| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Bomber, You should pay cause you have all the money. No more silly question please. All that money you saved by meticulously upgrading and maintaining your Cyclone is obviously best suited to help end the war and improve America's image in the muslim world. Or you could spend it on some well-aged single malt and share it with me.  I don't know any Methodist fundamentalists. I've known thousands of Methodists. Dad is a Methodist Minister. He's a friggin right-wing liberal, or maybe a left-wing conservative. Figure that one out. I'll tell you what I think. It's not the hard-nosed Christians or rabid secularists we need to worry about the most; there's group of insidious invaders, thousands of them who have organized and dispersed themselves right under our very own noses here in America. They're everywhere and they know where we live. They are trained experts with all manner of engineered chemical agents, some of them already prepared for delivery in ultra-fine atomized spray, designed specifically to enter our lungs as vapor. Most people aren't even concerned with such an insidious looming threat. For some reason our culture is blind to it. Have we forgotten the lessons of 9/11 already? Stop the Avon Ladies now, before it's too late! | ||
| Bomber |
LOL -- don't ferget the Amway folks -- they are as scarey as can be! | ||
| Blake |
DJ, Did Bush really lead us poorly through an unprecedented natural disaster of a scale never before seen in this nation, or did folks fail to heed warnings and did his political opposition then exploit the situation for partisan political gain? What was it General Honore said? "Don't get stuck on stupid." I like that. New Orleanians re-elected Mayor Nagin.  Acejay, It sure is easy for those who disagree with him to insult our President. I'm not sure what mere unconstructive, unthoughtful insult accomplishes other than to further divide and weaken America in the eyes of the world, including those of our jihadi-fascist enemies. Like I said, it sure is easy to fling out insults against those with whom one disagrees. Doing so shows a lack of character though, don't you agree? (Message edited by Blake on September 29, 2006) | ||
| Blake |
Don't even mention Amway! That specter in our midst is too frightening for me to even think about! They pit brother against sister, son against father, daughter against mother even! It is horrific I say. We may as well concede now to all their demands, to fight them will only embolden others to take up their cause. An interesting analogy just struck me though. Islamic terrorist suicide bombers are reportedly convinced that by their singular sacrifice that they will inherit passage to heaven for their entire family and gain for themselves 72 palaces each replete with 72 virgins eager to pleasure. So see, islamic terrorist suicide bombers are unwitting participants in a massive pyramid scheme. I'd prefer if they sold soap instead. Hey! There we go! See we just need to change that one phrase in the koran. In place of "kill infidels" we print the phrase "sell soap." Problem solved. I'm heading to the book store with a bunch of preprinted stickies. Suggest everyone do the same. (Message edited by Blake on September 29, 2006) | ||
| Djkaplan |
"Did Bush really lead us poorly through an unprecedented natural disaster of a scale never before seen in this nation, or did folks fail to heed warnings and did his political opposition then exploit the situation for partisan political gain?" Yes, yes, and yes. I love rambling threads! (seriously, no sarcasm intended). | ||
| Jayvee |
"natural disaster of a scale never before seen" you mean lately right? The hurricane that hit Galveston before killed 8,000 people, that was pretty bad too. Before mass media though, 1900, I think. It wasn't so much Bush's "leadership" during the event that was the problem, as much as Brown was unqualified to be the boss of FEMA, only had the job due to blatant cronyism. But as they say, plenty of blame to go around on that deal. | ||
| Skyguy |
I am furiously waving my ten foot pole at this discussion. But only because I keep my promises and can not offer up any non divisive comments regarding the current administration. | ||
| Blake |
Galveston killed a lot of people and it was a wicked bad hurricane for sure. But it pales in comparison to the devastation wrought by Katrina and teh number of people involved/displaced. In terms of lives lost though, the Galveston hurricane was much worse. Try this thought experiment. Imagine that the President somehow managed to send the Guard in ahead of time against the wishes of the Governor and they commenced forcibly removing all the people in New Orleans from their homes, taking them to safe refuge. Now imagine that the levies held and the city stayed dry, unflooded. Can you possibly then imagine the royal indignant outrage of people, including me, against the overbearing dictatorial action of our President? How dare he presume to dictate what people do! The partisan outrage over the fact that in the largest natural disaster in our history, some people who failed to heed warnings and then died or experienced hardship as a result is downright ludicrous to me. On the one hand concerning the war, his opposition critics screach hysterically that the President has taken too much authority, overstepped his bounds, then on the other they scream that he didn't take enough