published Thursday, August 23rd, 2012

Food rules eat away liberty

In the United States and other (relatively) free societies, the personal liberty we enjoy is based on one single notion: Self-ownership. You own your body and, so long as you don't harm someone else, you can do with it pretty much as you damn well please.

If that's the case why do so many people think they have the right to regulate and dictate the food you can put in your body?

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has become a chief offender. He has decided that it's not enough to worry about the public safety, education, transportation and economy of America's largest city. He's also has to be everyone's mother, too.

Next month, the city Board of Health votes on — and is expected to approve — Bloomberg's proposal to ban selling sodas in cups or bottles larger than 16 ounces in city restaurants, stadiums and movie theaters.

Not surprisingly, New Yorkers are decidedly against their mayor regulating how much soda they're allowed to buy.

A poll conducted earlier this month by the New York Times found, "Six in 10 residents said the mayor's soda plan was a bad idea, compared with 36 percent who called it a good idea."

The resistance to the soda ban is an indication that Americans have had enough of government telling us what we can and cannot eat and drink.

But there's one person who obviously has yet to get the message: Michelle Obama.

After the first lady noticed that her daughter, Malia, "was getting a little chubby," she decided to launch a War on Childhood Obesity. Now, when she's not going on extravagant vacations at taxpayers' expense, Mrs. Obama is busy running around playing general in her delusional little war. She's even managed to declare martial law on school cafeterias across America.

Largely as a result of the first lady's pressure, the USDA was forced to alter its school lunch requirements to include more costly fruits, vegetables and whole grains. That price increase is passed on to the students and, in the case of free and reduced lunch recipients, to taxpayers.

In total, the Michelle Obama-inspired new school lunch requirements are expected to cost taxpayers $3.2 billion over the next five years, according (coincidentally) to Bloomberg.

The first lady is also the force behind recently enacted federal school vending machine regulations and limits on how often schools can have bake sales. The two rules cost schools millions of dollars of revenue each year and, of course, taxpayers will end up filling the void.

After waging her food fight in schools, Mrs. Obama trained her sights on her own front yard. In 2010, during the White House's annual Easter Egg Roll, the first lady refused to give out the traditional gift bag filled with Easter candy. Instead, she gave out fruit and set up hand washing stations.

The geniuses that run Horace Mann School in Newton, Mass, thought the first lady was really on to something by doing everything she could to prevent kids from enjoying a little candy on a holiday. So this year, they followed Mrs. Obama's lead and banned Valentine's Day candy. Instead of candy hearts, the school's principal recommended the kids give each other origami. After all, nothing says "be mine," quite like a paper swan.

But children are just the first battle in the first lady's war. Not happy with just determining what our kids are allowed to eat, Mrs. Obama and her advisors are now in meetings with the National Restaurant Association to dictate how much food restaurants are permitted to serve to adults. She has also gotten some candy makers to stop producing king-size candy bars.

The number of rules and regulations on what people are allowed to eat and drink is absurd — and growing by the day, thanks to food dictators like Michael Bloomberg and Michelle Obama.

If you're an adult, you own your body and should be able to decide what goes in it. If you're a parent, you — not government — should have the authority to decide what your child gets to eat. It's as simple as that.

73
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
EaTn said...

Banning or limiting junk food is no different than controlling tobacco, alcohol or drugs. Both have a detriment to individuals and society. The cost of poor health as a result of junk food is often passed onto the taxpayer.

August 23, 2012 at 6:17 a.m.
librul said...

Limit junk food? But that might cut into profits. No, no can't have that. Eat all you want, we'll make more. And then we'll destroy your bank account as you try to pay for private insurance and health care bills to deal with your obesity. It's the capitalist Amercan way!

August 23, 2012 at 7 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Ah, yes. The "liberal" left who insist that it is an invasion of a woman's privacy to limit the killing of unborn children, because, you know, it's HER body, has zero problems telling everyone what they can and cannot put into their own bodies.

Nice little bit of totalitarianism ya'll have going on there, it'd be too bad if someone breaks it.

August 23, 2012 at 8 a.m.
Easy123 said...

ScottyM,

Are you a Christian?

August 23, 2012 at 8:17 a.m.
conservative said...

This article is titled "Food rules eat away liberty"

Well there is something else that gobbles liberty and that is taxes! Taxes taken from responsible citizens to pay for the destructive behavior of irresponsible people.

We are borrowing money to pay for the consequences of drug, alcohol, tobacco and obesity now, with ever increasing cost in the future.

It is inevitable that government will intervene in personal behavior when government pays for the consequences of destructive behavior.

August 23, 2012 at 8:34 a.m.
aae1049 said...

Food is no different than alcohol or tobacco, are you kidding? How far do we go, protecting ourselves from ourselves?

August 23, 2012 at 9:31 a.m.
Leaf said...

"Largely as a result of the first lady's pressure, the USDA was forced to alter its school lunch requirements to include more costly fruits, vegetables and whole grains. That price increase is passed on to the students and, in the case of free and reduced lunch recipients, to taxpayers."

Kudos to Michelle Obama for changing - a little - school lunches to be more healthy. Adults get to choose what to eat, children are forced to eat terrible school lunches, where ketchup counts as a vegetable and every Friday is pizza day. No wonder we're an obese nation. A startling statistic: our children, for the first time in the history of the nation, will not live as long as their parents due mostly to their eating habits and lack of excercise.

August 23, 2012 at 9:54 a.m.

"Not surprisingly, New Yorkers are decidedly against their mayor regulating how much soda they're allowed to buy."

Not surprisingly, you misrepresent the truth. Again.

The ban is on the sale in a particular form, not the purchase.

New Yorkers can buy and drink as much Soda as they want. They just have to see the cost upfront, rather than not notice it till they've begun to suffer from diabetes. You can put as much of anything you want in your body, nobody's going to arrest you (except the drug police who you DO support), the restriction is to commercial activity.

You know, the people profiting off what they do to others. How dare the government regulate commerce, that's not in its charter at all! Shut down the departments of public health! Do you never see even where the rules are focused?

And your hatred against First Lady Michelle Obama continues. Lies about vacations, hyperbole about martial law? And for shame, the First Lady not just handing out unhealthy candy that's a profit industry for corporations exploiting children, how dare she! C'mon, try a little restraint in your words, don't sound like that judge in Texas who wants to start an armed militia just in case Obama is re-elected.

Somehow I think you'd be all for regulating people doing the right thing. Namely you'd ban it, because it gets in your selfish way.

PS, your hypocrisy when it comes to Marijuana is evident.

August 23, 2012 at 11:03 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

I'm all for Bloomberg's ban on those super-sized drinks if for no other reason than it will make us look a little bit less like a nation of pigs at the trough. Whenever I see (pigs) guzzling from those mammoth plastic or styrofoam tubs, that's exactly what I see - pigs.

Cigarette smoking used to be considered an innocuous pleasure by most people. But when scientists determined how dangerous and even deadly it was, the government was forced to regulate it because the consequences were too costly, both in lives lost prematurely and in the huge costs involved in treating the cancers and other diseases that were the direct result of smoking.

Eating is no longer just the innocuous ingestion of food for the benefit of our taste buds or to sustain and refuel our bodies. For years scientists have determined that things like trans-fats, high fructose corn syrup, excessive salt, and various and sundry chemicals in processed foods have a deleterious effect, with direct links to obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, and poor health in general.

It would be great if those in the commercial food industry took it upon themselves to reduce the sugar, salt, and trans-fats in the foods they package and process, and it would be great if the restaurant owners took it upon themselves to stop cooking with trans-fats and stopped using tubs to serve drinks in but went back to normal, decent-sized containers instead, but we all know that AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. As always, they will place profits above all else, and it will take some arm-twisting and enacted legislation to make them change.

Certainly we all want freedom of choice in what we eat but when too many stupid people keep making stupid choices, or we are bound by a system that forces poor choices upon us and limits us as to being able to make smarter ones, something has to be done to initiate the change.

August 23, 2012 at 12:17 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Easy,

No, but the bigotry and hatred directed toward those of faith by many of the people who post here is disgusting and vile.


Con. says, "It is inevitable that government will intervene in personal behavior when government pays for the consequences of destructive behavior."

Correct, and this is why socialism ALWAYS begets totalitarianism.

August 23, 2012 at 2:10 p.m.

LOL, another right-winger claiming to be the victim.

Sorry, but you loss that claim when you were silent on the numerous examples of hatred and bigotry by those who claim to be acting on their faith.

Just like you loss the argument against totalitarianism when you took up the pro-life banner to ban abortions.

August 23, 2012 at 3:08 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Happy,

You have to be one of the most ignorant people who posts here.

When have I claimed to be a victim? The correct answer is, never.

Though your twisted mind may think that advocating against the intentional murder of helpless humans is totalitarianism, it actually only shows how upside-down your sense of reality is and how broken your mind has become via leftist indoctrination.

It would be kind of sad actually, if your ideology weren't so damaging to society.

August 23, 2012 at 4:07 p.m.
Fendrel said...

SCOTTYM,

What bigotry and hatred towards those of faith are you referring to?

Assuming that simply disagreeing or ridiculing a belief or train of thought is not considered either hatred or bigotry.

Can you give an example? Just curious.

August 23, 2012 at 4:38 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Assuming that simply disagreeing or ridiculing a belief or train of thought is not considered either hatred or bigotry."

In our current national conversation, disagreeing and or belittling a belief, IS considered bigotry and/or hatred by those on the political left. For example, if one disagrees with the statist ideas of our present POTUS, one is considered a bigot by many on the left. If one disagrees with the idea that two people of the same sex should be able to be married, it is considered hate. Do we agree?

August 23, 2012 at 5:13 p.m.
Easy123 said...

ScottyM,

"In our current national conversation, disagreeing and or belittling a belief, IS considered bigotry and/or hatred by those on the political left."

That's not entirely true. You're just making generalizations in an attempt to demonize "the political left". You ignore any such problems on your own side.

"For example, if one disagrees with the statist ideas of our present POTUS, one is considered a bigot by many on the left."

