we just need to wait for you guys to die off first and we’ll be all set.

          http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/06/2013-Homosexuality-01.png (and that’s from Pew!)

          I couldn’t find a result for the demographic under 18, but I’d bet it’s in the 80’s.

          You’re on the losing side of history. The only question is how long it will take: when, not “if.”

          • plainlyspoken says:

            And the America you will have in a generation or two you are welcome to. I doubt things will be much better in very many areas to make it any better than what we have today.

            Either way it won’t matter to me, I’ll be ashes scattered over my property and damn uncaring of the mess that will still exist. 🙂

  26. These endless debates about abortion and gay marriage are a diversion from the real fiscal, economic, foreign policy, massive government intrusion, breaches of the constitution… debates that we should be having. If words just mean what we want them to mean today, then we have no real constitution. We have a national debt that is growing be incredible amounts daily. We have looming disasters in Medicare and SS. We have a president who is selectively enforcing the law and is writing his own laws. We have a bureaucracy that is creating laws and rules ten times faster than Congress, we have a Congress that is deadlocked when massive problems are staring them in the face. So continue this debate and be happy with your bread and circuses.

  27. Democratic Sen. Landrieu Walks A Fine Line In Red Louisiana

    It will take a lot more than a pot of white beans to get Broussard to vote for one particular candidate this November: Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu. The dealbreaker for him was when she voted for the Affordable Care Act.

    Broussard has all kinds of problems with the law itself — that it’s wrong to force people to buy insurance, that it will make businesses hire less. But there’s something else that bothers him: The law is the signature achievement of a man Broussard never wanted to see become president.

    “I don’t vote for black people, lady,” he says. “No, ma’am. I don’t vote for black people. They got their place, I got my place. That’s the way I was raised.”

    Broussard says Landrieu votes too much in line with the president’s agenda -– he calls her “Obama Lady.”

    Link.

  28. What is accepted as talent by society today. Words to Beyonce’s latest:

    “Driver roll up the partition please
    I don’t need you seeing Yonce on her knees
    Oh he so horny, yeah he want to f—
    He popped all my buttons, and he ripped my blouse
    He Monica Lewinsky-ed all on my gown
    I just wanna be the girl you like, the girl you like…”

    • I read that yesterday and wanted to punch her. She had it all…now she’s right down there in the gutter with Miley. Sad. The only song I can listen to of hers is Single Ladies, and don’t make me watch while listening.

    • Mathius™ says:

      *Yawn*

  29. Mathius™ says:

    G-man,

    Mathias, after birth abortion is the next logical step in the process.

    Step toward WHAT? What is the goal? Who is taking these steps? Why?

    There can’t be a “next logical step” unless someone is driving for a goal. What is that goal?

    You see abortion as choice, I see it as population control.

    How so?

    No one is getting an abortion because of population control.

    Women are getting abortions for personal reasons (finances, et cetera). They aren’t getting abortions because there are too many people in the world.

    Is someone manipulating them into get abortions? Who? Why?

    Just because the result is similar (fewer children), that doesn’t mean it’s being used as population control – that’s just a side effect.

    • “Today eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most
      adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and
      social problems.
      “I think you must agree … that the campaign for birth control is not
      merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims
      of eugenics … Birth control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the
      eugenic educator. Margaret Sanger, founder Planned Parenthood

      • Mathius™ says:

        Written in 1921. Context makes a difference. Eugenics was a new and novel (and fashionable) idea at the time – no one knew or understood what it could mean when applied. They found that out about 20 years later.

        I just read the article and find it, frankly, abhorrent. link.

        But present day PP does not adhere to this stance.

        If you’re going to blame companies for the ideas of their founders from 93 years ago, that seems like somewhat of a stretch to me. Do you boycott Hugo Boss since Boss, himself, was a Nazi and made his fortune manufacturing Nazi uniforms? Do you boycott Bayer for manufacturing the gas used in the gas chambers? Do you boycott Siemens for also manufacturing the gas – but manufacturing it with slave labor from the camps? Do you boycott Ford for manufacturing vehicles for both sides (Ford received a Nazi medal for “distinguished foreigners)?