authority, which would have been blatantly unlawful, to bypass the government of Louisiana and order the National Guard in to save the day. It is all also regardless of the fact that the national guard could have done nothing to prevent the disaster from transpiring in the first place. It's somehow the President's or Mr. Brown's fault that the New Orleans police left town as looters converged? It's always the federal government's fault? Nothing is the responsibility of anyone else? That kind of thinking is what has led us to this era of unprecedented big government, the federal government seen as the all-wise all-knowing perfect motherer of American society. That is the utopian socialists' fantasy which in reality when pursued only results in giving the big, bad, accountable to no one federal government more and more influence in our daily lives. If a storm hit your home and ravaged the area such that roads were impassable and utilities were down, is it the federal government's fault that you ran out of drinking water (didn't make provisions for disaster) and had to go out looking for some? My view is that demanding or even just expecting the feds to mother us all is asking for a police state. You can't enjoy liberty AND demand that the feds be all-attentive mothers to us at the same time. You want a mother to take care of you, watch over you, protect you, rescue you at the first hint of danger, she is going to be in your business all the time. The governor is the supreme commander in charge of their State, not the President. It is up to the Governor to petition the feds for assistance. It is up to the Governor, not the President to ensure disaster relief planning is up to par for their state. A President until authorized by the governor has ZERO power to take control of a state's legal responsibilities, ZERO. If the governor acts illegally, that would be another matter, then the President can send in the troops. "Unqualified", "blatant cronyism"? Says you. The truth as I see it is that Mr. Brown was qualified; that he was the victim of a miserable partisan political character assassination. I despise that kind of behavior in the face of tragedy. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Pretty sure Mr. Brown was part of the solution. He did fine the prior year working with the state of Florida and their encounters with four hurricanes. Going through that exercise would seem to be good qualification and excellent experience. Not sure how anyone imagines one might gain experience on the scale of a hurricane Katrina. Some folks just didn't like the reality of what happens in a disaster, especially when people ignore urgent warnings. It is called a "disaster" for a reason. (Message edited by Blake on September 29, 2006) | ||
| Cowboy |
Well done Blake, I think most of the na sayers just need a large glass of prune juice. | ||
| Brucelee |
Well said Blake! It is MUCH easier to sit on your A and complain than it is to go out and do it for yourself. I notice the guys who gripe the most do the least! Thanks! | ||
| Blake |
Bomber, "the first time through an act of congress" Hah, just re-red that. Of course you mean he won according to the rules as set forth by the constitution and upheld/affirmed by the Supreme Court. Right? A agree on the polling accuracy issue. That said, I don't think there is anything close to a majority of folks who would like to see abortion offered on demand to anyone/everyone who seeks it; only the rabid feminist liberals who value the free will of a mother to have murdered her unborn or partially born baby fit that description. I brought up abortion in response to your assertion that "the present administration is very fundamentalist Christian in its politics". My point is that opposing abortion and stem cell research are not positions only supported by fundamentalist Christians. Pretty sure that most Christians and I know Catholic Christians support the pro-life positions. Pretty sure the same is true for muslims. Lots of humanists also support the pro-life positions. I know Buddhists do too. Which would you rather have, leadership that seeks to protect and hold sacred innocent defenseless life or leadership that holds sacred the free will of people to do as they wish, no matter what? For the abortion advocates the question is not one of whether or not it is okay to kill a baby, the question for them is one of when is it okay to kill a baby. Why is it okay to kill a baby during birth, but not okay seconds after birth? Why don't mothers have free choice to murder their babies whenever they so desire? Why not allow mothers the choice to murder their babies anytime prior to the age of two? What is the difference? Kill 'em cause you want to is what the pro-abortionists are advocating in my mind. So why not let them kill 'em when they want to right straight through until they learn to talk and can get an attorney to protect them from the specter of mom's deadly free choice? God help us. (Message edited by Blake on September 29, 2006) | ||
| Brucelee |
I consider myself a libertarian to the bone. Having said that, in all good conscience, I don't see liberty including abortion on demand. When one's "liberty train" includes the taking of a life or life to be, the ripcord has to be pulled by someone. | ||
| Jackbequick |
Well then, you're not a libertarian. Its hard work, you have to ignore all kinds of things that are none of your business. Jack | ||
| Brucelee |