And they would be wrong. But you've still given no examples of anyone doing such a thing.

"If one disagrees with the idea that two people of the same sex should be able to be married, it is considered hate."

Because it is hate. All ideas and beliefs aren't equal. Let's have a little lesson, shall we? I believe that all people should have equal rights (gays should be able to marry). You believe the exact opposite. I call you a bigot (because you fit the definition) and you call me a bigot for calling you out. The latter isn't bigotry. If you believe it is, then you don't know the definition of the word.

"Do we agree?"

No. You, like HappyWNB said, are trying to play the victim and you are placing "people of faith" in the same boat with you. Sorry, but that's not how it works. You can either substantiate your beliefs/ideas or not. You can't simply believe something and then expect to be immune to criticism. And you can't call that criticism "bigotry" or "hate" either.

August 23, 2012 at 5:41 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Example #1

July 16, 2012 at 11:17 a.m. Fendrel said...

".. model this life in fear of some magical being's disapproval after I die ... could you come up with anything more stupid or irrational?

Maybe you could have sold that snake oil a few hundred years ago, but anyone with an ounce of common sense and who is even remotely connected to reality realizes how absurd that advice is."


If one were to suggest that POTUS's ideas about .gov centralized control of the healthcare system is stupid and/or irrational, one would very likely be called a racist(i.e. bigot).

If one were to suggest that the idea of two men being married is stupid and/or irrational one would most assuredly be accused of hate and/or bigotry.

Shall I go on?

August 23, 2012 at 5:43 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Easy,

Again, where have I claimed a victim status? Please, do tell.

ETA

Also, please explain how someone disagreeing with your OPINION about "gay marriage" is hate, but your disagreeing with theirs is not.

August 23, 2012 at 5:45 p.m.
Fendrel said...

I don't think so...regardless of what other people may "call" bigotry...I would restrict it's use to being intolerant or treating with someone with hatred because of their racial or ethnic makeup.

I don't find anything wrong with disagreeing with an idea in and of itself. For example, as an atheist I find belief in the supernatural to be without merit or support and consider it to be generally a waste of time. You may consider that my lack of belief is risky or dangerous because I may end up suffering an eternity in hell...but in neither case is either person necessarily a bigot.

If a person doesn't think same sex marriage is a viable option and they can produce reasons which do not involve the denigration of homosexuals simply because they are homosexuals, then they are not being hateful or bigoted. On the other hand if they maintain that same sex marriage is wrong simply because they dislike or fear homosexuals in general, then yes, I would say they are bigots.

August 23, 2012 at 5:51 p.m.
Easy123 said...

ScottyM,

"If one were to suggest that POTUS's ideas about .gov centralized control of the healthcare system is stupid and/or irrational, one would very likely be called a racist(i.e. bigot)."

No, you wouldn't. This is a straw man argument. It's baseless.

"If one were to suggest that the idea of two men being married is stupid and/or irrational one would most assuredly be accused of hate and/or bigotry."

That's because it is hate and bigotry. All ideas and beliefs aren't equal. Let's have a little lesson, shall we? I believe that all people should have equal rights (gays should be able to marry). You believe the exact opposite. I call you a bigot (because you fit the definition) and you call me a bigot for calling you out. The latter isn't bigotry. If you believe it is, then you don't know the definition of the word.

"Shall I go on?"

Please do.

"Again, where have I claimed a victim status? Please, do tell."

I never said you "claimed victim status". Would you like to try another, more concise question? Or should I just refer you to your posts at 4:07 p.m. and 5:13 p.m. to catch you (and anyone else you're an apologist for) playing the victim.

August 23, 2012 at 5:53 p.m.

SCOTTYM, that would be right here, in this thread, you just did it.

"No, but the bigotry and hatred directed toward those of faith by many of the people who post here is disgusting and vile."

That's what I mean by the right-wing claiming to be the victim, as you are being subjected to "bigotry and hatred" which describe as "disgusting and vile" .

That's playing the victim.

Even if you don't consider yourself one of them, that's just an attempt at pedantry, as you're still endorsing that same attitude of portraying itself as suffering from the oppression of the left which is regularly adopted by the right-wing in order to cast itself as a martyr.

Seriously, do you have no recognition of it? If so, you'd have to be one of the most ignorant and self-blinded people on this forum.

Which considering examples like joneses is quite the achievement. Heck, you'd probably look up to joneses as some kind of paragon.

And the fact is, you're the one who is advocating for the control of women's bodies in a directly totalitarian way, which you, of course, justify by saying that's for protecting the innocent.

Then you obtusely declare that any other regulation, that's truly the bad. Except when it's something like the drug war. That's good. And quite possibly the death penalty too. The number of pro-lifers who are also anti-death penalty is rather low in correlation.

See, you adopt a posture of absolutism, but don't follow through, so you can't even claim to be a true libertarian anarchist, you're just posturing. But the extremes to which you take your views are what differentiates you with the liberals who seek a less dogmatic posture, and distinguish between different circumstances, and respond to each.

You pretend to be going for freedom, but you're really about taking away the things that keep all of us free. You've just twisted yourself up with all the Randian rhetoric which you use to excuse your own malignant behavior. You can't even recognize how your supposed "ideals" are destructive to society. You want individuals to have all the freedom...to the point where they will inevitably take from others.

PS, same-sex marriage? It's not just disagreeing that's an issue.

It's about how you disagree, and what you try to do. I've never seen an advocate of same-sex marriage force somebody who didn't want to marry somebody of the same-sex to do so. On the other hand, the agenda of the "Traditional Marriage" movement is based on denying access to marriage (or other Civil Unions) to same-sex couples.

That's the difference. That and the reasons like "God doesn't approve and will send his wrath on the evil gays" which come up from said crowd. Or even just calling them stupid or irrational. That is kinda hateful you know.

Of course, it's proper to hate stupidity, irrationality and ignorance. It can be quite justified when true. But it can be false.

August 23, 2012 at 6:34 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"No, you wouldn't. This is a straw man argument. It's baseless."

Are you trying to claim that the left hasn't been throwing the race card, in many instances, when one is critical of our current POTUS? If so, you are either blind and deaf, or even more ignorant than most of your posts would indicate.


"That's because it is hate and bigotry."

Ha! I was right.

Maybe you should go up the page a bit and read the first sentence of Fendrel's third paragraph posted at 5:51 for a much more reasonable approach.


"LOL, another right-winger claiming to be the victim."

Followed by..."I never said you "claimed victim status".

You really are stupid, aren't ya?

August 23, 2012 at 6:50 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

" Easy123 said...

ScottyM,

Are you a Christian?"


"SCOTTYM said...

Easy,

No, but the bigotry and hatred directed toward those of faith by many of the people who post here is disgusting and vile."

I don't think you know what the word pedantry actually means. The word "NO" is pretty unequivocal.

__

"Even if you don't consider yourself one of them,..."

So somehow, I'm a Christian and I didn't even notice. WOW!


"And the fact is, you're the one who is advocating for the control of women's bodies in a directly totalitarian way, which you, of course, justify by saying that's for protecting the innocent."

If you believe that advocating for the protection of the lives of those who are otherwise helpless and subject to a gruesome murder at the hands of their own mother is totalitarianism, I can only surmise that you have no clue about what the word totalitarianism means.


"Then you obtusely declare that any other regulation, that's truly the bad."

Strawman. I've never written anything of the sort.


"Except when it's something like the drug war."

Another strawman. I never advocated anything of the sort, as a matter of fact, I believe in full legalization and have a hard time fathoming why we needed a Const.Amend. to make alcohol illegal, but many other mind altering substances are illegal just because Congress says so.


"That's good. And quite possibly the death penalty too. The number of pro-lifers who are also anti-death penalty is rather low in correlation."

That word "correlation", I don't think you know what it means, as there is a rather HIGH correlation between those who believe that innocent humans should be protected and those who believe that humans who are "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" of heinous crimes against other innocent humans should be put down like the animals that they are in order to prevent future crimes by them and to discourage others from committing the same sort of crimes.

August 23, 2012 at 7:14 p.m.
Fendrel said...

What I have found interesting is that in all my conversations with those who would make abortions illegal based on their belief that an embryo is a human life as much as a child is after they are born, is that none of them (so far) would advocate a 20 year to life sentence for a young girl who had an abortion after it was made illegal.

I find the inconsistency a bit odd. I mean if you want to lock up the mother who drowns their kid in a tub of water and disposes of the body in a garbage dump, then why wouldn't you want the same punishment for the young girl who has an abortion (assuming they've been made illegal). If embryonic life is deserving of equal protection under the law...then why the soft spot for women who have an abortion.

Seems to me to indicate that in spite of what is said about an embryo being as human as an adult...we really don't see it that way.

August 23, 2012 at 7:24 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"See, you adopt a posture of absolutism, but don't follow through, so you can't even claim to be a true libertarian anarchist, you're just posturing."

More strawmen. Please point out the absolutism, and who said anything about being a libertarian anarchist?


"But the extremes to which you take your views..."

More strawmen, and silly gibberish. You aren't very good at this are ya?


"You pretend to be going for freedom, but you're really about taking away the things that keep all of us free. + ...."

More silly gibberish with multiple assumptions which have no relation to reality.


"You want individuals to have all the freedom...to the point where they will inevitably take from others."

The taking from others is a leftist habit. i.e. wealth redistribution. I call it theft under color of law.


"PS, same-sex marriage? It's not just disagreeing that's an issue."

Yes it is, as I've not listed my reasons on this page, and I doubt you've gone through all of my posted to discover that, SUPRISE!! I'm all for Civil Unions which would confer most all of the legal rights that married couples "enjoy". Unfortunately it is a compromise that most on the far left are not willing to make.


"That's the difference. +..."

More strawmen as I've written nothing of the sort.


"Of course, it's proper to hate stupidity, irrationality and ignorance."

I disagree. I believe hate is one of the worst emotions humans can indulge, as it leads to all sorts of terrible actions.

August 23, 2012 at 7:41 p.m.