        • What a man produces, though used by evil, is a different argument then what a man believes about evil.

          Progressives, as they are typically defined, support Eugenics, which is the root (and remains the SAME ROOT) for the gravest evil of men upon men.

          The same soft declarations you pretend, Mathius, are EXACTLY the same soft declarations of men of such evil.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    “THEY” = Intellectuals, influence pushers, opinion leaders and activists.

    But first and foremost, are the “intellectuals” and those of a particular left wing bent who have built a monopoly over the education of young people.

    One more thing, a return slap if you will over this “ageism” of yours.

    Let me remind you that the “old timers” who hang out here are THE Generation who brought you the Civil Rights Movement, the drive for greater Rights, the “acceptance” of homosexual and other strange lifestyles, etc, etc.

    You seem to think these rapid changes are due to people under 40? You are delusional and arrogant if you believe this. Where do you think those under 40’s got their “libertarian” or “traditional liberal” values? ONLY from the intellectual elite?

    Many of the issues we have today are not due to my generations “backward” ways, but due to those who are not willing to take YES as an answer. Those who wish to gain even more via their political manipulations.

    We Liberals used to stand for Individual Rights and Liberty. Our children now want to use the Govt Gun to FORCE a man to bake a cake for someone he vehemently disagrees with.

    Obviously, not everyone in a generation thinks the same. But your snarky comment about we dinosaurs needs to recognize that WE are the people of the 60’s and early 70’s. The very same people who pushed through these old barriers.

    I do wonder sometimes if we screwed up the whole thing with our success.

  31. Mathius™ says:

    Black Flag,

    Absolutely abortion exists as population control. Abortion is far more chosen by low-income, low intelligent class of humanity and by its use, tends to reduce these sub-humans.

    Could you please provide your definition of the term “population control”?

    • The words are specific and unconfusing.

      Population “control” – limiting some group and expanding other groups population or relative percentage of such a population (more of one and less of another)

      • Mathius™ says:

        So “abortion exists as population control” would suggest that the purpose of abortion is to minimize one group or alter its relative percentage to another group?

        • Its PROMOTION in society is to achieve exactly that, yes.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Great!

            So who, exactly, is promoting it with this intent?

            Is Planned Parenthood out to trying to minimize the black/poor population?

            • The wealthy class vs the poor class.
              The roots of Eugenics

              “It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits (positive eugenics), and reduced reproduction of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics).”

              • Mathius™ says:

                Yes, yes, but “the wealthy class” doesn’t make a decision like advocating PP. It’s an amorphous group of individuals.

                Are you suggesting that some individual(s) within the wealthy class sat around in a room smoking cigars and game up with the idea of encouraging abortions amongst the poor / black communities for the express purpose of improving the gene pool? That someone planned this as a deliberate move to “thin the herd” as it were? That, today, the head of PP and the board of directors are deliberately targeting these neighborhoods in order to mitigate their presence in the gene pool?

              • No.
                It does not take any overt meeting to say “hey, lets do this”.

                The wealthy class tend towards similar goals and hence, tend toward supporting the same certain things individually.

                You see this in politics, where a policy of one group appears to promote your own goals, hence, you support the policies and advocate for that group.

              • Mathius™ says:

                See, the way I see it is this: There’s a set who legitimately believe that abortion is morally acceptable and should be available to those who feel they need it. (I think you’ll agree that these people exist, however misguided). They set up shop and the people who use them are more likely to be poor.

                Why? Well, of course, because poor people can’t afford to have kids and need an “out.” Now, for purposes of this conversation, I won’t debate the morality of taking such an out – only that they desire to do so.

                So if the demand is highest in poor areas, that’s where the company is going to set up the most shops (perfectly reasonable, no?).