"Well then, you're not a libertarian. Its hard work, you have to ignore all kinds of things that are none of your business. Jack" If in your definition of libertarian, you would allow a murder to take place without objection, then I guess I am NOT one then. However, I don't think you would find too many folks who define liberty quite that way. | ||
| Bomber |
Blake -- wrt the way Dubya got into office the first time, absolutely -- the election was hosed, big time, and the rule of law went the next step, as it was designed to do. As for the entire abortion issue, the words and terms you use raise that ugly polling issue (smile) on demand at any time during the pregnancy is one thing -- early in the first trimester to abort a pregnancy caused by a heroine addict father raping his innocent child is another -- they are not equal many would treat them so I agree with Jack -- ignoring things that aren't my business takes effort, more than many are willing to put forth I do not hold that these folks that disagree with me are bad people, or even that they don't understand -- they just disagree with me my stance on abortion, for the purposes of this discussion, is that of a person that cannot be directly involved by it, and, therefor, my opinion counts for very much less than those people who CAN be directly impacted the debate on "life" will carry on, no doubt, to the satisfaction of absolutely no one, if we're lucky | ||
| Brucelee |
I guess I have some company! Ask Dr. Ruwart Question: "I am new to libertarianism but really have only one main issue that seems to separate me from other libertarians: abortion. I am pro-life. I'm curious to know if other libertarians hold this view, or if I am alone on this." My short answer: "You are not alone. Just as in other parties and organizations, the abortion issue is hotly debated among libertarians. "In general, libertarians are split into two camps, both believing that their view best expresses the non-aggression principle. "The group which identifies with the 'pro-life' viewpoint feels that a couple engaging in sexual relations should be responsible for the results of their actions. If a child is conceived who cannot fend for himself, the parents are responsible for bringing him into the world and caring for him until he can. Abortion is viewed as murder of an innocent, much as you describe. "The predominant 'pro-choice' viewpoint, as expressed in the current version of the Libertarian Party platform, is backed by principled arguments as well. Libertarians believe that no one should be enslaved to support another, including a pregnant woman 'enslaved' to carry a fetus she does not want. A woman's body is her property, to do with as she wishes. Libertarians of this persuasion generally believe that parents do not have a *duty* to support their offspring, although most parents gladly do so. Obviously, children's rights are a related and unresolved issue between these two viewpoints. "Another pro-choice perspective is that the fetus, by definition, is part of the woman's body as long as it cannot be sustained outside of her. 'Her body, her choice.' "However, once the fetus could live outside the mother, some libertarians argue that a live birth, rather than an abortion, is the proper method for a woman to exercise property rights over her body. Just as you would ask a trespasser to leave, rather than blast him or her away, so too should a woman ask the fetus to leave in the least forceful way possible. Those wishing to adopt the newborn would assume the costs of caring for the premature infant and become its legal guardian. "In spite of these very different interpretation of the non-aggression principles, proponents of the various positions share some important common ground. First, they all agree that tax-supported abortions are a violation of everyone's rights! "Secondly, most (not all) believe that outlawing abortion will only drive it underground. Most believe that a better way of stopping abortion is to make it obsolete. A libertarian society is best-equipped to do just that. "For example, interracial adoption wouldn't be discouraged as it is today by government social services agencies. Contracts between the birth mother and adoptive parents would be honored by the courts, making them more attractive, predictable, and suited to the needs of everyone concerned. Research in effective contraception and the ability to transfer a fetus to a willing mother are more likely in a society made wealthy by non-aggression. "Something is interfering in the natural order of things when so many people want to adopt and so many women chose an abortion instead of a baby. That 'something' is the government aggression that controls research, adoption guidelines, and contract law. Our first priority should be to stop the government aggression that encourages abortion in the first place. Perhaps that will be the only solution that both 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' advocates need." [Editor's Note: The Libertarian Party platform plank on abortion, while pro-choice, was amended in 1996 to acknowledge that libertarians disagree on this issue. For more information on the views of pro-life libertarians, contact Libertarians For Life, the leading libertarian pro-life organization. Their address, along with addresses for many other libertarian organizations, is at our Web site. Also archived at our Web site: more answers by Dr. Ruwart to questions about this difficult issue.] | ||
| Brucelee |
Here is another take on it. Libertarians for Life was founded in 1976 to show why abortion is a wrong, not a right. Our reasoning is expressly scientific and philosophical rather than either pragmatic or religious, or merely political or emotional. Politically, of course, our perspective is libertarian. Libertarianism's basic principle is that, under justice, each of us has the obligation not to aggress against (violate the rights of) anyone else -- for any reason (personal, social, or political), however worthy. The Libertarian Case Against Abortion To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that: 1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization. 2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another. 3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons. 4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm. 5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn. 6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them. | ||
| Djkaplan |
""Unqualified", "blatant cronyism"? Says you. The truth as I see it is that Mr. Brown was qualified; that he was the victim of a miserable partisan political character assassination." Here are Michael Brown's qualifications as presented by the US Government's website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/brown-bio.html Prior to joining FEMA he practiced law in Colorado and Oklahoma, where he served as a bar examiner on ethics and professional responsibility for the Oklahoma Supreme Court and as a hearing examiner for the Colorado Supreme Court. He had been appointed as a special prosecutor in police disciplinary matters. While attending law school he was appointed by the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee of the Oklahoma Legislature as the Finance Committee Staff Director, where he oversaw state fiscal issues. His background in state and local government also includes serving as an assistant city manager with emergency services oversight and as a city councilman. I see some good stuff, but nothing that would qualify him to lead the largest and most powerful disaster relief agency in the world. Sure, he was a victim of partisan politics, the same partisan politics that got an underqualified lackey in a key governmental position that requires years of experience in the field. | ||
| Jayvee |
 (Message edited by jayvee on September 29, 2006) | ||
| Blake |
DJ, You missed the most pertinent stuff. His experience in FEMA before being promoted to Director? Did you hear any complaints about FEMA in the year prior when FL was hit by four hurricanes? I'd like to know what Mr.Brown did or failed to do that was so darned outrageous. Can you tell me? | ||
| Blake |
Bomber, There are issues for sure when going past the abortion as birth control scenario. The day after pill would seem appropriate in the case of rape and/or incest. What portion of abortions in America are not in response to rape or incest, 99%? | ||
| Blake |
Bomber, Well said. I am unable to judge anybody. I'm much too far from perfect myself, though I could easily whoop up on Sean (Rocketman) should he ever decide to challenge me and my Cyclone through some tortuous twisties. On the whole minding one's own business/libertarian issue, I find much wisdom in the philosophy that "When we stand for nothing, we'll fall for anything." That and the exceedingly wise admonition that "All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Standing for tolerance as a reasonable being is a very good thing. If I had to choose, it is no contest, I'd rather have excess tolerance than excess intolerance. I wish there was no need for laws. If folks were simply honest and loving/friendly all the time, we wouldn't need any friggin laws, would we? What kind of single malt do you like? I bought a bottle the other day at Thrifty Liquor here in Kilgore. It's old enough to vote. Got that phraseology from RT. He's truly swell. I'm saving it for your next visit. | ||
| Skyguy |
I find it amuseing to sit back and watch people selectivly choose what casues are right and which casues are wrong. If life is precious why do many pro-lifers also go hunting? Why do so many pro lifers support the death penalty? Humans are a very f'd up species. Controlled by their emotions and the pressure of their peers. We decide what is right for others based on our beliefs when we should decide what is right for others based on their beliefs. As long as their beliefs do not include casuing harm to others what gives us the right to make their decisions? I am not trying to start a pro-life or pro-choice argument with the above statement. Just sending out some food for thought. | ||
| Brucelee |
"As long as their beliefs do not include casuing harm to others what gives us the right to make their decisions? " Therein lies the rub! If a baby is to be born in three months and the mother decides to abort it, some folks call that "choice." After all, it IS her body! If the same baby's life is injured or killed by another (say a mugger) that same mother to be might call that "murder." Hmmm, how do you resolve that riddle? Is the baby to be's life to be protected or not? If so, from whom? | ||
| Skyguy |