Actually, ScottyM, the right has tried to play their "race card" card because nobody takes their criticisms of the president as legitimate. It's another part of the victim complex.

And perhaps you don't realize how hyperbolic your words have been, but I have noticed your dogmatic opposition to regulation before. It's been quite strident. You may feel i'm misrepresenting you, but don't pretend you havent done the same to me. Still, I'm glad you can repudiate the drug war, that is quite surprising, too bad the rest of the right doesn't feel that way. Maybe you should speak to them. And like I said, you're just trying for a pedantic argument that you're not one of them, it doesn't matter, you're still endorsing the same attempt to play the victim card. That's the problem, a bully often tries to make an attempt to blame the person who stands up to them, and you're just being their apologist.

But no, you can't claim that you believe in the sanctity of life on the one hand which you use to justify your totalitarian interference in the bodies of others and then in the lives of others.

That's why I said there is a low correlation, because of justifications like yours. Why you think what I said wasn't true, I don't know, you're probably just trying another tactic common to the right, blame the other side for imagined failings even as you prove them true. It is interesting how you found another reason to justify that same totalitarian behavior you claim to hate. You keep finding reasons to give the state more and more power.

But you can't see that. For you that's a thing of the left. Your self-deception is a big part of the problem.

August 23, 2012 at 7:47 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Fenrel,

How old is this hypothetical young girl we are talking about?

A similar incongruity exist within the minds of those who are perfectly fine with abortion, with no limits, yet believe that if a pregnant mother is injured by another person in such a way that the fetus is killed that this constitutes murder. It makes no sense that the humanity of the fetus rests solely upon the discretion of the mother.


"Seems to me to indicate that in spite of what is said about an embryo being as human as an adult...we really don't see it that way."

See there, we are on the same page to an extent. Biology shows that even a blastocyst is genetically human and that it is alive, however my feeling on the matter are that until the embryo is implanted and the cells have differentiated enough that there is a beating heart and a feeling nervous system it isn't really a human for the purposes of assuming natural human rights. And yes this means that I don't have a problem with the "morning after" pill, or early intervention in the case of rape or incest. And as much as it pains me to see a human killed, in the case of a longer term fetus whose full term development will likely kill the mother it is an acceptable compromise to kill the fetus to save the mothers life.

In short, after about 6 weeks, I consider the new life a human, and killing it is murder.

August 23, 2012 at 8:03 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Double tap. Sorry

August 23, 2012 at 8:04 p.m.

As far as being a libertarian anarchist, that's what you've adopted. You won't label yourself that way, but that just means you won't own up to the ramifications of your own words and ideals.

You can complain about it being straw man arguments, or just gibberish, but that's a rather common tactic of yours and the rest of the right.

Somebody questions you? Well, who cares, you can just dismiss them as having no basis in reality.

And you don't even have the integrity to recognize what it is. Hate. Too bad it's for false reasons. Just like you'll complain about strawman arguments from me, while never acknowledging your own misrepresentations. Don't think because I don't respond to them line-by-line that I'm not noticing them.

But no, you being for Civil Unions doesn't mean that others are, in fact, they recently denied that option in North Carolina. That's why I mentioned it. And it still doesn't change the fact that for many people, homosexual relationships are an anathema to God. That's why they can't accept or tolerate them.

It isn't just the disagreement that matters, but the actions and reasons behind it. I know, you don't want to have to admit to the bigotry and intolerance of the Christians you're serving as an apologist for. But it's there. It's not the left who won't compromise, it's on the right. They passed DOMA and are still defending it.

Though honestly, civil unions that don't have all the rights? Yeah, sometimes not compromising is legitimate, just like hatred is. And I think I feel fine with not compromising on such inequal treatment under the law. That's another thing I feel comfortable hating.

Yeah, you'd rather try to take the high ground and pretend you're against hatred. But for me, hating things that is wrong is part of loving what's right. And you hate anyway, you just don't want to admit it, because then you can pretend you're better.

You know what I've seen lead to a lot of the worst actions of humanity? Listening to people who try to argue that hating them for their intolerance and bigotry is the true oppression. You know, the people falsely playing that victim card.

Because according to them, not tolerating their intolerance is the real sin!

August 23, 2012 at 8:04 p.m.
Easy123 said...

ScottyM,

"Are you trying to claim that the left hasn't been throwing the race card, in many instances, when one is critical of our current POTUS? If so, you are either blind and deaf, or even more ignorant than most of your posts would indicate."

Are you speaking to "the left"? Because you will not find any posts of mine calling anyone a racist based on someone not agreeing with the President. I appreciate the "ignorant" remark. It's always good to get a good reminder that I'm not a Wingnut like yourself.

"Ha! I was right."

No, I was right. But about you not knowing what those words mean.

"Maybe you should go up the page a bit and read the first sentence of Fendrel's third paragraph posted at 5:51 for a much more reasonable approach."

It's not a reasonable approach. You or anyone else can't give any honest, logical reason for keeping gays from getting married. You claim that it is a "reasonable approach" because you feel that it gives you an out to keep being a bigot.

"LOL, another right-winger claiming to be the victim."

HappyWithNewBulbs wrote this. Not I.

Followed by..."I never said you "claimed victim status".

Followed by another poster. Focus next time.

You really are stupid, aren't ya?

Smart enough to know you can't pay attention to which people are posting and who you are addressing. Would you like to try again?

August 23, 2012 at 8:38 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Ok, I can tell by the tones of the posts, you are all males. Stop calling each other "stupid" "right wingers" "anarchist" because at this rate, I see a hair pulling fight brewing. Back on topic.

August 23, 2012 at 8:57 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Actually, ScottyM, the right has tried to play their "race card" card because nobody takes their criticisms of the president as legitimate. It's another part of the victim complex."

The fact that the left does not take criticism of our current POTUS serious does not make those criticisms equal racism.

That's one of the dumbest bits of "logic" I've read in a long time.

It just means that many on the left are so ideologically rigid that they can't fathom why anyone would disagree with a black President other than racism.


"And perhaps you don't realize how hyperbolic your words have been, but I have noticed your dogmatic opposition to regulation before."

First, you couldn't be more wrong. There are many regulation in place that serve vital functions in a civil society. I only disagree with the stupid ones that serve no purpose but to further the power of government and end up costing all of us time, money and freedom. Second, what of your dogmatic support of all things dem.gov?


"Still, I'm glad you can repudiate the drug war, that is quite surprising, too bad the rest of the right doesn't feel that way."

You'd be surprised at how many folks to the right of center think that the "war on drugs" is a very large waste of money, resources and productive lives that are wasted due to incarceration for possessing minor amounts of things like weed. The drug warriors are part and parcel of the out of control .gov leviathan that endangers the freedom and prosperity of all of us that I do indeed dogmatically rail against.


"Maybe you should speak to them."

Maybe YOU should try reasoned arguments instead of strawmen, generalizations and stereotypes.


"And like I said, you're just trying for a pedantic argument that you're not one of them, it doesn't matter, you're still endorsing the same attempt to play the victim card."

I still don't think you know what the word pedantic means.

Q: "Are you a martian?" A: "No."

Where is the pedantry?

You keep running around the same circle, asserting the same nonsense, so I have to ask, are you alprova's alter ego? He pulls that silliness as well.


"That's the problem, a bully often tries to make an attempt to blame the person who stands up to them,..."

You mean like when Pres.O blames all of his problems on the Republicans he told to sit down and be quiet?


"But no, you can't claim that you believe in the sanctity of life on the one hand which you use to justify your totalitarian interference in the bodies of others and then in the lives of others."

Indecipherable jibberish. Try again.


August 23, 2012 at 9:09 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"That's why I said there is a low correlation, because of justifications like yours. Why you think what I said wasn't true, I don't know, you're probably just trying another tactic common to the right, blame the other side for imagined failings even as you prove them true."

More Jibberish. You do know that you can't just string a bunch of words together and expect people to understand what you're writing, right?

BTW there is a HIGH correlation between the group people who disagree with abortion on demand and those people who support the death penalty. i.e. a large percentage of people who believe abortion with no limits is wrong ALSO believe that capital punishment is just.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/correlation


"You keep finding reasons to give the state more and more power."

Strawman. The fact that you attempted to paint me as a libertarian anarchist in a previous post and are now claiming that I am trying to increase the power of .gov offer the lives of citizens, shows that you have no idea what you are writing about and cannot maintain a train of thought.


"But you can't see that. For you that's a thing of the left. Your self-deception is a big part of the problem."

Ever heard of projection? You've got it, bad.

August 23, 2012 at 9:10 p.m.

Easy123, notice the lack of a reason that fits Fendrel's condition being proffered. Or noticing the next sentence, which points out that lacking said condition, does make it bigotry.

And I'd say "stupid and/or irrational" qualifies as denigration, and without any further reasoning, what are we to think but that it's because they are two men getting married due to being homosexual.

Yet ScottyM would brazenly declare that the problem is yours. Huh.

aae1049, if you're going to try to be an intercessor, try to be a little more even-handed in your attempts.

It has wandered somewhat far off topic though.

I do wonder, if the editorial writer here would say suddenly do a reversal when it comes to justifying restrictions on marriage.

August 23, 2012 at 9:10 p.m.

SCOTTYM, that's because you didn't understand what I said about the "race card" card. Namely that the right is proclaiming that the only reason they're not being taken seriously on their criticisms is because it's being dismissed as racism.

The idea that maybe their criticisms just aren't legitimate is beyond so many on the right, so they try make themselves the victim.

As usual.

And I've seen your posts, you do have a rather strident agenda against regulation. But no, I don't have a dogmatic support of all things Democratic, you'd just prefer to believe I do. Which is strangely similar to what you've been extensively complaining about me doing.

And if you think that there's a large component on the right that would the drug war, then I've got to say you've been copious in your silence. But no, you'd rather tell me that I've got the problem than do anything about it. Of course, as I just said, it's behavior you're doing yourself, so why should I listen to you?

If you don't know where the pedantry is, it's where you claiming you're not the victim, but you're still portraying somebody else as the victim, so that's pedantry. But do keep up with those representations of me. Or Obama. I'll ignore them.

Then you can blame it on it being because you're being accused of racism!

Do claim I'm the one engaging in indecipherable gibberish, I think you're just not willing to face up to your own course of actions.

I could respect you for your honesty if you could acknowledge that your desire to prevent abortions will require you to control the bodies of women. But you'd rather just pretend it's not doing that at all.

No, you'd rather just say I'm at fault, that you can't understand what I'm saying because I'm not writing clearly. That's a common tactic on the part of the right-wing.

But it's not honest or legitimate. It's just an attempt to dismiss what I had to say.

Why? Because nobody except the right-wing noise brigade ever has that kind of problem, but I see them use it on others too.

It's your version of calling something racist.

Besides, it seems you just made an obvious reading error yourself, By saying there is a HIGH CORRELATION between those who are pro-life and pro-death penalty, you're not refuting what I said about a LOW CORRELATION between those who are pro-life and anti-death penalty.

Also, no, I said you were posturing about being a libertarian anarchist. That it wasn't your true beliefs. That's why you can find reasons to justify totalitarian actions. You're not actually standing by those principles, just pretending. As I clearly said, but you apparently forgot, you can't own up to them.

Maybe you're the one who can't follow a conversation and hold a train of thought.

I think I see who's projecting here.

August 23, 2012 at 9:29 p.m.

Also abortion with no limits? I sincerely hope you don't think that people who are pro-choice are necessarily opposed to all restrictions on abortions.

That would be a strawman too.

I've never heard any pro-choice advocate oppose any and all restrictions on abortions, just to specific provisions that were considered excessive.

I have heard many pro-life advocates take the position of no abortions though.

So why did you parse things that way? Did you not even realize what you were saying?

August 23, 2012 at 9:37 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"As far as being a libertarian anarchist, that's what you've adopted. You won't label yourself that way, but that just means you won't own up to the ramifications of your own words and ideals."

Back to that again? Which is it, totalitarian or libertarian anarchist? You do know that those two are pretty much diametric opposites, yes?


"You can complain about it being straw man arguments, or just gibberish, but that's a rather common tactic of yours and the rest of the right."

If you mean insisting that arguments be based upon the reality of my positions and statements and be written in such a way as to be understood by those of us who do not speak jibberish, then yes, you're right it is common among rational folks.


"Somebody questions you? Well, who cares, you can just dismiss them as having no basis in reality."

Please, question away, I come here for an exchange of ideas, I merely insist that you base you questions upon statements I've actually made and write them in such a way that they can be understood by normal humans


"And you don't even have the integrity to recognize what it is. Hate."

There is that projection again.


"Just like you'll complain about strawman arguments from me, while never acknowledging your own misrepresentations. Don't think because I don't respond to them line-by-line that I'm not noticing them."

I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out that you are making things up out of thin air.


"But no, you being for Civil Unions doesn't mean that others are,..."

And this is my fault how?


"It isn't just the disagreement that matters, but the actions and reasons behind it. I know, you don't want to have to admit to the bigotry and intolerance of the Christians you're serving as an apologist for."

Jeez dude, another strawman, and more projection. When have I apologized for anyone. You sure do like to beat up on Christians.


"It's not the left who won't compromise, it's on the right."

More projection. You're a hoot.


" It's not the left who won't compromise, it's on the right. They passed DOMA and are still defending it."

Yes, and it is currently the law of the land, though the Obama administration refuses to defend it as required by his oath of office.


"That's another thing I feel comfortable hating."

You seem to be quite comfortable with your hate. Perhaps you should keep it for yourself and quit projecting upon others.

August 23, 2012 at 9:42 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

" And you hate anyway, you just don't want to admit it, because then you can pretend you're better."

There is that projection again. I hate no one, and if better or worse can be judged by a surfeit vs. a lack of hate, I guess I am in fact better than you.


"You know what I've seen lead to a lot of the worst actions of humanity? Listening to people who try to argue that hating them for their intolerance and bigotry is the true oppression. You know, the people falsely playing that victim card."

First, disagreement is not intolerance.

Second, you seem to be trying to justify your own hatred by demonizing those who have an opinion which differs from your own.


"Because according to them, not tolerating their intolerance is the real sin!"

So in your world, perceived intolerance should be met with more intolerance? Am I getting that right?

If so you are on sick puppy.

August 23, 2012 at 9:42 p.m.
Fendrel said...

SCOTTYM,

Interesting points. Apparently 38 states currently have fetal homicide laws and the range of protection is for various stages of pregnancy, depending on the State.

There is certainly a need to draw a line for legal and criminal purposes. I think that it should be either at birth or at conception, any area in between seems arbitrary at best and would be difficult to deal with from a legal perspective.

My vote would be for it to be at birth, if for no other reason then it is hard to justify criminalizing the death of a few cells if we go the other direction. A beating heart, a nervous system how can you protect at those points? What day and hour does the heart start beating, when is a nervous system complete? I think it needs to be an easily identifiable moment if you are going to hold people accountable for its protection at that point.

One more question...you talked about abortion as being acceptable when and if the mother's life is at risk...I would ask a similar question to my first one...why is the life of the mother deemed more valuable than the fetus (assuming you can save one or the other but not both)? What is it about her life that gives it more value?

August 23, 2012 at 9:49 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Easy, "Are you speaking to "the left"?"

In general, i.e. the talking heads, the pundit class and various commentators, not you or anyone in particular.


"You or anyone else can't give any honest, logical reason for keeping gays from getting married."

It is not a marriage if it doesn't include at least one person of each sex. This has been so for thousands of years across multiple cultures. Just because the radical gays want to pretend that they are married doesn't mean that the rest of us have to roll over and allow them to redefine a historical institution to fit their desires. It is an attack on traditional culture to satisfy the wants of a very small portion of society, nothing more, nothing less.

The fact that the compromise of Civil Unions is not acceptable to them gives the game away.


"HappyWithNewBulbs wrote this. Not I."

I apologize for confusing your posts with happy's.

It is difficult to differentiate between multiple people who are all caught up in the same rigid ideology, though at least yours are not so full of logical fallacies and gibberish.


August 23, 2012 at 10:14 p.m.
Easy123 said...

ScottyM,

"It is not a marriage if it doesn't include at least one person of each sex."

Same sex marriage is "marriage" in many European countries, Canada, South Africa, Mexico and other countries.

"This has been so for thousands of years across multiple cultures."

So what? Slavery was widely popular as well. Does that make it ok?

"Just because the radical gays want to pretend that they are married doesn't mean that the rest of us have to roll over and allow them to redefine a historical institution to fit their desires."

That is blatant bigotry. "Radical gays"? What does that even mean? The world has redefined a lot of things over the years. But, of course, you wish to deny them the same basic rights as you for no reason.

"It is an attack on traditional culture to satisfy the wants of a very small portion of society, nothing more, nothing less."

Again, bigotry. Traditional culture can and has been wrong on many issues, e.g. slavery, racism, etc. Gays being married does no affect you in the least. It does not affect marriage in the least. This "very small portion of society" deserves the same rights as anyone else. You cannot and have not made a valid argument against this point.

"The fact that the compromise of Civil Unions is not acceptable to them gives the game away."

The fact that you are trying to make a compromise for a basic right gives you away. You are ethically bankrupt and a bigot to boot.

"It is difficult to differentiate between multiple people who are all caught up in the same rigid ideology, though at least yours are not so full of logical fallacies and gibberish."

By "rigid ideology", I would hope you are referring to yourself. You are the one trying to deny a subgroup of Americans the right to marry based solely on their sexuality. How can you view this as a valid idea/belief? People like you did the same thing to women (voting), African-Americans (slavery, voting, 3/5 human, etc.) and now people like you are doing the same to gays with marriage. Should we have kept those laws against women and African-Americans? They meet your "tradition" criteria.

You and your ilk will be put into the same category as those that opposed women's rights and supported slavery/racism.

Gays deserve the right to marry. But your bigotry has been duly noted.

August 23, 2012 at 10:32 p.m.

SCOTTYM, do remember, I've said it's posturing on your part, not genuine. You pose as one thing, but then find reasons to justify exemptions to it. That's been the point of what I've been saying.

And no, you're not insisting that arguments be based upon reality, but insisting that my arguments are gibberish and can't be understood, that you're rational, and saying I'm not.

That's a false excuse you use to try to dismiss me. See I know your complaint is empty, so all it says is that you'd rather pretend it's my fault.

It's just like you pretending you aren't hating. You are, you just won't admit to it. Heck, apparently you can't even admit you're complaining. When you say somebody is doing something to which you are objecting, then you're making a complaint. Or am I supposed to believe you don't have a grievance when you say I said something you didn't say? That you aren't objecting?

Now that's preposterous. So is saying you've not been an apologist for those you tried to defend as being the victim of the left's bigotry and hatred.

And you said Civil Unions were an alternative, but you failed to note that there are objections, from the right, to them. See how you can't even admit to their intolerance and bigotry. You'd just rather claim I hate them. Keep making me laugh.

And the President's job is to follow the Constitution. If he considers that a law violates the Constitution, that priority comes up first. Sorry, but it does. If only more government officers followed that principle.

But do keep blaming me for hating, when you can't admit to any of it yourself.

You'd just rather pretend to hold the high ground. Another common trait of conservatives. Just like continuing to represent a position as disagreement, as if people were simply saying "No, sir, I don't like it" and not "That cannot be tolerated or permitted, because the wrath of God shall descend upon us" which is what those people you're defending have been doing. S

But yes, if you see genuine intolerance, you should not fool yourself into the trap of sophistry that says to be truly tolerant, you must tolerate that.

Yes, the right-wing, especially the Christians among them, have tried to make that argument, quite a lot. That's why they make themselves out to be the victim, and you've been an apologist for them. But they're not martyrs who are suffering the price of their opinions.

Their bigots and bullies being told they won't be allowed to use the force of law to support their intolerance and they're getting upset about it.

Do you really think anybody else falls for that faulty logic? No more than I believe your complaints that what I'm saying doesn't make sense. Or when you say you're hating. Stop wasting your time, you only make yourself look bad.

August 23, 2012 at 10:44 p.m.

Easy123, the real problem with Civil Unions is that SCOTTYM won't admit the rejection of them on the Right-wing side.

He keeps trying to portray that side as innocent, with the angels, and it's just the intolerant, even "radical" gays, who have the problem.

As I said, no integrity. Just tries to say that he doesn't, so why judge him on their actions? I guess he forgot that he was defending those he described as people of faith, who are the victim of the left's bigotry and hatred. Apparently we're just supposed to forget about them or his acting as their apologist.

Fendrel, the law has numerous other arbitrary lines, a few more won't mean much. The right to contract, age of consent, conscription, voting, the list is endless.

And really, age used to be a good bit fuzzier when time-keeping records were somewhat less precise.

The ambiguity at birth? Actually doesn't come up that much anyway, most voluntary abortions are very early in the process and the involuntary ones are usually excepted anyway.

So long as the no-abortions EVER! movement doesn't get its way.

As for how to decide whose life is more important the mother or the child's...well, you know that's why I'm for leaving it to the choice of the individual mother and father. I may be comfortable making that decision for myself or my spouse, but I would prefer the state not be making that decision for them. As long as a doctor can certify a legitimate medical need, they can make the decision.

And yes, a given number of pregnancies do end in the death of the mother. This will happen regardless.

August 23, 2012 at 10:52 p.m.
Fendrel said...

happywithnewbulbs,

I think you misunderstood my comment. If it is potentiality that gives a fetus rights, then conception would be the logical place at which to draw the line, since once conception takes place, there is no other outward action required for those cells to grow into a human being.

If potentiality is insufficient to secure rights as a human being, then birth would be the next definitive stage that we can accurately measure that makes sense.

I was simply saying that when SCOTTYM wanted to define a fetus as human, and thus having rights, by its having a heartbeat or nervous system, I felt that was an event too difficult to ascertain and in the case of a nervous system, too vague to make a good legal distinction.

August 23, 2012 at 11:14 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Happy.

"Namely that the right is proclaiming that the only reason they're not being taken seriously on their criticisms is because it's being dismissed as racism."

Nonsense. The fact is that the race card is thrown at the drop of a hat by many on the left to dismiss the critics themselves. i.e. We (POTUS supporters) don't have to pay attention to criticism because the critics are racists and therefore have no legitimate arguments.


"The idea that maybe their criticisms just aren't legitimate is beyond so many on the right, so they try make themselves the victim."

Oh please. You'll find that very few folks on the right have any interest in portraying themselves as victims. That's the leftist's gig.


"And I've seen your posts, you do have a rather strident agenda against regulation."

Back to that again? So which is it, totalitarian or libertarian anarchist? Make up your mind.


"And if you think that there's a large component on the right that would the drug war, then I've got to say you've been copious in your silence."

I have repeatedly argued for legalization of drugs in the past. The fact that you weren't here to read it at the time, doesn't make it any less true. You're welcome to go through all of my posts and attempt to find evidence to the contrary.


" But no..."

More gibberish.


"If you don't know where the pedantry is, it's where you claiming you're not the victim, but you're still portraying somebody else as the victim, so that's pedantry."

Not even close. Try again. Perhaps a dictionary would help.


"Then you can blame it on it being because you're being accused of racism!"

Again, more gibberish. Is English a second language for you?


"Do claim I'm the one engaging in indecipherable gibberish, I think you're just not willing to face up to your own course of actions."

You're engaging in fits of indecipherable gibberish. Happy?

What course of actions?


"I could respect you for your honesty if you could acknowledge that your desire tit's not doing that at all."

...control the ACTIONS of women. Exactly like the law is used to control the ACTIONS of anyone else who would murder innocents. This is not that hard of a concept to grasp. You're caught up in the rhetoric of the culture of death that is the pro-abortion movement.

P.S. I care not a whit about whether you have any respect for me or not.


"No, you'd rather just say I'm at fault, that you can't understand what I'm saying because I'm not writing clearly. That's a common tactic on the part of the right-wing."

So now it's my fault that many of your "sentences" are disjointed piles of semi-random words. O.K.

August 23, 2012 at 11:22 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"But it's not honest or legitimate."

Cry me a river!

""But no, you can't claim that you believe in the sanctity of life on the one hand which you use to justify your totalitarian interference in the bodies of others and then in the lives of others.""

WTF does this mean? Read it carefully. Does it make any sense? Of course not.


"Why? Because nobody except the right-wing noise brigade ever has that kind of problem, but I see them use it on others too."

Please define what "that kind of problem" means in this statement.

Right-wing noise brigade? I like that, do you mind if I use it?


"It's your version of calling something racist."

So pointing out you occasionally can't assemble a thought into a cohesive sentence is the same as calling you a racist? That's rich.


""That's good. And quite possibly the death penalty too. The number of pro-lifers who are also anti-death penalty is rather low in correlation.""

Yup, indeed reading comprehension failure on my part. I apologize for that.


"Also, no, I said you were posturing about being a libertarian anarchist. That it wasn't your true beliefs. That's why you can find reasons to justify totalitarian actions. You're not actually standing by those principles, just pretending. As I clearly said, but you apparently forgot, you can't own up to them."

I'm not "pretending" to be anything. If anything, I'd label myself as a Constitutional Fundamentalist. If you consider advocating for the protection of innocents from murder (with well considered exceptions) to be totalitarianism, I'd say your idea of what the word "totalitarianism" means is extremely skewed.


"Maybe you're the one who can't follow a conversation and hold a train of thought."

As I wrote to Easy: "I apologize for confusing your posts with happy's.

It is difficult to differentiate between multiple people who are all caught up in the same rigid ideology, though at least yours are not so full of logical fallacies and gibberish."

I also helped two kids with homework assignments, did a load of laundry, prepared dinner/cleaned the kitchen and got the young ones off to bed during the course of this thread. My multi-tasking skills are apparently fading.


"I think I see who's projecting here.

You're the one embracing the hatred which you then project upon others.

August 23, 2012 at 11:22 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

happy

"Also abortion with no limits?..."

You are ignoring a large chunk of pro-abortion folks who think it should be a free for all.


"I've never heard any pro-choice advocate oppose any and all restrictions on abortions, just to specific provisions that were considered excessive."

Then you're not paying attention.


"I have heard many pro-life advocates take the position of no abortions though."

Me too, and I disagree with them.

August 23, 2012 at 11:38 p.m.

SCOTTYM, actually it's the "race card" card that's played all the time by the right. I guess you're the one not paying attention.

Just like you've not noticed how you've portrayed yourself as the victim here, or the "persons of faith" who you said were subject to hatred and bigotry from the left. Sorry, but that's playing the victim card. Yes, I know you like to pretend it's just the leftists who do that, but that's because the right just can't own up to it. Leftists OTOH, are quite willing to admit they're complaining about something. See, we're not trying to disguise what we're doing.

And you've been posturing, which you've apparently failed to understand means you adopt a position for rhetorical purposes, but fail to follow through on it. I was also referring to the large component on the right. Who has been quite silent for what you claim is a large group. Sorry, I guess I should have used "they" instead.

Do repeat the complaints about gibberish though, it's just going to keep showing your true color. Blame somebody else!

And yeah, keep saying you don't care if somebody respects you. I hope you don't intend to make any claims bashing me for narcissism when I remind you that I don't care that you keep saying I'm saying gibberish. Because I know it's a false claim on your part. See you'd rather make me out to be at fault. See, you're just the victim of my inability to communicate properly. Or do you think your complaint isn't a complaint?

BTW, you quoted my words out of order. Maybe that's why you can't follow the thread of words. Go back over them again, follow them in order. I am quite surprised you admitted to your own reading comprehension, now if only you'd apply it more broadly. You can't just sentences in different posts and string them so closely together.

And yes, I do consider dictating what people can do with their bodies to be an act of totalitarianism. So is executing them. Just as you do, when you were talking about consumption of food substances being totalitarian (Even though you are not accurate in your complaint, since that was not the subject of the law, which is to sales, not consumption). Sorry that you don't like it, but it is the same thing. You don't have to be ashamed to admit that, because you could make a case that there's justification of it. But don't try to deny that it isn't exercising authority over a person's body or life yourself. And don't call it the pro-abortion movement, or wax about rhetoric of the culture of death. And you complain about me and strawmen with that?

That's just like how you won't admit to hatred, or making complaints, or even being an apologist for the Christian Right, it's lacking in integrity. Maybe you expect me to just take you at your word.

August 24, 2012 at midnight

Fendrel, and I was pointing out that we've got plenty of other cases where arbitrary figures are used to set rights. This isn't new or unique to fetuses by any means.

You can look for logic all you want, but the law is already replete with places which don't really have it. We just say they do.

August 24, 2012 at 12:07 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

easy

"Same sex marriage is "marriage" in many European countries, Canada, South Africa, Mexico and other countries."

Then move there and get "married". It's called voting with your feet.


"Slavery was widely popular as well. Does that make it ok?"

Slavery was abolished, largely, by christian Republicans, and those opposed were very vocal about their rights being violated.


"That is blatant bigotry."

No more than your own position.

Bigotry = stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.


""Radical gays"? What does that even mean?"

Those who will not compromise and are willing to do things like walk into an office run by the opposition and start shooting.


"The world has redefined a lot of things over the years."

Sure, but not basic civil institutions.


" But, of course, you wish to deny them the same basic rights as you for no reason."

Wrong, the same right to marry anyone of the opposite sex exists for everyone. The fact that gays aren't oriented in such a way as to make marriage appealing doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it.


"This "very small portion of society" deserves the same rights as anyone else."

Again, they have exactly the same rights as everyone else, they just aren't oriented in such a way to exercise that right.


"The fact that you are trying to make a compromise for a basic right gives you away. You are ethically bankrupt and a bigot to boot."

That's a nice opinion you have there. I'm glad you are one of those leftists who are so tolerant of opposing viewpoints./sarc


"You are the one trying to deny a subgroup of Americans the right to marry based solely on their sexuality."

They can get married anytime they want. Unfortunately they don't like people of the opposite sex that way.


"People like you did the same thing to women (voting), African-Americans (slavery, voting, 3/5 human, etc.) and now people like you are doing the same to gays with marriage. Should we have kept those laws against women and African-Americans? They meet your "tradition" criteria."

Really? So the traditional definitions of the words "voting", and "slavery" were changed to fit a new interpretation? I must have missed that in history class.


"Gays deserve the right to marry. But your bigotry has been duly noted."

Gays already have the right to get married, they just don't exercise it. Your intolerance of opposing viewpoints is also duly noted.

August 24, 2012 at 12:10 a.m.

And no, I have never heard of anybody in the pro-choice movement calling for no limits to abortions.

I've actually never heard of a pro-abortion movement, except perhaps among the Zero Population Growth people and the rhetoric of the pro-life movement who want to label the pro-choice movements with something negative. I'm glad you can disagree with the absolutely no-abortion people, but it really doesn't help when you engage in misrepresentations like that either.

You do want to refrain from your own strawman arguments, right?

August 24, 2012 at 12:15 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

happy,

"Blah, blah, blah...same stupidity...blah, blah..."

"And the President's job is to follow the Constitution. If he considers that a law violates the Constitution, that priority comes up first."

And the Constitution says that is up to the Courts to decide matters of Constitutionality. It isn't in POTUS's job description or legally within his power. It is blatantly illegal for POTUS to ignore laws passed by the Legislature and signed by a previous POTUS just as much as it would be for you or I to ignore those laws.

But then as a leftist, you probably don't know or don't care what the Constitution actually says.


"But do keep blaming me for hating, when you can't admit to any of it yourself."

I'm not blaming you for anything, you admitted to being a hater all on your own. And again, I hold no hate for anyone or any thing.


"You'd just rather pretend to hold the high ground. Another common trait of conservatives. Just like continuing to represent a position as disagreement, as if people were simply saying "No, sir, I don't like it" and not "That cannot be tolerated or permitted, because the wrath of God shall descend upon us" which is what those people you're defending have been doing."

You really like the stereotyping don't you. I've not defended anyone but myself. I have pointed out that Christians are subject to hatred and bigotry from the left, and you've proven my point repeatedly.


"But yes, if you see genuine intolerance, you should not fool yourself into the trap of sophistry that says to be truly tolerant, you must tolerate that."

Which is why I pointed out that Christians are quite often the victims of intolerance at the hands of folks like you, and you just keep reinforcing my point.


"They're bigots and bullies being told they won't be allowed to use the force of law to support their intolerance and they're getting upset about it."

Fixed it for you. ;)

bigot = a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

This definition fits you to a T.


"Or when you say you're hating."

Nope, I never said that I was hating, it is you who is embracing hatred.

I know it's hard to keep up, goodness knows I get off track occasionally as well.


"Stop wasting your time, you only make yourself look bad."

I'm not the one embracing hatred, that would be you.

August 24, 2012 at 12:40 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

happy,

"SCOTTYM, actually it's the "race card" card that's played all the time by the right."

Do you not understand how stupid that sounds?


"Just like you've not noticed how you've portrayed yourself as the victim here, or the "persons of faith" who you said were subject to hatred and bigotry from the left. Sorry, but that's playing the victim card."

More repetition of the same stupidity.


"Blah, blah, repitition, blah blah...You can't just sentences in different posts and string them so closely together."

What does "You can't just sentences in different posts and string them so closely together." mean?


"And yes, I do consider dictating what people can do with their bodies to be an act of totalitarianism."

So if the law prevents someone from punching another person in the face repeatedly, that's totalitarianism.

How about if the law prevents someone from using their hands to choke someone else to death, is that totalitarianism?

Idiot.


"Just as you do, when you were talking about consumption of food substances being totalitarian"

I never wrote any such thing.


"(Even though you are not accurate in your complaint, since that was not the subject of the law, which is to sales, not consumption)"

This is a distinction without a difference. aka sophistry. If something can't be bought, then the consumption of it would be difficult. Yes?


"And don't call it the pro-abortion movement, or wax about rhetoric of the culture of death."

I'll use whatever words I darn well please. YOU do not get to define the language I can use. Totalitarian jack-a**.


"And you complain about me and strawmen with that?"

I never complained. I'm just pointing out the logical fallacies that you peppered into your arguments.


"That's just like how you won't admit to hatred, or making complaints, or even being an apologist for the Christian Right, it's lacking in integrity. Maybe you expect me to just take you at your word."

Are you still beating your wife?

August 24, 2012 at 1:07 a.m.
Easy123 said...

ScottyM,

"Then move there and get "married". It's called voting with your feet."

Ah, the old "If you don't like it then leave" argument. Do I even need to elaborate on how ignorant that is?

"Slavery was abolished, largely, by christian Republicans, and those opposed were very vocal about their rights being violated."

That last part sounds familiar. Oh yeah, I remember: "It is an attack on traditional culture to satisfy the wants of a very small portion of society, nothing more, nothing less."
"No more than your own position."

You still don't get it. Calling you out on your bigotry isn't bigotry. All ideas and beliefs are not equal.

"Those who will not compromise and are willing to do things like walk into an office run by the opposition and start shooting."

Compromises shouldn't be made on basic rights. And I haven't heard of any gays doing such things.

"Sure, but not basic civil institutions."

You're moving the goalpost. Civil institutions like marriage should be guaranteed to everyone.

"Wrong, the same right to marry anyone of the opposite sex exists for everyone. The fact that gays aren't oriented in such a way as to make marriage appealing doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it."

"Oriented in such a way"? Gay is gay. They deserve the right to marry anyone of either sex. And you would deny them this right. You have made that clear. Are you backtracking?

"Again, they have exactly the same rights as everyone else, they just aren't oriented in such a way to exercise that right."

Again, they are homosexual. They should have the right to marry who they wish. You are denying them a basic right. Marriage is not exclusive to heterosexuals.

"That's a nice opinion you have there. I'm glad you are one of those leftists who are so tolerant of opposing viewpoints./sarc"

I don't tolerate intolerance. :-)

"They can get married anytime they want. Unfortunately they don't like people of the opposite sex that way."

How far do you think you can move that goalpost? Again, you are denying them the right to marry who they wish. You're grasping for an argument.

"Really? So the traditional definitions of the words "voting", and "slavery" were changed to fit a new interpretation? I must have missed that in history class."

I guess you missed the part in history class about women's suffrage, slavery, African-Americans not being able to vote and being considered 3/5 human in the Constitution. You might want to brush up on your American history.

""Gays already have the right to get married, they just don't exercise it. Your intolerance of opposing viewpoints is also duly noted."

No, they don't have the right to marry who they wish. Not accepting intolerance isn't "intolerance". I know you'd like to make it seem that way in order to make your viewpoint seem more legitimate but it's not working and it never will.

August 24, 2012 at 1:19 a.m.

My hatred is for things I consider wrong and evil. Like bigotry, intolerance, duplicity and so forth. I'm not at all ashamed to hate things like that.

And I actually do believe it's part of the the President's job to decide what arguments the government should make in a court of law. They do not have to blindly argue for the Constitutionality of something, and no president with integrity would order any lawyer under them to engage in something which the president did not believe. Obviously the President won't be on top of EVERY case, but the ones that do rise to that level, like this one? If the President doesn't stand by his principles, then he is failing in his duty to act on his own capacity.

But then as a right-winger, you probably don't care about that kind of moral responsibility. Just blinding swearing allegiance to whatever you claim the writers of the Constitution meant is enough for you. Then you are resting on their authority, not your own. That means you can't be questioned on it.

And of course, it's not showing any kind of hate of your own to say that about the leftists not knowing the Constitution, not at all. Why it's just saying what you believe. That just happens to be full of hateful judgment and a stereotype. Hey, I guess you like them too. Much like you apparently like pretending you're not defending those you call people of faith. But you keep proving my point by taking their side as the victims of the left's hatred and bigotry, and claiming that it's the left who won't compromise.

You keep reinforcing my points, that the right like to pretend they're not full of hate, that they're the victims.

And yes, you like claiming that I'm the intolerant one, and you deny any hating on your part. Because you'd have to admit that your hate isn't at all for good reasons.

So you just say that it's a disagreement, and that people who don't tolerate your opinions, well, they're hateful and intolerant. Especially since they won't let you use the law to do what you want in regards preventing same-sex marriage. Why those leftists, they demand to use the law to allow people their liberty and prevent your intolerance. How dare they! Such bigotry. To you, that's hatred, not the idea that it's stupid that two men want to get married in defiance of God's will.

But it's actually you who has the hatred, and quite evident in your disdain and negativity for me and the left. Really, you think I can't read your words and see what you feel?

You should at least own up to it.

I'll own up to being intolerant of behavior that I find deceitful and bigoted. I do hate dishonesty like yours as well, where you pretend not to be defending somebody. Or where you try to dismiss somebody by claiming they're writing gibberish.

And I've got no shame in that.

August 24, 2012 at 1:21 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

happy some more

"And no, I have never heard of anybody in the pro-choice movement calling for no limits to abortions."

Then you are not paying attention. As a matter of fact, the POTUS that those on the left are so enamored of apparently thinks that if an abortion is botched (i.e. the fetus is born alive) it should be permissible to leave them alone until they die on their own.


"I've actually never heard of a pro-abortion movement, except perhaps among the Zero Population Growth people and the rhetoric of the pro-life movement who want to label the pro-choice movements with something negative.

durrrrr

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pro

PRO

  1. in favor of a proposition, opinion, etc.
  2. a proponent of an issue; a person who upholds the affirmative in a debate.
  3. an argument, consideration, vote, etc., for something.

Your sophistry isn't very convincing. Again, you don't get to control the language I use. Get it through your soft totalitarian head.

If I were going to paint the pro-abortion troops as something negative I'd call them anti-life.


"You do want to refrain from your own strawman arguments, right?"

Point one out.

August 24, 2012 at 1:24 a.m.

SCOTTYM: Don't you realize how stupid it sounds when the right plays its "race card" card? No, you don't. But quite often you like to claims that when somebody ignores your complaints it's because they're dismissing you as racist. That's just a foolish way to blame them.

And do you care how stupid it is to say that being subject to hatred and bigotry isn't saying you are the victim of that action? At least be honest enough to own up to it. It is playing out the victim.

And sorry I must have trimmed out a word there, I meant to say "You can't just take sentences in different posts and string them so closely together." but my bad for leaving it out by accident.

Yes, telling people what they can't do is the same kind of totalitarianism as you complained about. And it can be quite justified. You'd have to be a really dedicated anarchist to believe in a completely consensual society.

But what you don't seem to know about the law in New York is that it doesn't stop you from making your own soda, or buying in bulk quantities. It's just a restriction of service in restaurants. That's why it's not a law against consumption. It's a restriction on the operations of commercial vendors, not individuals. You really do need to pay attention to the facts of the situation so you aren't making misrepresentations of what's happening. You can still feel the way you do, but at least have an accurate recounting of it.

BTW, here's what you wrote:

"Ah, yes. The "liberal" left who insist that it is an invasion of a woman's privacy to limit the killing of unborn children, because, you know, it's HER body, has zero problems telling everyone what they can and cannot put into their own bodies.

Nice little bit of totalitarianism ya'll have going on there, it'd be too bad if someone breaks it."

Pretty clearly claiming that's totalitarianism. It's just not factually accurate as to the law in New York.

Be honest, admit you aren't representing things truthfully. Maybe that's due to ignorance and other people's lies, but maybe you don't care. Just like you don't when you describe the pro-choice movement as the pro-abortion movement.

You can't complain about me doing something(and you are complaining) and do the same thing yourself. Not if you want your position to be respected. And yes, you have claimed I've represented things inaccurately.

But I guess you don't care. You've got the freedom to use whatever words you damn well please. Even if it's a bundle of hypocrisy.

Or do you honestly think your statements about my use of "logical fallacies" are different somehow? If so, you're deceiving yourself.

I hate it when people do that too. It's not good for them.

August 24, 2012 at 1:35 a.m.

Easy123, ScottyM's probably thinking of the guy who shot the guard at the Family Research Council.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/justice/dc-shooting/index.html

Which he's welcome to condemn, but somehow I suspect ScottyM will treat this example of violence as demonstrative of the homosexual agenda being replete with such acts.

Of course, he'll never ever think to mention any acts of violence by anti-homosexual people.

He can't own up to his own strawman arguments either.

Notice how he insists on calling the pro-choice movement pro-abortion. And we can't criticize him on it because he's got the freedom to use whatever words he likes.

He can't even admit that the labeling is intentional. Such deceitful ignorance.

I don't think he'll believe that his argument that if you don't like it you should leave is ignorant either.

SCOTTYM, you're right, I don't get to control the language you use.

I do get to criticize it, and point out what you're doing. I'm sure you won't admit the purpose of your label, but I recognize it.

So I'm going to call you on it.

And good show misrepresenting Obama's position too!

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-24/politics/politics_fact-checking-gingrich-infanticide-charge_1_bar-abortions-opponents-of-abortion-rights-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS

Oh wait, that one's already been disproven.

But who cares, you can use whatever words you want, even if they're not true.

Still, I won't stop you from lying, no. I will suggest you refrain from them if you have to have credibility though.

August 24, 2012 at 1:44 a.m.
jazzman said...

SCOTTYM said...

re: ..those who are perfectly fine with abortion, with no limits, yet believe that if a pregnant mother is injured by another person in such a way that the fetus is killed that this constitutes murder.

The woman In your example is a victim of a crime, which brings legal consequences.

'Making exceptions for rape, incest, and even the mother’s life are incompatible with the idea that abortion is murder'.

A woman who decides to end a pregnancy, (abortion), controls her own body, and has not given up, or lost any of her rights as a citizen because she is pregnant. 'A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother, any claim to a “right” to live must necessarily be at the expense of the woman.'

re" It makes no sense that the humanity of the fetus rests solely upon the discretion of the mother.'

You can have a good debate on whether a mass of cells growing inside a womans body deserves the same constitutional protections as you or I. 'Personhood' legislation that attempts to assign legal rights to fertilized eggs, has failed.

Who do you want making that decision for the woman? Republicans and 'the church' seem to want to make those decisions.

The 'pro-abortion' comment is meaningless. As you know there are many restrictions on abortion and it is certainly not a 'free for all'. You seem to imply that women who choose to have an abortion do it without consideration.
The 'debate' is about whether an individual woman can make her own reproductive medical decisions free from government or religious interference.

The current 'no exception' rule that is part of the RNC platform and many republicans, would force a woman to bear a rapists child. The woman is a victim of violence by 'another person'. Republicans want to mandate that the woman no longer has the right to determine her future, because, she becomes pregnant.

August 24, 2012 at 1:52 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

easy

"Ah, the old "If you don't like it then leave" argument. Do I even need to elaborate on how ignorant that is?"

This is a central tenant of federalism. I guess you missed that in history class, yes. This is why matters like gay "marriage" should be left to individual states.


"You still don't get it. Calling you out on your bigotry isn't bigotry. All ideas and beliefs are not equal."

You didn't read the definition of bigotry did you? You don't get to decide which beliefs and ideas are or are not worthy of defending. By attempting to do so YOU are being a bigot.


"Compromises shouldn't be made on basic rights."

Repetition again? Gay people have exactly he same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as everyone else. Which part of this is confusing you?


r.e. "" willing to do things like walk into an office run by the opposition and start shooting.""

"And I haven't heard of any gays doing such things."

Then you aren't paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-research-council-shooting-injured-guard-tackles-gunman/story?id=17013563#.UDcYCKB_WAQ


"You're moving the goalpost. Civil institutions like marriage should be guaranteed to everyone."

I haven't touched a goal post, and marriage is guaranteed to everyone.


"Gay is gay."

Yes, and I don't care, even a little bit, about anyone's sex life but my own.


"They deserve the right to marry anyone of either sex. And you would deny them this right. You have made that clear. Are you backtracking?"

This is where you are wrong. Marriage is a relationship between two (or more, I don't care) people of the opposite sex.


"They should have the right to marry who they wish."

Yes, as long as the person is the opposite sex, which is not what most gay people are going to do.


"You are denying them a basic right. Marriage is not exclusive to heterosexuals."

No I'm not and yes it is.


"I don't tolerate intolerance. :-)"

Surprise, surprise, and intolerant leftist who believes he/she is entitled to define the contours of the battlefield.


"Again, they are homosexual. They should have the right to marry who they wish. You are denying them a basic right."

Yes, again and again and again. You leftist seem to love repetition. Is it the old "progressive" proverb about repeating the same B.S. over and over until it becomes the truth? Because if so, you should know that it only works on folks with a weak mind.


"Marriage is not exclusive to heterosexuals."

Really? The law of the land disagrees.


"How far do you think you can move that goalpost? Again, you are denying them the right to marry who they wish. You're grasping for an argument."

Repetition again? I'm not grasping for anything. My reasoning is well established, and this is why you and the other dimwit aren't getting any traction.

August 24, 2012 at 2:35 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

easy cont.

"You might want to brush up on your American history."

Please point me toward the books that contain the part where the meaning of the words "voting" and "slavery" were changed and I'll be happy to study up on it.


"No, they don't have the right to marry who they wish."

Sure they do. So long as the person they wish to marry is of the opposite sex.


"Not accepting intolerance isn't "intolerance". I know you'd like to make it seem that way in order to make your viewpoint seem more legitimate but it's not working and it never will."

Not accepting the viewpoint of others because it isn't the same as yours IS intolerance.

What makes you think your opinion is superior to all others and that you can therefore define who is tolerant vs. who is intolerant so that your goofy "logic" of "intolerance(1) toward intolerance(2) = not intolerance" can be applied?

Pure idiocy.

August 24, 2012 at 2:35 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

happy

"My hatred is for things I consider wrong and evil...."

Then by all means, embrace your hatred, your only fulfilling your "job" as a leftist by doing so, just try not to project your own foibles upon others who are not so weak minded.


" They do not have to blindly argue for the Constitutionality of something..."

It's called separation of powers, you should read up on it. But go ahead and keep on defending the lawlessness of Pres.Obama, it just makes you look even more like the far left foot soldier that you are.


"Then you are resting on their authority, not your own."

Um, yeah. It's called "the rule of law", and without it we would devolve into tyranny or anarchy. The personal opinions of me, you and the President are all secondary to the law. Or should be. Not that the left give a crap about things like civilization and civil society.


"But then as a right-winger, you probably don't care about that kind of moral responsibility."

See, this is your ignorance talking. Go and read up on the separation of powers. You aren't going to get any traction making excused for lawlessness.


Blah, blah, you keep projecting you own hatred. Why can't you come to grips with the fact that not everyone is a broken person like you?


Around and around you go like a dog chasing his tail.

"Because you'd have to admit that your hate isn't at all for good reasons."

Your projecting again, have you ever thought about seeing a shrink?


"But it's actually you who has the hatred, and quite evident in your disdain and negativity for me and the left. Really, you think I can't read your words and see what you feel?"

More projection. You've got it bad. And no, I can't SEE what I FEEL, and contrary to your delusions YOU can't SEE what I FEEL either. What a stupid line of "reasoning". You really shouldn't post under the influence of LSD, or is that just how your mind "works"?


"You should at least own up to it."

Perhaps you should own up to your own projection problem.


"And I've got no shame in that."

Of course not. You seem to revel in wallowing in your own hatred, intolerance and ignorance while projecting those character flaws upon others.

I'm kind of starting to feel sorry for you having to go through life like that. It is really sad.

August 24, 2012 at 3:18 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

happy

"SCOTTYM: Don't you realize how stupid it sounds when the right plays its "race card" card?"

More repetition. Around and around you go.


"And do you care how stupid it is to say that being subject to hatred and bigotry isn't saying you are the victim of that action?"

Victim is a mindset. You can attack all you want, but the only victims are those who let the negativity in, and unlike you with your broken mind, most people are not so soft.


"It's just a restriction of service in restaurants. That's why it's not a law against consumption."

This is a distinction without a difference, again just like when you wrote it before. If I'm sitting in a restaurant in NY, my choices ARE being limited. I know that you may not actually have the brain power to comprehend this, but do try.


"It's just not factually accurate as to the law in New York."

Hey dumba** your sophistry doesn't work. Your no good at and even if your were, I'm not buying.


"Be honest, admit you aren't representing things truthfully. Maybe that's due to ignorance and other people's lies, but maybe you don't care."

Projection again! You just can't see it can you?


"Just like you don't when you describe the pro-choice movement as the pro-abortion movement."

Around and around you go. Last time for this one.

pro-choice = pro-abortion right. unequivocally.

You may not like it, but your FEELING do not alter the reality of the situation. Get over it.


"And yes, you have claimed I've represented things inaccurately."

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Maybe I can call you a whaaaabulance.


"Or do you honestly think your statements about my use of "logical fallacies" are different somehow?"

You apparently don't understand what a logical fallacy is, nor why the use of them lost stature as debating tactics, oh about 3000 years ago.

I'm guessing that you were partying way too much in college to actually retain very much.

Or I could be wrong and you just don't care as you've been coasting through most encounters with folks who disagree with you by spinning around and around and around till they get dizzy and give up.


"I hate it when people do that too. It's not good for them."

Yes, let the butthurt flow through you.


"somehow I suspect ScottyM will treat this example of violence as demonstrative of the homosexual agenda being replete with such acts."

Somehow I suspect that you are wrong. He was just another crazy, riled up by all the hate flowing out from the left.

August 24, 2012 at 3:49 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

happy

How is this for deluded blindness.

happy wrote.. "anti-homosexual people" instead of pro-heterosexual and then one line down, you let the butthurt flow because I wrote pro-abortion instead of pro-choice.

hypocrite.

"He can't even admit that the labeling is intentional. Such deceitful ignorance."

Holy smokes. Of course it's intentional. Only a moron would think otherwise. There is no deceit involved and the ignorance you think you see is, once again, projection.

That's a good try at demonization but once again, you're just not very good at it.


"And good show misrepresenting Obama's position too!"

I wrote... "As a matter of fact, the POTUS that those on the left are so enamored of apparently thinks that if an abortion is botched (i.e. the fetus is born alive) it should be permissible to leave them alone until they die on their own."

From the article you posted... "In part, the bill said "a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."

Then-state Sen. Obama opposed the legislation because he said it would undermine the legal protections given to abortions under Roe v. Wade."

Maybe you should read the articles before you post them to make sure they refute what I wrote rather than support it like this one.

Idiot.


"Still, I won't stop you from lying, no. I will suggest you refrain from them if you have to have credibility though."

You have yet to point out a lie on my part or a straw man for that matter.

All talk, no substance. Of course it has to be be that way because you are standing on ideological sand, and you can't think your way out of wet paper bag.


August 24, 2012 at 4:08 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

jazzman

Oh another leftard has come out to play.

"Who do you want making that decision for the woman?"

Someone has to speak up and defend the defenseless.


"The 'pro-abortion' comment is meaningless."

Is this because you say so and it is so? Sorry that line of "reaoning" doesn't fly.

Pro - meaning to argue in support of Abortion - I think we are all pretty clear on what this means.

Try again, but next time, use a little logic.


"You seem to imply that women who choose to have an abortion do it without consideration."

I implied nothing of the sort, and can't believe than anyone would think that could possible be true. You made that up out thin air, without any input from me. BTW it's a strawman. FIRE UP THE TORCHES!!!!


"The 'debate' is about whether an individual woman can make her own reproductive medical decisions free from government or religious interference."

No it isn't. The debate is about whether a fetus is a living human or not. Of course the science in unequivocal on this point, not that leftards care about science.

If this is the best you've got, you may as well go on back to bed.


"The current 'no exception' rule that is part of the RNC platform and many republicans, would force a woman to bear a rapists child."

You've been into the Kool-aide haven't you? What you have been lead to believe by the leftist media is a fabrication. There will never be a law that requires rape victims to carry the product of that rape to term.

So, are you just a gullible person who actually believes the B.S. their being fed, or are you one of the nasty partisans who will say anything to win regardless of who is harmed?

I don't know you well enough to even guess at the answer.

Try again.


August 24, 2012 at 4:25 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Good night all, got to be at the office bright and early.

August 24, 2012 at 4:26 a.m.
aae1049 said...

Whoa! ScottyM and HappywithNothing have you guys gone bonkers?

August 24, 2012 at 8:43 a.m.
Walden said...

I'm wondering how much coke was snorted during the production of this comment thread. Jeez.

August 24, 2012 at 10:19 a.m.

Happy, Easy, Fendrel, ScottyM owned you in this thread. It was almost like watching a slow motion train wreck as you guys disintegrated into name calling. Great thread.

August 24, 2012 at 1:09 p.m.
Fendrel said...

FLYING,

When did I ever call anyone a name...maybe you should actually read what I wrote instead of just adding my name because I happened to comment on something.

August 24, 2012 at 1:26 p.m.
jazzman said...

SCOTTYM said...

re: What you have been lead to believe by the leftist media is a fabrication.'

Blaming the 'leftist media', is the near last resort of the ignorant when they have nothing to say.

Not all republicans believe in the 'no exceptions' rule. The republicans writing and sponsoring the 40+ pieces of anti-abortion legislation seem to be controlling the debate for the rest.

I asked you, "Who do you want making that decision for the woman?" and you don't have an answer. I didn't ask you about someone 'speaking up' as there are many people already doing that. I specifically asked you about the decision process., 'who gets to decide'.

re: 'Pro - meaning to argue in support of Abortion '

Meaning, a woman's right to choose whether she gets to decide if she needs an abortion. There are those who do advocate exceptions, like rape, incest or the life of the mother is in danger. These people are not necessarily 'pro-abortion', but, they have an understanding that abortion as a medical procedure may be necessary.

re: 'You made that up out thin air'

You said 'a large chunk of pro-abortion folks who think it should be a 'free for all.' Maybe you should expound on your concept of 'free for all' with regard to abortion services and women.

re You've been into the Kool-aide haven't you?

No, just telling you what republicans say and believe., and try to legislate. Those are called 'facts', and even you can check them if you're so inclined.

'The Republican Party’s platform committee approved anti-abortion language without adding exceptions for rape. The plank calling for the constitutional amendment banning abortions in all circumstances, including pregnancies caused by rape and when the life of the mother is at risk.' Ryan and Akin have sponsored many similar. 'no exception' anti-abortion bills.

I'll assume you understand the meaning of: 'banning abortions in all circumstances', but just in case you don't:

When Republicans say there are no exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother, and a woman is pregnant, Republican's will not allow the woman to have an abortion., the woman must carry the pregnancy to term, and, in a more dire medical case, die.

Republicans via their beliefs will mandate a woman to die as there is no exception for an abortion to save her life. Do you have an alternate meaning of 'no exceptions'? Do you know what will happen to a woman if an abortion is required to save her life under republican policy and guidelines and a 'no exception' rule is in effect?

The 'strawman' you so often reference is you, as you ignore, and refuse to understand what republicans say and advocate.

btw:

Do you believe exceptions for rape, incest, and the mother’s life should be made re: abortion?

August 24, 2012 at 1:50 p.m.

FPSE, actually, your cheering for him is showing the opposite. You're already a member of his camp, so you sycophantically proclaiming him the victor is about as believable as any other time one of you drops a steaming turd and another one of you proclaims it the finest work they be ever seen.

Walden, well I do admit some of the things ScottyM made me laugh hard enough that had I been drinking a coke at the time, I would have snorted some up my nose.

Aae1049, it was certainly a bit bonkers of me to think ScottyM would do anything different. It was as a,ply demonstrated a substantial waste of time. Except for exposing ScottyM for his conduct, duplicitous and lacking integrity as it is.

Don't get me wrong, I wish ScottyM had enough respect for me to tone down his rhetoric, to take more responsibility for his words, but I'm also quite satisfied with his responses convincing me of the truth of my criticisms. He's like Joneses and Jack_Dennis, as long as they're opposing me, I'm more confident I'm doing right.

Jazzman, ScottyM uses the term pro-abortion because he wants to claim that we're opposed to any restrictions to abortions, and he wants to create the false impression that we like the idea of killing the unborn. It is an intentional misrepresentation, but as you may notice, he pretends to be aggrieved at "anti-homosexual" as if that side wasn't opposing homosexuals at all. He can't quite tell that there's a difference between the labels. His attempt is not at all accurate.

Besides, they certainly do want to exercise totalitarian control over a woman's body. But they won't even own up to it.

Me, if there were a way to remove a fetus with the same or even just close to the same risks as an abortion, and implant it in another womb, I'd probably be willing to accept that. I can live up to that control.

Then again, I prefer to prevent abortions with contraceptives anyway. Yet who seeks to ban them? Certain elements within the pro-life movement.

ScottyM, I'm fulfilling my obligation as a person to recognize wrong. Then to oppose it. Like yours. Not that I expect to correct it, but I do oppose it.

But do keep lying. That article also quoted Obama saying:

"here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported -- which was to say that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born -- even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level."

But I suppose you think your selective parsing isn't dishonest.

Or maybe you think I didn't read the article and can get away with misinterpreting it.

Much like you misrepresent the law in New York City though in that case you may genuinely not have read it.

August 24, 2012 at 2:11 p.m.
Fendrel said...

So quiet today .. did I convince everyone that I was right? That would be soo cool...what are the odds?

August 24, 2012 at 6:34 p.m.
jazzman said...

When faced with facts.... the right-wing trolls hide

August 28, 2012 at 1:57 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.