                Since demand is less in the more affluent areas (better knowledge and more widespread use of birth control), there are fewer “unwanted pregnancies” per capita. Combined with lower population densities, it does not make it as economical to set up in such places.

                Thus the entire structure evolves organically through the free market – supply follows demand.

                No nefarious plot, no class warfare, no manipulation, no master plan. Just people who believe that abortion should be safe / legal servicing people who, for personal reasons (which frequently relate to poverty), feel the need to have an abortion.

                Isn’t the simplest answer the more logical? Supply follows demand. It’s much more reasonable than some intangible accidental elite-class-mind-meld conspiracy to control the population of the underclass by making them abort their own fetuses.

              • There’s a set who legitimately believe that abortion is morally acceptable and should be available to those who feel they need it.

                “Legitimately”? Hardly. It is a perversion of principles to declare that the slaughter of human beings is “acceptable”. Yes, there is a group that believes in slaughtering human beings as a means to an end, but it cannot be argued “legitimate”.

                It is not an economic argument – it is a political argument, so do not try to use economic arguments here.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Yes, there is a group that believes in slaughtering human beings as a means to an end, but it cannot be argued “legitimate”.

                I meant “legitimately” in the sense that they “sincerely” believe. Sorry for the confusion.

                Do you agree with my statement now?

                There is a group who legitimately sincerely believes that abortion is acceptable and should be available to those who need it.

              • As I said already, there is a group that believes that slaughtering human beings is a means to an end.

              • Mathius™ says:

                It is not an economic argument – it is a political argument, so do not try to use economic arguments here.

                I interpret it as a function of economics.

                Some people can’t financially afford to have children. The majority of these people are going to be poor and minorities.

                Other people believe they have a service to offer which is morally acceptable. (whether it is or not is irrelevant here – that is what they believe).

                It fits so neatly.

                Why do we need to invoke a class-war genocide with a massive conspiracy whose members never actually consciously planned or organized anything.

                Occam’s Razor, non?

              • It is not an economic argument.

                It is a political argument.

              • I think you don’t understand what I am saying.

                Economics is does not declare “right or wrong”. It describes consequences of human action.

                “Do this, you get that”.

                Using economics to justify an action as moral or not is irrational. It is like using a cookbook to determine the morality of eating or avoiding pork.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        OR……….the REDUCTION of the Total Population to an “ACCEPTABLE” level.

        Since the wealthy white folks have done this with just peer pressure and the pill, abortion is needed for those who don’t use the contraception.

  32. Mathius™ says:

    Black Flag,

    However uncomfortable it has been lately, I’m once again on the side of Mathius.

    It always gives me nose-bleeds when you and I agree on something.

    But it’s always fun watching you flanking from the right.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    WARNING to Republicans.

    Any of you who participate in the PARTY politics and knows someone in the same, please spread this warning to them.

    Your opposition to the Minimum Wage increase will be used as further evidence of YOUR WAR AGAINST WOMEN.

    So you had better come up with an COUNTER ATTACK and a solid defense against being accused of trying to HOLD POOR WOMEN DOWN and KEEPING THEM IN POVERTY.

    • Mathius™ says:

      The above post is true. No named have been changed to protect the innocent.

      This is the city: Washington, DC. Several million people live and work here. Some of them are politicians. That’s where I come in.

      My name’s Mathius. I carry a badge.

    • Hillarious! I know an awful lot of guys who earn below $10.10. Maybe we can get them on our side too,

    • Gmanfortruth says:

      If the republicans weren’t on the same side as the democrats, they could go after the dems and claim a “war on children” ! They won’t.

  34. Gmanfortruth says:

    @Mathius, Sorry it took so long to respond, I was in Pittsburgh seeing a surgeon.

    Population control is alive and well and it occurs every single day. The target is the poor and mainly black communities. You will never find a PP abortion clinic in a well to do neighborhood, they are all targeted towards the poor and black. The statistics are irrefutable. The black population has remained at 12% of the overall population since the 70’s. They should be much higher at this point, but they are not. This is targeted population control, Progressive style.