Bruce since you asked................... In my opinion the pro-life/pro-choice debate will rage on for many years to come. In the case of three months down the road it is quite possible that the baby has some type of cognitive thoughts. If the fetus has concious thoughts then aborting it would indeed be wrong. Science has not yet told us exactly when a fetus starts to become aware of itself. When science gives us that answer it will be an easier debate. In the case of the morning after pill I think cognitive thoughts on the part of the fetus are not real likely. A difficult debate to be sure. Abortions are often the choice of uneducated parents that would likely be unfit to raise a child in the first place. Many kids are brought up by under qualified parents. A percentage of which go on to become theives, killers, criminals. Would you force a child on an unfit parent? Tough questions to be sure. | ||
| Captpete |
This is a great example of how a discussion of a very controversial subject is conducted by rational, thoughtful individuals. I commend you all.  | ||
| Brucelee |
"Would you force a child on an unfit parent?" Yes and no. In a perfect world, the mother would have to go through with the birth and then hand off the baby to qualified parents (assuming she did not want to keep the baby!) It used to be that this process happened all the time and it did not take an act of Congress for the parents to find the baby. Apparently, that is no longer true and it kind of puts the wrench in the whole matter I think! | ||
| Blake |
Skyguy, While I oppose capital punishment - always seemed very strange to call it a "penalty" - I think you are missing a clear distinction between hunting, capital punishment and the pro-life positions. One is respecting innocent defensless human life. The others are not. Those three characteristics "innocent", "defensless", and "human" are not trivial. I do agree that it is somewhat hypocritical to support capital punishment while being pro-life. As to hunting, no one who eats meat can rightly comment on the imagined impropriety of hunting animals for food. For sport, yeah, they may have a valid beef (pun intended). ![: ]](http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/proud.gif) I'm not convinced that the existence of cognitive thinking is the threshold we should use to define the onset of human life. Why not allow mother's to murder their babies prior to them being able to crawl, or to walk, or to converse? For the abortionists, it is not whether or not killing is okay, it is when is it okay. My position is that it is rarely if ever okay, but some compromise must be reached. Currently the pro-abortionists have their say with abortions right up to the moment of birth being legal. This is a grave hedonistic evil that I see coming back to haunt our nation. If you believe in karma, we have a load of bricks fixin' to fall on our heads for the 40MILLION abortions since Roe v Wade became the law of the land. That's my view anyway. As far as the imaginary scenario where a child is born into a disfunctional family, whoa, are you advocating murder of the baby to protect the baby and/or society? Step back and rethink that one please. It is a dangerous path straight through the philosphy of folks like the KKK, Nazis and their ilk. Please don't go there. The time to address the creation of unwanted babies comes nine months before the birth. The philosophy of "if it feels good, do it" has hurt our nation, hurt it badly. I'd sure like to see a philosophy of accountability and responsibility teturn to the forefront of our culture. I'm hopeful that is happening. Time will tell. I wonder, if taken to term and giving birth, how many mothers would still want to give up their baby. I wonder how many mothers are pressured into abortions by the father or others around them. I agree with the Captain. | ||
| Brucelee |
I consider myself "pro-life" and yet I support capital punishment. Why? Well, I think that there are actions that one can take that dictate that you give up "your right" to life. Did Jeffrey Daehmer go over this line, I think he did! To wit, can we say that it is right to support an unborn baby's right to life then we have to support the right to life of say, Osama BL? Did Hitler and the guys running the extermination camps forfeit their "right to life." I think they did, by nature of their crimes which many believe, cannot go unanswered. Interesting and challenging point, but I am confortable in discussing the extremes, ie Hitler, Osama, vs Baby to be named later. | ||
| Skyguy |
The extremes make a decison easy. It is the grey area that is tough. Until people understand when life truly begins it will be impossible to come to a logical unbiased by religion decision. It is odd for me to be stuck in a middle ground but stuck I am. I am usually an opinionated SOB but the whole abortion issue is to complex for my tiny 160+ IQ. It truly sucks to not be able to form a solid opinion on such an issue. Science has not yet given me an answer and I refuse to allow religion to influence my decision. I can only hope that some day humans will be capable of finding when life truly starts. Until that time I have to sit back and let women decide what is right when it comes to their choice to abort or not abort. It is a crappy place to sit. I am used to having an opinion on everything and being able to back my choice based on sound logic. I do think that any women that get prego without some planning is an idiot. I for one do not leave it up to them............ Kudos to all involved in this discussion for maintaining an objective non emotive argument. I feel honored to be in the company of such people. |