    After birth abortions are in fact happening, but it’s a crime today. I see this changing over time where children with any form of defect will be allowed to be euthanized up to 6 months or even older. It sounds crazy, but that’s how eugenics works, it has fooled those who follow the progressives into thinking it’s a good thing. If you have blacks, then you are winning.

    Homosexuality has been around throughout history, but so has beastiality and pediphilia (sp), should that be enough to allow people to marry sheep and men to marry children? NONE of it is normal, period. So if your argument is “because it’s been around for ever” be carefull, because that then becomes an argument for anything “abnormal” to be permitted. You mentioned rape and the woman must marry the man as part of history, should that be the case now? Of course not. I don’t care if gay people get married, period. But I know that it is not natural and certainly not normal. 🙂

    PEACE! Good job today!

    • Mathius™ says:

      I was in Pittsburgh seeing a surgeon.

      Hope all is well… :/

      You will never find a PP abortion clinic in a well to do neighborhood, they are all targeted towards the poor and black.

      As discussed elsewhere, I see this as a question of supply and demand. Who “needs” the abortions the most? Poor and minorities – that’s who. Why? Because they’re poor and can’t afford to have children, so there is the greatest demand for that service.

      Add in denser populations, and it makes perfect sense that PP would locate there. That’s where their customers are, after all.

      After birth abortions are in fact happening, but it’s a crime today.

      As it should be.

      But, regardless, where? Who is doing this?

      I remember that one psychopath “doctor” in Philly (?).. he was arrested, I believe, and charged with several murders. Is this your example? One rogue lunatic who was arrested? Or is there a lot of this going on that I just don’t know about.. sources?

      I see this changing over time where children with any form of defect will be allowed to be euthanized up to 6 months or even older.

      Nonsense.

      I’ll take this bet all day long.

      Homosexuality has been around throughout history, but so has beastiality and pediphilia (sp), should that be enough to allow people to marry sheep and men to marry children?

      Consenting adults should be free to form whatever bonds they wish.

      Beastiality concerns relationships with animals. Animals cannot consent.
      Pedophilia concerns relationships with children. Children are not adults able to consent.

      These are apples and oranges and, frankly, offensive comparisons.

      So if your argument is “because it’s been around for ever” be carefull[sic]

      That is not, and has never been my argument.

      It is my defense against the mindless argument that marriage has always been one man plus one woman.

      My argument is that two free human beings, adult and consenting, should be free to form whatever bonds they wish. Further, the law should be agnostic to the gender of people who wish to marry as there is no – NONE – reasonable grounds for discrimination.

      You mentioned rape and the woman must marry the man as part of history, should that be the case now? Of course not.

      Of course not.

      But that’s the point, again.

      Anita was using the biblical definition of marriage that it’s between one man and one woman, and I was pointing out that there are other crazy marriages in the bible and that she doesn’t get to cherry pick the one she wants and treat that like the arbiter of truth.

      If the bible gives us the definition of marriage, it also commands raped women to marry their rapist. Since we don’t accept that later point, we cannot take the former as irrefutable either.

      But I know that it is not natural

      Hogwash.

      Of course it’s natural.

      They love each other.

      They want to spend their lives together and have that love recognized by society.

      They don’t want to be relegated to some other classification (separate is not equal).

      Nothing could be more natural.

      Plus, of course, I can provide plenty of examples of homosexuality in nature (chimps, dolphins, etc) – if you think it’s so unnatural then why are animals engaging in it?

      • Gmanfortruth says:

        NO, Mathius, it is not natural. I don’t care if chimps don’t know any better, or any animal for that matter, BIOLOGICALLY, it is NOT NORMAL! But like I said, I really don’t care. You sir have been seriously brainwashed by the progressives, one day, you will see the err in your ways, or it will lead to your destruction. History is your lesson, dig deep and learn!

        I still like you, so don’t think I’m trying to be mean, I’m not 🙂

  35. Gmanfortruth says:

    Does anybody here support any military actions by the US in Ukraine? I certainly do NOT!

    • Only if you want WW3

      • Gmanfortruth says:

        I have a feeling that WWIII is exactly what the Elite Ruling Class wants. The fiat Ponzi scheme is coming to a head, everyones economy is seemingly in trouble, WE will never pay back out 17 trillion dollar debt and so on. If the people knew what the elite have done to the economies, the value of money, gold and silver manipulation and so on, the elites would be hunted down and killed. The truth is very close to coming out and they don’t want that, so off to war we go 👿

  36. I have gotten to where I attempt to stay out of conversations about homosexuals. I have members of my own family who are Gay and Lesbians, they know how I feel about it, and I leave it at that. They keep it to themselves and I let them. I still accept them as family members and we just don’t discuss it.

    However, reading above, I can’t help but notice that y’all are throwing the Bible around a lot in the discussions and THAT does bother me. I also notice that you are sticking strictly to the OLD TESTAMENT when discussing not only homosexuality but marriage also.

    But if you look to the NEW TESTAMENT of the Bible you would see it confirmed. Homosexuality is condemned in there, and also Marriage is affirmed. In fact, marriage is affirmed by Jesus as between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Many faiths, my own included, have in the past not allowed a Deacon or especially a Preacher who has been divorced before. That was because they take the verse, IMHO, entirely too literal. What the Bible says is that a Deacon or Preacher be the Husband of one wife. My church says that that means he can only be married once. Others are more Liberal with it. Also, there is no provision made in the Bible for a Woman being either one. In fact, it specifically PROHIBITS this. Again though, some religions, including my more Liberal churches of my Faith, allow it and even approve.

    And to finally get around to Homosexuality, the New Testament in Corinthians affirms what the Old says about it. It doesn’t say that they should be stoned, but it DOES say it is an ABOMINATION BEFORE GOD. This is what I see it as also.
    However, having said that, I also think and believe that it is GOD’S place to judge it. IT IS NOT MINE OR YOURS! And as far as their marriage goes, while I don’t like it AT ALL, I do not believe it is the Government’s place to make any decision AT ALL about it. I ALSO do not believe it’s the Government’s place to rule on ‘Normal” marriage either.

    Please note that these are my personal opinions. Feel free to criticize it all you want but know that, just as yours, you will not change mine. Peace OUT! 😉

    • Mathius™ says:

      But if you look to the NEW TESTAMENT of the Bible you would see it confirmed. Homosexuality is condemned in there

      Donde?

    • I agree with a lot of what you said.

      By order of nature/God/ or however you define that, men and women fit together like puzzle pieces, …physically, mentally and spiritually.

      By order of nature/God or however you define that, people are individuals with inalienable free will to self determination and choice on what to believe.

      This isn’t just about the NT or OT, but other religions/beliefs as well.

      Live free and happy, believe what you will. Choose belief X, define marriage as Y and live standards Z. Live and Teach your children XYZ.

      Unless someone else’s view of XYZ violates you in some way, why bother with another’s definition of XYZ? What good does it do you?

      And it isn’t just about gay people. That is simply a way to demonstrate or highlight a fundamental conflict in modern society.

      See, we have built up all these systems in society that seek to govern private affairs and pit people against each other as a struggle for political dominance. If people would take the approach you do with gay relatives, there would be no issue. You don’t agree, but you do respect them and thus tolerate their choice.

      Apply that basic concept to everything about individuality, unalienable rights and modern life… anything from tolerating Satanists to local ordinance regarding liquor sales or smoking in restaurants, etc. etc. etc..

      There must be a better way besides enslaving ourselves with votes.

  37. Mathius™ says:

    Black Flag,

    Using economics to justify an action as moral or not is irrational.

    I’m not weighing in on the morality of abortion at the moment.

    Only that it’s not some master plan to control / reduce the black population.

    As a company providing abortion services, PP provides such services where they are most demanded.

    This is far more rational to me than the idea that some cabal of wealthy individuals are subconsciously scheming to curtail the black population.

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck……….. Displaced Okie…………someone.

    Could somebody please explain to me where the Constitution granted the Federal Govt the Authority to police the Local Police?

    What gives the Feds the authority over these crimes period??

  39. Gmanfortruth says:

    This should be a massive law suit, as in billions of dollars. Wrongful arrest must end in this country, period. There is NO excuse for it: http://lastresistance.com/4886/driver-blows-000-on-breath-test-gets-arrested-for-dwi/

  40. Perhaps the hype of the terrorism threat at the Winter Olympics was a bit overdone. Maybe? Do you think?

    http://en.ria.ru/sochi2014/20140225/187872611/Putin-Says-Sochi-Criticism-Motivated-by-Global-Politics.html

    I really am starting to think that there are American Politicians out there like McCain and Kerry that will not be happy until they unleash the Third World War.

  41. Gmanfortruth says:
    • If you suspect you are encountering them, just say whatever outlandish chaotic crazy bullshit you think will aggravate, confuse, obfuscate or distract.

      Contradict yourself constantly.

      🙂

    • I always just refuse to speak to them and ignore them. I have found that they just LOVE for you to pay attention to them.

      • Over the last 15 or 20 years, I have encountered so many weirdos trying to tell me that I am everything from John Titor to a demi-god to the epitome of evil. I have responded with everything from playing the role of a pissed off lying 15 yr old to a sea monster trying to get a suspected ‘fat bald guy’ pregnant. I’ve said things, not for sake of the person I am talking to, but the person likely listening. I’ve said things for no other reason than because I was wigging the hell out dealing with all the bullshit.

        Play along. You can at least extract information by studying them.

        My approach is a bit reckless. But that’s just me. People seek order when presented with chaos. So give them chaos and pay attention to what they do. Question when why how where and who.

        And like I said, contradict yourself a lot. It makes it even easier if you are in a state of paradoxical insanity anyway.

        If you sling enough shit at them, eventually it will produce results.

  42. I suspect I already know but I’ll ask anyway. WHY are we giving PP MILLIONS to try and buy our elections?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/27/planned-parenthood-plots-largest-ever-campaign-blitz-in-2014/

  43. JAC…..watch Texas closely. It appears that we have successfully forced a runoff position for RINOS. Cornyn is no longer a shoe in, it appears. It also appears that we have successfully forced the Lt Governor position into a runoff. These are republicans that have been labeled establishment and bent on compromising and being intimidated by Democrats.

    Planned Parenthood really screwed up down here as well. Texas has become a real focal point in politics and the pounding that Cruz has gotten has appeared so far to have rallied conservatives. They are turning out in record numbers for early voting and are voting in the Republican primary.

    In the past, I have always voted in the Democratic primary because I supported most of the Repubs. I always voted for the best Democrat…..this year, because we have become pissed at the establishment Republicans……we are trying to dislodge the Republicans that have abandoned Texas. Cornyn is one of those and so is Dewhurst. So, this year, I went to the Republican primary as Cornyn and Dewhurst both have lost my support.

    Two years ago, we (moderate conservatives), and that includes my 3,500 strong veterans group, have started a grass roots campaign for local level positions and have succeeded so far in getting more conservative ( not right wing extremists ) into lower level positions and it is paying off already.

    I think we have a great shot at getting Cornyn out and another Cruz like person in his place. Cruz scares people because is independent and that is what we like. Independence!!! and not following lock step or compromising. Cruz gets bashed by Democrats and RINOS because he represents independence.

    AS to Wendy Davis……well…..early polls show that she is behind by 15 percent….I suspect that the gap will close a little but I see a Abbott victory by over ten points. At least we hope so……

    Also, there have been less than 200 applications state wide for State ID’s for voting. We are strongly enforcing the photo ID here and that is also having an effect. It is amazing that just enforcing the laws as they are written…..without “selective enforcement “….what happens.

    It is interesting here.

%d bloggers like this: