Inevitable Hillary

Hillary will be inevitable - until she isn’t. Her weaknesses in things like her penchant for secrecy, lack of trustworthiness and inexplicable need to make more money are not enough to sink her candidacy. Her friends in the media protect her and Democrats are doubling down because they have no place else to go. Hillary’s problem is her lack of accomplishment. She is an empty resume. I made a list of her accomplishments.

Hilary has a great resume. She won election as a U.S. Senator, almost won the Democratic nomination as President and was appointed Secretary of State by the guy who beat her out. She makes piles of money for speaking and has written a couple of best selling books. Yes, the resume is great. Below I have made a list of her actual accomplishments in those many jobs she got or was appointed.

1. Traveled a lot.
2. Gave lots of speeches.
3. Well this is as much as I can think of.

In this respect, Bernie Sanders is a much bigger threat than he would seem. Nobody really believes he will become the Democratic nominee, much less president, but he shakes the Democratic tree and maybe Hillary will fall out. He is a crazy old guy, but his energy and openness makes Hillary look like what she is - a candidate a decade out of her time.

IMO, we are now looking at an even chance of Joe Biden. He wisely waits. He doesn't push. He just waits for Hillary to collapse on her own, maybe with a little help from Bernie.

Posted by Christine & John at August 1, 2015 5:19 PM
Comments
Comment #396942

Good to see a post from C&J.

Hillary’s other biggest problem is that she is not a natural politician. One can almost feel her pain on the campaign trail as she is forced to mingle with the press and common folk.

She is wooden and uninteresting with not a single new idea in her bag.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 1, 2015 6:30 PM
Comment #396943

I said this before, but it is more fitting here:

Hillary Clinton is going to need a miracle to become President. Fortunately, over a dozen such miracles are vying for the GOP.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 1, 2015 6:31 PM
Comment #396944

I said this before, but it is more fitting here:

Her miracles must come from Satan.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 1, 2015 6:37 PM
Comment #396945

Biden is a natural politician with vast experience and not nearly the negative political baggage that Hillary carries. He is good natured and non-threatening for the middle class. I believe he will make a run and win the nomination if he does.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 1, 2015 6:44 PM
Comment #396948

Everybody likes Biden. He is the guy that you would drink a beer with. His problem is that he is rightly seen as a lightweight.

Posted by: C&J at August 1, 2015 8:19 PM
Comment #396949

Royal - couldn’t stay out of what promises to be such a targe rich environment.

Posted by: C&J at August 1, 2015 8:44 PM
Comment #396950

I am not looking forward to Clinton being the Democratic nominee. Hopefully a 3rd party manages to nominate someone sane.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 1, 2015 9:25 PM
Comment #396951

Warren

People have been talking about third parties for 200 years. It happened a few times, well once. The Republican Party was born as an anti-slavery third party and then took its place as one of the two.

Our first past the post electoral system does not permit the persistence of a third party. At best, they can throw the election toward their ostensible opponent.

Here is a scenario, not one I like but possible. 57% of Americans do not trust Hillary. That might seem terrible for her, but maybe Trump runs. She no longer needs to win a majority. Husband Bill won the election in 1992 despite the fact that 57% of Americans voted against him. Ironically the same number today that distrusts Hillary. Can Clinton history repeat itself?

Posted by: C&J at August 1, 2015 10:19 PM
Comment #396952

It is still possible Biden might run, but every other Democratic and Republican candidate who was expected to make a run has already announced. Biden would be the very last. He might be able to get away with declaring his candidacy at such a late date due to his position as Vice President, but that seems unlikely. Neither of his previous two presidential runs went well. He’s a good man with exceptional qualifications and an admirable record of public service, but I fear his time on the political stage is at an end. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but it’s awfully late in the day to jump into the fray.

Hillary continues to do the right thing. She is the prohibitive favorite, and there is no reason to demand the spotlight as long as the GOP is hell-bent on making a spectacle of itself. It means she has to put up with the usual attacks from the right wing propaganda machine, but what else is new? The propagandists insist she is untrustworthy because she is hiding something, and insisting she is hiding something because no one can find anything, so therefore it must be hidden, and therefore she’s untrustworthy… Whatever.

By the way, Trump declares he is not preparing for the debate. He plans on winging it. That is astounding. It tells the other candidates on the stage that Trump has no intention of discussing anything substantive, and in a way, Trump is smart to do so. Why spend a grand total of one minute outlining some boring policy? But it begs the question- how will he actually use his time? Jeb and Walker must be sweating bullets. They’re going to have to stand next to Trump while he goes off at random.
Nice.

Posted by: phx8 at August 2, 2015 1:06 AM
Comment #396954

C&J,

I do not expect a 3rd party to win. I cast my vote only to signal my rejection of the major party candidates. I have done this before.

I would not discount the chance that HRC wins with a plurality rather than a majority. It is a flaw with our system that can be rectified, but it would take enormous political will to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 2, 2015 5:17 AM
Comment #396955

Warren

We had three elections - 1992, 1996 and 2000 - when no candidate won a majority and two more - 2004 & 2012 - when an incumbent was elected by a very narrow majority. This is not a healthy trend.

Posted by: C&J at August 2, 2015 7:03 AM
Comment #396956

C&J, it seems you are repeating the same tired old, a “decade out of your time” old, repub talking points with the “lack of accomplish” meme. To hear you and your fellow repeaters talk experience doesn’t count yet who are you guys putting up against the dems? That is where your false meme will come back to haunt. Unless bankrupting a state or keeping a vegetable alive against the will of her husband is what you guys consider accomplishments. It is the same thing we heard about Obama and look at what the man has accomplished in his time in office.

Why not make this a campaign on the issues, what has worked and what hasn’t, and solutions to the problems we face as a nation? I would suggest it is because no one on the right side of the aisle can run and win because they are several decades out of their time and would make Hilary look good in comparison. You guys really need to get a candidate instead of trying to sabotage Hilary or all of us Americans lose.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 2, 2015 10:15 AM
Comment #396957

Just to correct some right wing myths about elections with some facts about elections:

2012 was won by a large margin by Obama, 51 - 47%. It was even more lopsided in the electoral college.

Clinton won in 1996 by a landslide.

C&J is probably confusing 1992 with 1996. Perot split the votes that might have gone to Bush & Clinton in 1992 and 1996. (He won 8% in 1996, Clinton 49%, Bush 42%. Clinton won 379 electoral votes in ‘96) Without Perot in 1992, Clinton would still have won by 5% or more.

j2t2,
The current field of GOP candidates is exceptionally weak- a Bush, one term governors and Senators, and vanity candidates- with the only one of any substance being Kasich. I’m not saying I would ever vote for Kasich, but at least he has demonstrated an ability to govern, has a very high approval rating in a swing state, and is not owned by some billionaires.

Posted by: phx8 at August 2, 2015 10:53 AM
Comment #396960

Clinton won 49% in 1996. That is not a landslide. W/o Perot, we don’t know what would have happened.

Bush won 50.7% in 2004 - barely a majority. In 2012 Obama won 51.1%, or .04% more. Also not a landslide. Not even a sand slide. Obama won in 2012 52.9%

Let’s go through the victories

2000 - Bush 47.9% (Of course Gore won more of the popular votes, but still no majority 48.4%

1996 - Clinton 49.2% (in a three way race)
1992 - Clinton 43.0% (in a three way race)
1988 - Bush 53.4%
1984 - Reagan 58.8%
1980 - Reagan 50.8% (in a three way race)
1976 - Carter 50.1%

Posted by: C&J at August 3, 2015 1:06 AM
Comment #396963

Yeah, if only the GOP had a one term Senator with excessive admiration of oneself who was also a community organizer.

LOL!!!
You guys are a hoot.

Posted by: kctim at August 3, 2015 11:20 AM
Comment #396964

One of the GOP presidential candidates will bite off the head of a live chicken during the debate.

Trump, Huckabee, and Cruz say awful things on a daily basis. Trump, the leader in the GOP polls and a Birther, just made an incredibly racist statement about Obama- that there will not be another black president for generations because Obama is black! Ladies and Gentlemen- Donald Trump! Huckabee compares a nuclear non-proliferation treaty with marching Israelis to the ovens. Yeah, he said that. When called on it, he doubled down. Cruz makes these kinds of statements again and again. He calls Obama the leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism. (Not ISIS! Iran! Sheesh!) Perry says he will tear up the Iran agreement his first day in office. Of course, that means he is tearing up an agreement made with Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China without even consulting them, so he and other GOP candidates are essentially agreeing to destroy our alliances and cooperation with other countries on the first day of office. Seriously. What the hell is wrong with these people?

There is no disturbing trend with the outcome of the previous six presidential elections. Democrats won the popular vote in 5/6, and are a lock to win the next one too, along with the Senate (for sure) and maybe the House.

The only disturbing trend is the slide of the GOP into extremism. It has become a party of hatred, racism, and bigotry, and the fact that Donald Trump- a Birther- leads the field is proof positive. In the War on
Women, the Republicans are voting to withhold funding for PP. For those who don’t know it, 75% of those funds are in the form of Medicaid for the poor. Those funds do not go to abortions in any way, shape or form; in fact, no federal funds whatsoever go to PP to fund abortions, but never mind. This is conservatism today. This is the GOP.

Posted by: phx8 at August 3, 2015 11:37 AM
Comment #396965

Phx8, what part of today’s GOP platform is more extreme than that of their past? What views do Republicans hold today, that are more extreme than the views of yesterday?

Being against government health care or not supporting gay-marriage, isn’t hatred.
Supporting the 2nd Amendment, or believing all men should be treated equally, is not racism.
Supporting legal immigration and being against illegal immigration, is not bigotry.
Personal responsibility is not some kind of ‘War on Women.’

Face it man, your ‘extremism’ rhetoric is based on nothing but refusal to move even further left.

Posted by: kctim at August 3, 2015 12:03 PM
Comment #396966

LOL!!!
You guys are a hoot.
Posted by: kctim at August 3, 2015 11:20 AM

Tim, I too get lots of laughs from the left when they talk about the experience their candidates have and will bring to the office if elected president.

“He calls Obama the leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism. (Not ISIS! Iran! Sheesh!)”

The writer didn’t notice or ignored the key word…”financier”. OH, well.

The ophthalmologist for the left-wingers on WB has fitted them with special narrow-vision, truth-filtering glasses. All that remains is for their audiologist to fit them with hearing aids that filters out truth and common sense.

Fitted with such vision and hearing aids the lefties rant about the non-existant and rave about the imaginary.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 3, 2015 12:09 PM
Comment #396967

RF, if I ever need such an ophthalmologist or audiologist for such an operation, I’ll make sure to solicit your recommendation. You seem to have a lot of experience with these procedures.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 3, 2015 12:24 PM
Comment #396968

Warren, just ask your buddy px

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 3, 2015 2:52 PM
Comment #396969

Rand Paul is a self-certified ophthalmologist.

RF,
Do you really want to defend the statement made by Cruz? Really?

kctim,
How can you doubt that conservatives and Republicans have become more extreme. Look around you. The leading candidate for the GOP presidential nomination is a star on a reality tv show and a prominent Birther. He pushed the conspiracy theory that Obama is not a legitimate president.

Conservatives and Republicans routinely promote conspiracy theories to justify their extremism. Are there great economic numbers and employment numbers? It’s a conspiracy. Global Warming? That’s a conspiracy too. Polls showing Obama was going to decisively win the 2012 election? That the the media skewing things. Another conspiracy. Wake up, kctim. That kind of thing is a hallmark of extremism.

Recently we’ve seen conservatives and the GOP shut down the government, threaten to plunge the US and the rest of the world in an economic depression over the debt ceiling, set a record number of filibusters and a record number of nominations block or left unfilled.

There used to be a ban on assault weapons. Bush and the conservatives & Republicans let that expire. We had a horrific slaughter of school children and teachers, and instead of re-instating a ban…

Seriously, kctim. How bad does it need to get?

Posted by: phx8 at August 3, 2015 3:18 PM
Comment #396970

All the lefts hopes for retaining power in the WH rests upon a deeply flawed candidate who has all the charisma and gravitas of a deeply sedated Jimmy Carter.

The Republicans were in the “anointing” business of nominating a candidate with Dole, McCain and Romney. I am pleased that this time around its the Dems who wish to crown a candidate simply because she has “earned” the nod in their opinion.

Party leaders and her campaign handlers are horrified at her falling poll numbers and the increasing public dislike of her. She is spending big money early on in Iowa and NH as a poor showing in either state could spell her early doom and a different party choice.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 3, 2015 3:45 PM
Comment #396971

Phx8

Questioning Obama’s birth certificate is an opinion, not an extreme position on policy.
Questioning the opposing party’s ‘economic numbers’ is SOP when it comes to politics.
Global warming? Election results? Biased media? Coming from the left who thinks there is a big oil conspiracy, still believes the 2000 election was stolen, and constantly complains about FOX, that is priceless man.

Claims that shutting down a tiny percentage of government and not raising the debt ceiling will lead to worldwide economic disaster, is ridiculous fear-mongering partisan opinion.

So, after all that hyperbole, you finally mention ONE issue where you think Republicans have become more extreme on, and it doesn’t even support your claims of extremism.
The AWB? A feel good law based on emotion that targeted the cosmetics of scary looking guns? A law that would not have prevented Sandyhook, and that would have had no affect on preventing all the other such shootings with handguns? Seriously?

The Republican Party supports the 2nd Amendment more so than the left. Them not supporting the UBCs, registration, confiscation that the left NOW desires, does not make them extremists.

Come on Phx8, other than disagreeing with liberal policy, opinion and conspiracy theory, what makes the Republican Party more extreme than the past?

Posted by: kctim at August 3, 2015 4:01 PM
Comment #396973

kctim,

What has gotten more extreme with the right are its rhetoric and its tactics. The actual policy positions are hardly new.

Most notable, the fact that compromise with the Left has become a dirty word in conservative circles.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 3, 2015 5:03 PM
Comment #396974

“Compromise”? Boehner and McConnell warm obama’s bed and follow him like lapdogs.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 3, 2015 5:18 PM
Comment #396975

“Boehner and McConnell warm obama’s bed and follow him like lapdogs.”

Well then, so much for compromise.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 3, 2015 5:29 PM
Comment #396976

WP,
“What has gotten more extreme with the right are its rhetoric and its tactics. The actual policy positions are hardly new.”

A good point, WP, but I think it is more than just that. The GOP of 30 years ago would be unrecognizable to the party today. Reagan granted amnesty to illegal aliens. Today, the leading Republican candidate wants to deport 11 million illegal aliens and build a wall on the southern border! It’s just bizarre and irrational, and obvious no one has thought it through. Some issues were not recognized 30 years ago, but the general trend of denying science still differentiates the party of today from 30 years ago. Remember the Ebola scare? Republican leadership wanted embargo West Africa and not allow the health care providers back into the country, despite contrary advice provided by epidemiologists. Some issues, like dismissing evolution, remain the same.

A Republican from 30 years ago would never even consider shredding a non-proliferation agreement signed by Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, and Iran. Thirty years ago, the Reagan administration was selling arms to Iran! Today, the GOP openly embraces a foreign policy of the US and Israel against the world. It isn’t even really questioned. The agreement with Iran received widespread approval around the world. Only the right wing Netanyahu government and the GOP oppose it.

The rhetoric is unquestionably more extreme. It’s just wild.

Posted by: phx8 at August 3, 2015 5:55 PM
Comment #396977

“A Republican from 30 years ago would never even consider…”

signing an agreement with a terrorist supporting government and self-declaring enemy of the US that ensures their possession of nuclear weapons.

sanctioning same gender marriage

giving government benefits to non-citizens

disarming law-abiding American citizens

dictating what our schools are allowed to teach

Christianity as an enemy

allowing abortions to be funded by government and fetus body parts to be sold for profit

a national debt of nearly $19 Trillion and never-ending unbalanced budgets

allowing government to threaten citizens who choose not to purchase the official government approved medical insurance

calling white Americans racists for simply disagreeing

attacking local police departments for political gain

a Marxist president intent upon destroying capitalism and private ownership of property

encouraging welfare over work

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 3, 2015 7:08 PM
Comment #396978

It’s interesting that the left would continue to promote this idea the birther movement began with Republican’s. It began with the. Clinton campaign in 2007. There have been arguments that Hillary did not start the rumors, but there is no argument that it was promoted by her supporters. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/08/penn-strategy-memo-march-19-2008/37952/

Posted by: Blaine at August 3, 2015 8:42 PM
Comment #396979

Blaine,
Who said it began with Republicans?

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 3, 2015 9:06 PM
Comment #396980

Well, I don’t know Mr. Porter; have you ever heard rants from your side blaming the Clinton campaign for being birthers? All we have to do is read the above comments to see this is blamed on Republican’s. If you don’t believe the birther movement was started by Republican’s, then how come you never correct the leftist when they blame Republican’s?

Posted by: Blaine at August 3, 2015 9:28 PM
Comment #396982

Wikipedia has a good article on Birtherism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

Birtherism may have started at the fringes of the HRC campaign, but it caught fire with the GOP. The Wikipedia article offers a long list of prominent Republican Birthers who are politicians, both past and present. In addition, the GOP base embraced Birtherism. For anyone interested in the statistics and polls, see the article. It is an extremist conspiracy theory that is overwhelmingly conservative in its following.

Posted by: phx8 at August 4, 2015 12:18 AM
Comment #396983
have you ever heard rants from your side blaming the Clinton campaign for being birthers

No one in Clinton’s 2016 campaign has ever publicly questioned Obama’s credentials as a natural born US citizen. The same cannot be claimed for Trump.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 4, 2015 9:06 AM
Comment #396984

I am looking forward to the Democratic primary season. My hopes are that the candidates will stress the success of President Obama and bring their ideas and policy objectives into the discussions and debates. HRC has a lot of work to do and can be damaged, as any politician can be. I do think it interesting that she is going to appear in front of the BENGHAZI!!! committee in October and will watch how she does with that, I think she is wise to confront that before the 2016 campaign really gets going. There is a lot yet to unfold and I don’t think I or anyone I know has anointed her as the presumptive candidate, but it is hers to lose. I will wait for the convention.

The Republican run is looking more and more comical from my perspective however I am certain that might be disputed by conservative commenters here. Most of the candidates seem to be trying to out do each others most bombastic statements and theater acts, but not all. Will they arrive at a serious discussion? Maybe we will see some of that on Thursday night but I’m not expecting much and may not be able to stomach much if they go down the wild side route.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 4, 2015 9:43 AM
Comment #396985

Warren

The rights rhetoric and tactics haven’t gotten more extreme, they just haven’t ‘progressed’ to where the left wants them to be. They have always said marriage was between one man and one woman. That abortion was murder. That the people had the right to bear arms. Now when they say it, you call them hateful bigots, sexist and racist.

The only thing that has gotten more extreme is how the left now defines its opposition. By attacking the message, the change the left wants wasn’t happening fast enough, so now they attack the messenger.

“Most notable, the fact that compromise with the Left has become a dirty word in conservative circles.”

Only on the issues where there is no more room left to compromise.
Adding a billion here and there to the debt is one thing, adding trillions and trillions to it, is another. Abortion is one thing, funded by tax dollars is another. Programs to help those in need is one thing, encouragement to use those plans as a way of life, is another.
People were ok with most of our gun control laws, but not with registration, UBCs, bans etc…

The left has backed people up against a wall, people on the right feel they have given up enough to please the left and are now fighting back. But rather than respect them, the left has chosen to just go through them.

Posted by: kctim at August 4, 2015 9:45 AM
Comment #396986

We are not talking about 2016. Is Obama running again? Your question was, “who said it began with Republicans “? It was the 2008 Clonton campaign that first brought up birtherism. Have you ever argued that point? Regarding phx8’s link to Wikipedia, the site certainly cannot be taken as legitimate when any yahoo can amend it. phx8 has double talk; he agrees that birtherism started with Clinton supporters in 2007, but continues the rant that Insinuaties Republicans are promoting the lie.

Posted by: Blaine at August 4, 2015 9:55 AM
Comment #396987

Phx8

The Illegal aliens problem wasn’t as bad as it is today.
Disagreeing about man made global warming is not denying all science. Neither is throwing away one’s religion and dismissing the notion of a God.
An infectious disease shows up in our country and people want it contained until the situation is better understood? That’s some crazy extremism there, lol.

Neither a Republican or a Democrat from 30 years ago would throw Israel under the bus.

You guys should worry a lot less about making Obama look good, and a lot more about what is really going on.

Posted by: kctim at August 4, 2015 9:58 AM
Comment #396988
The rights rhetoric and tactics haven’t gotten more extreme

So filibusters and government shutdowns were just as common 30 years ago as they are today? Please.

We are not talking about 2016
Uh, the topic of this thread is HRC’s viability as a candidate in next year’s election. Birtherism entered the conversation with reference to Donald Trump who is a candidate for the 2016 election. We ARE talking about 2016.
It was the 2008 Clonton campaign that first brought up birtherism. Have you ever argued that point
Who cares? It is probably true that people supporting HRC in 2008 laid the groundwork for the rumors claiming Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii. But guess what? Those rumors gained zero traction with the Democratic Party. On the other hand, a very sizable contingent of conservatives perpetuated this myth for many years after HRC’s 2008 campaign vanished into history’s dustbin. In particular, Donald Trump gained notoriety 4 years ago when he expressed doubts regarding Obama’s Hawaiian birth. I think it is quite clear that Republicans are the only ones responsible for perpetuation of these rumors, even if Clinton’s people were the original source (which is still unclear). Posted by: Warren Porter at August 4, 2015 10:31 AM
Comment #396993

We see the same kind of conspiracy theories surrounding HRC as we saw with Bill Clinton and Obama.

The candidate is untrustworthy.

That means the candidate did something wrong, but where is the evidence?

If there is no evidence, it must be because the candidate is hiding it.

That means the candidate is untrustworthy.

E-mail servers, The Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, and so on, and so on. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

kctim,
Remember Carter and the Camp David accords? If you think the Iranian agreement is controversial, look into the accords. A LOT of people thought we were throwing Israel under the bus. It turned out to be the most successful single piece of diplomacy in Israel’s history.

“Disagreeing about man made global warming is not denying all science.”

Actually, for all practical purposes, it is. That is because Global Warming is consistently supported by evidence from almost every scientific discipline: physics, chemistry, botany, biology, and many, many more. Science and the scientific method works the same way every time. Evidence can be tested and repeated by others with the same result. Accepting science for everything except one area which contradicts an ideology/religious belief is pretending that science is something which it is not. Science and the scientific method is NOT an ideology. It is NOT a religious belief.

For example, anyone who is so inclined can take a core sample, run a variety of tests, and they will come out with the same conclusions about paleoclimatology every time. Chemical analyses of isotopes in the air bubbles tells the story. You can’t pretend the chemical analyses or the decay rate of isotopes applies to all sciences except for Global Warming research.

Posted by: phx8 at August 4, 2015 11:32 AM
Comment #396996

Phx8

If people thought we were throwing Israel under the bus under Carter, why is holding that same belief today an “extremist” position?

As far as global warming, why does it matter why people disagree with us? What makes them some kind of “extremist” for doing so?
Let’s look at this objectively for a minute:

Ideology: liberals are predicting the end of the world if we don’t drastically alter our lifestyle. They call anyone who disagree’s with them, stupid. Their multi-millionaire politicians are hypocrites on the issue. But you can’t see why people would question the lefts motives and call them extremists?

Religion: BFD. Religious folks have always fallen back to God, why are they just now extremists?

Face it man, you aren’t calling them extremists because they have become extremists, you are doing so simply because they haven’t become leftists.

Posted by: kctim at August 4, 2015 1:43 PM
Comment #396997

“So filibusters and government shutdowns were just as common 30 years ago as they are today? Please.”

Was government intrusion in our personal lives and government infringement upon our rights just as common 30 years ago as they are today? How about the size of government? Our debt?
Please indeed.

Posted by: kctim at August 4, 2015 1:48 PM
Comment #396999
Uh, the topic of this thread is HRC’s viability as a candidate in next year’s election. Birtherism entered the conversation with reference to Donald Trump who is a candidate for the 2016 election. We ARE talking about 2016.

No, we are talking in reference to your question concerning birtherism, “Who said it began with Republicans?”, and the left’s continual blame of Republicans for the phrase. It has been agreed by you and by phx8 that birtherism had its roots with the Hillary people in 2007, which means it began with your side; and now your comment is “Who Cares?”. Well, I guess that’s one way to end the debate.

So filibusters and government shutdowns were just as common 30 years ago as they are today? Please.

It’s already been shown the Republican platform is no different today than it was 30 years ago; so why would we see more “government shutdowns” or “filibusters”? Has the Democratic platform changed in the past 30 years? Someone has changed…

Posted by: Blaine at August 4, 2015 2:13 PM
Comment #397005
Was government intrusion in our personal lives and government infringement upon our rights just as common 30 years ago as they are today? How about the size of government? Our debt?

How is this relevant to the evaluation of the claim “The GOP of 30 years ago would be unrecognizable to the party today.”? You have argued that the party has not changed. I think it has, perhaps more in tactics and demeanor rather than actual changes in policy, but change nonetheless. Whether or not other things have changed may or may not justify the GOP’s changes, but they are silent as to whether or not the GOP is the same party or not.

No, we are talking in reference to your question concerning birtherism, “Who said it began with Republicans?”, and the left’s continual blame of Republicans for the phrase.
Just because you raised a red herring doesn’t give you right to shift the conversation around. The original topic of this thread is next year’s Presidential election. Thus, that is what we are talking about.
It has been agreed by you and by phx8 that birtherism had its roots with the Hillary people in 2007, which means it began with your side; and now your comment is “Who Cares?”. Well, I guess that’s one way to end the debate.
Do the actions of HRC’s supporters in 2007 exonerate subsequent actions of Republicans? No, it doesn’t. Which is why I wrote, “Who cares?”. Whatever HRC supporters did in 2007 has virtually no bearing on what Trump did during the 2012 campaign. Trump alone bears responsibility for his actions.

Lastly, HRC hardly counts as “my side” as I have repeatedly written here that she is a poor candidate that I have no plans to support in either the primary election or the general. If the GOP doesn’t nominate someone I like and HRC is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for a 3rd party.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 4, 2015 2:44 PM
Comment #397006

I’m having a real problem posting on this site. I’m being blocked

Posted by: Blaine at August 4, 2015 2:51 PM
Comment #397007

Mr. Porter, the subject of birtherism was brought up by phx8; trying to make the claim that it had Republican roots. Birtherism did not come from Clinton supporters:; it came from the 2007 Clinton campaign and was conveniently tied to Republicans. If we are talking about the 2016 election, as you claim, then what Trump did or did not say in 2012 has no bearing either. I say “your side” simply because I have not seen any difference between what you and the rest of the leftist on WB say.

Posted by: Blaine at August 4, 2015 2:59 PM
Comment #397008

Blaine, it may be because there are too many links in your comment or inappropriate words possibly. This has happened to some of us but by resubmitting our comments with either links removed or wording changed it usually helps. Hope that helps you out.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 4, 2015 3:00 PM
Comment #397010

Speaks, I have had no links and it still blocks me. I can post with the iPhone but having trouble with laptop. IPhone is very slow typing.

Posted by: Blaine at August 4, 2015 3:04 PM
Comment #397011

Make sure your name and email address are in the laptop. I had this problem once using a tablet but in my case it said I was blocked but I was not and ended up making the same comment about 10 times. Good luck with it, there seems to be very little discrimination about commenting here so I wouldn’t think it was intentional although it might seem that way.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 4, 2015 3:07 PM
Comment #397014

It says thank you for your comment, but it is being held by the editor.

Posted by: Blaine at August 4, 2015 3:13 PM
Comment #397015

By the way, the last 2 comments were sent from my laptop, but it seems I can’t post any rebuttals.

Posted by: Blaine at August 4, 2015 3:15 PM
Comment #397017

OK, I have got that before too. Those comments never seem to show up unless the author of the post pays attention to the held comment and releases it. Maybe Chrisitne & John can help you out with that and also let you know why it was held?

Posted by: Speak4all at August 4, 2015 3:16 PM
Comment #397018

Face it man, you aren’t calling them extremists because they have become extremists, you are doing so simply because they haven’t become leftists.
Posted by: kctim at August 4, 2015 1:43 PM

Best and most succinct sentence in quite some time. Thanks Tim.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2015 3:16 PM
Comment #397019

sorry, held for the approval of the blog owner.

Posted by: Blaine at August 4, 2015 3:16 PM
Comment #397020

Hmmm. Strange but hopefully resolvable. There used to be a lot of spam at this blog but it was cleaned up with some rigorous work by the webmasters here. Perhaps if you try communicating with them they might be able to help but I wouldn’t expect an immediate response.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 4, 2015 3:18 PM
Comment #397021

I can make comments, but not regarding any discussion. Very strange…Maybe there is a word limit.

Posted by: Blaine at August 4, 2015 3:23 PM
Comment #397022

The MMGW conspiracy had its start with Algore, the renowned climate scientist. The ensuing years have seen much manufactured and refuted “evidence”. Climate computer models fail to predict what should happen.

And yet, the Left calls MMGW “settled” Science.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2015 3:24 PM
Comment #397023

I have never hit a word limit but I generally keep my comments succinct enough that I wouldn’t think that would happen. Maybe if you think that is happening try splitting the comment up a bit. A little of your meaning might be lost but most of us here are able to keep up if it is not terribly disjointed or hard to understand.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 4, 2015 3:25 PM
Comment #397024

Today Trump came out in favor of shutting down the government in order to defund PP.

That is radical. That is extremist. HRC does not advocate a government shutdown, nor do other Democrats. Now, one could argue a government shutdown is only a tactic, and not a sign of ideological extremism, or that it is merely rhetoric at this point, and therefore not a sign of increased radicalism among the right. I think shutting down the government is a good example of how the GOP has become more extreme. It was used by Gingrich during the Clinton administration and failed badly. It was used again by conservatives to stop Obamacare. It failed badly. Now it is being threatened again, and the person making this threat is leading a poll of 16 other candidates by double digits, and Trump is not the only one making this demand. That is another indicator of a party that has become more extreme, more radical, and shifting further and further right.

Posted by: phx8 at August 4, 2015 3:28 PM
Comment #397025

An honest statement embraced by the left.

“If we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget”

- Melissa Farrell, Planned Parenthood official

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2015 3:30 PM
Comment #397026

After the vote yesterday that failed in the defunding of Planned Parenthood, I am much more encouraged that this will not happen. I still wrote a donation check to PP and will continue to do so. This organization has helped people I know and many members of our communities. That it is being used as a punching bag by conservatives reflects their inability to understand it’s value. Saw a poll yesterday, not sure by whom or for what, but Planned Parenthood had favorable views and in second place was the NRA. Not sure who the polling audience was but that must have been some mix.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 4, 2015 3:35 PM
Comment #397027

Ah, yes Speak…let’s poll morality, human dignity, and common decency.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2015 3:38 PM
Comment #397028

Thank goodness for the google machine! Here ya go Planned Parenthood favorability

Posted by: Speak4all at August 4, 2015 3:39 PM
Comment #397029

Warren

“How is this relevant to the evaluation of the claim “The GOP of 30 years ago would be unrecognizable to the party today.”?”

Because the GOP of 30 years ago still had room to compromise on those things.

“You have argued that the party has not changed.”

I have ‘argued’ that the GOP has not become a party full of extremists and that claiming so is nothing but an intentionally dishonest partisan tactic.

Posted by: kctim at August 4, 2015 3:40 PM
Comment #397030

“morality, human dignity and common decency”. Those are the exact same reasons I support the Planned Parenthood organization. It’s curious that we each hold the same kind of values but do not agree on the practice of implementing them. Probably has something to do with the propaganda I am fed, I know that couldn’t be the case where you are concerned. Or could it be?

Posted by: Speak4all at August 4, 2015 3:43 PM
Comment #397031

Voted funniest video and most confused person this month. Poor thing.

Host Chris Matthews: “What’s the difference between a Democrat and Socialist?”
Democratic Party head Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “Ha … uh.”
CM: “I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think it is?”
DWS: “[pause] Uh, the difference between … the more important question is what’s the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican.”
CM: “But what’s the big difference between a Democrat and a socialist, you’re the chairman of the Democratic Party, tell me the difference between you and a socialist.”
DWS: “[pause] The relevant debate we’ll be having over the course of the campaign” — Matthews laughs — “is what the difference between Republicans and Democrats is.”

http://nypost.com/2015/08/01/is-a-democrat-different-from-a-socialist-democratic-party-head-cant-say/

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2015 3:46 PM
Comment #397032

Speak, we come from a totally different background and belief system…thank God.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2015 3:50 PM
Comment #397033

Now wait a minute, I just reread my comments and I stated that I know people that have been helped out by Planned Parenthood. So it couldn’t be the propaganda that is swaying my opinion because it is real life circumstances. How about you RF? Do you know anyone who has ever used the services of Planned Parenthood?

Posted by: Speak4all at August 4, 2015 3:50 PM
Comment #397034

Phx8

Would HRC come out in favor of shutting down the government in order to fund PP? The ACA? How about Obama?
Would either of them be willing to compromise and say PP will no longer do abortion work until this mess is straightened out?

Posted by: kctim at August 4, 2015 3:53 PM
Comment #397035

Typical leftist ideology…the ends justify the means.

Tyranny is good if it helps people.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2015 3:54 PM
Comment #397036

We can both thank what ever it is we wish to thank but if it weren’t for this blog we wouldn’t be able to discern that. What about my question regarding Planned Parenthood helping someone and if you no anyone they have? I can say that I definitely have know people, not many but those that I do have seemed very grateful and knowledgeable. None of those were for abortions though, as that seems to be a very small part of the services they offer. This has been pointed out many times here and is easily verified with a minimal amount of research.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 4, 2015 3:54 PM
Comment #397037
the subject of birtherism was brought up by phx8; trying to make the claim that it had Republican roots

Where was this said? As far as I know, no such claim was made. Phx8 said Trump pushed birtherism in 2012, which is true.

it came from the 2007 Clinton campaign and was conveniently tied to Republicans
It became tied to Republicans because Republicans embraced the unfounded accusation. Democrats did not force Trump or his ilk to beg for Obama’s birth certificate.
it came from the 2007 Clinton campaign
HRC has never publicly questioned the circumstances surrounding Obama’s birth. The same cannot be said for many of the miracles running for the GOP nomination.
If we are talking about the 2016 election, as you claim, then what Trump did or did not say in 2012 has no bearing either.
If Trump were not running for President, his past statements would be less relevant. However, he is running for President. Unlike Trump, HRC has never made any public comments in support of the birther issue nor has it ever played the role in her campaign that it did in the campaigns of Trump or other Republicans. Polls have never depicted large swaths of Democrats as believers in the birther conspiracy like they have for the Republicans. In short, the Republicans own the birther issue in spite of not being the originators of it.
I’m having a real problem posting on this site. I’m being blocked
Certain actions will trigger the site’s spam filter: 3 or more hypertext links. Particular trigger words (s3x for instance), or using an email address identified as a spam account. When a comment doesn’t go through, I suggest modifying the comment to meet these criteria. Regardless, Christine & John can manually retrieve a comment from the spam filter the next time they visit. Posted by: Warren Porter at August 4, 2015 3:56 PM
Comment #397038

OK, I used to call some conservative logic here “pretzel logic”. I now may have to change that to “funnel cake logic”, since there seems to be logic built open clear made up what ifs and well that’s what I heard statements that sits atop the funnel cake of their logic.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 4, 2015 3:58 PM
Comment #397041

open = upon whoops

Posted by: Speak4all at August 4, 2015 4:24 PM
Comment #397042

A couple of examples of my knowledge of Planned Parenthood services that were very positive.

A young married couple went to them to, get this I know it is weird, understand planning their parenthood. Some people, sheesh.

An older couple that just recently married and wanted to get more information about late age child conception and the problems that might entail. Again helping to “plan parenthood”.

Several younger ladies that just wanted information about how to handle their social interactions without entering parenthood. In a way again that is “planned parenthood”.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 4, 2015 4:30 PM
Comment #397043

I am told that the drug cartels do some good works. Perhaps we should give them public money.

And, the lives they destroy are mostly those willing to purchase their product…not the innocent.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2015 4:40 PM
Comment #397044

RF, you are using false equivalence again. I know you like to think one bad apple spoils the whole barrel but life is not a barrel of apples, is it? We live in a very connected and sometimes difficult to understand society. If there is an organization that tries to help people with that, I will support them. That doesn’t mean that I would support every person’s view that belongs to that organization. You seem to be religious and have even commented on how you have taken trips to the Vatican. Does it make you feel uncomfortable or do you want to vindicate yourself against that knowing that some of the people that held the position of Pope were really very unscrupulous men that took advantage of children? Or do you give them a pass?

Posted by: Speak4all at August 4, 2015 4:46 PM
Comment #397046

RF, how about it? Can you tell me of anyone you know that has used Planned Parenthood for any reason. I mean someone you personally know and can talk to, not that gonzo journalism that you guys keep pointing out. C’mon, a man with your strident beliefs must have some firsthand knowledge of what you speak of? Or maybe not?

Posted by: Speak4all at August 4, 2015 4:50 PM
Comment #397049

kctim,
“Would HRC come out in favor of shutting down the government in order to fund PP? The ACA? How about Obama?”

Shut down the government? I doubt it. Defunding PP would be a political gold mine for Democrats, although it would come at the expense of the women who depend on PP. No Democrat wants to see that happen.

Abortion is legal. It has been recognized as by the SCOTUS as part of the right to privacy. A woman’s body is her own, and it is up to a woman and a doctor to make a decision about abortion. It is a matter of choice. Some will decide to carry a pregnancy to birth no matter what the circumstances, and that is their right. That is their choice. Others will choose not to do so. Generally speaking, abortions are the result of unwanted pregnancies, ectopic pregnancies, Down Syndrome, spina bifida, and other genetic or developmental abnormalities- some of the quite horrific. In some of these cases (especially Down Syndrome), the body will often reject and miscarry regardless of what a woman chooses. About 80% of Down Syndrome pregnancies miscarry, and another 12% are stillborn. No one likes it, but there is a reason why abortion is sometimes the best option.

Posted by: phx8 at August 4, 2015 4:58 PM
Comment #397051
Because the GOP of 30 years ago still had room to compromise on those things.
Where exactly has the GOP been backed into a corner? I grant you that the nation has changed its mind regarding discrimination against LGBT individuals. But on other issues, things are very similar.

In some instances, things are the other way around. In the ’70s and ’80s, a big issue complaint against President Carter was related to the high rate of inflation. Look at where inflation is now. Abortion had fewer restrictions 30 years ago than it does today. Glass-Steagall was still the law the land 30 years ago. Revenue and spending as a percentage of gdp are not much different than they were 30 years ago.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 4, 2015 5:10 PM
Comment #397053

Phx8

Hillary would be more than willing to shut down the government over PP or ACA funding. There is also no doubt that she would never compromise when it comes to PP providing abortions.
She may be dishonest, untrustworthy, FOS and unfit to be President, but she would never throw her liberal principles aside on abortion.

I never questioned the legality of abortion.

Posted by: kctim at August 4, 2015 5:19 PM
Comment #397054

“Generally speaking, abortions are the result of unwanted pregnancies…”

Abortions performed for the convenience of the possessor of the womb is well over 90% in the US.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2015 5:31 PM
Comment #397055

I always thought economic reasons were the most common motivation behind abortions (at least in the 1st trimester)?

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 4, 2015 5:34 PM
Comment #397056

Warren…”convenience” covers most of the reasons including economic.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2015 5:35 PM
Comment #397057

Warren

“Where exactly has the GOP been backed into a corner?”

Abortion: Tax dollars are used to support organizations that provide abortion services. The current trend is towards tax-payer provided abortions.
Businesses are now dictated by government on how they will operate their business, who they will service and how they will spend their profits.
Individuals and businesses must now fear who they offend, and must take drastic actions to ensure special treatment.
The 2nd Amendment: Is no longer looked upon as an individual right, but as a privilege granted by government.
Our debt is through the roof and unsustainable.
Government now mandates where one can and cannot exercise their religion.
Over half of our paychecks go to taxes.
Government takes our personal property at will.

Do I really need to keep going?

Posted by: kctim at August 4, 2015 5:40 PM
Comment #397059

kctim,
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Do you think a ‘well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State’? I’ve heard one interpretation addressing this amendment as a matter of States Rights, rather than individual possession of arms. Another interpretation says a “well regulated Militia” is today’s National Guard. Yet another stresses the aspect of “well regulated” to gun ownership, although that seems to contradict the “shall not be infringed” clause. It’s a confusing amendment.

I’m curious. What do you think of those kinds of positions?

Posted by: phx8 at August 4, 2015 5:51 PM
Comment #397061

Samuel Adams, Father of the American Revolution, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.”

James Madison stated:

“I believe that there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

A wise man wrote;

“When the policies and practices of the nation favor rights in exclusion of responsibility, and sanction vice at the expense of virtue, calamity is imminent. The impending consequences of the ruin of public virtue, which already cast a dark shadow across our nation, now loom on the horizon as a force destructive to our society, our government and our very peace and happiness.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2015 7:40 PM
Comment #397062

Speak writes; “You seem to be religious and have even commented on how you have taken trips to the Vatican.”

I am religious. I have taken visits to Rome which included the Vatican. Who wouldn’t be thrilled to see the Sistine Chapel and some of the best art in the world in person and browse the huge library. The Vatican is historical as well as religious.

I am not opposed to PP or any government agency providing health counseling and treatment for women.

I am opposed to tax funded abortions and the wholesale slaughter of innocent life, the dismemberment and the sale of body parts.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2015 7:53 PM
Comment #397066
Abortion: Tax dollars are used to support organizations that provide abortion services. The current trend is towards tax-payer provided abortions.

Nothing has changed on this front in the last 30 years.

Businesses are now dictated by government on how they will operate their business, who they will service and how they will spend their profits.

Private businesses operate as they please so long as they do not violate anyone else’s rights.

Individuals and businesses must now fear who they offend, and must take drastic actions to ensure special treatment.
The Civil Rights Act is the same today as it was 30 years ago. If you have a problem treating everyone equally, then that is your problem.
The 2nd Amendment: Is no longer looked upon as an individual right, but as a privilege granted by government.
30 years ago, the interpretation of the 2nd amdnement as a group right was the more popular. Only recently, with cases such as DC v. Heller has the entire framing on this issue moved in the GOP’s favor. 25 years ago, Congress passed a ban on assault weapons. Today, that is unthinkable.
Our debt is through the roof and unsustainable.
And things were different 30 years ago?
Government now mandates where one can and cannot exercise their religion.
30 years ago, government did not support faith-based organizations. Today it does.
Over half of our paychecks go to taxes.
Bullshit.
Government takes our personal property at will.
Eminent Domain has been around for 200+ years. Kelo v. New London lead to some abridgment of citizen’s rights. However, I do not see Republicans devoting much time to this issue. Posted by: Warren Porter at August 4, 2015 9:20 PM
Comment #397067

Speaks

“Democratic primary season.” You have two old white guys, one young white guy and an old white woman who has the nomination unless you really messes up. None of them has any new ideas, since they all have been around forever and - with the partial exception of Webb - have never done anything except politics or appointed offices.

Posted by: C&J at August 4, 2015 9:38 PM
Comment #397068

Are the old ideas so bad?

Stock market setting record highs.

Record low interest rates.

No inflation.

Record for consecutive months of private sector job growth.
Almost no growth in government sector jobs.

The latest FOMC notes for the Fed anticipate raising interest rates when we hit full employment or 2% inflation. We’re not there yet, but getting close enough for the Fed to talk about it.

Reducing the annual federal deficit every single year. It’s an old idea. Let’s keep doing it. By the end of Obama’s presidency, we’ll be within shouting distance of running budget surpluses.

No more invading other countries.

No more 9/11 attacks. An old idea, but I like it.
Address income inequality. That’s not exactly a new idea, but it is still a good one.

Nuclear non-proliferation.

Keep improving our favorability rating with every country in the world. (Except Israeli right wingers and Pakistan. The Pakis never got over the Obama administration killing Bin Laden on their turf).

Breaking up the Big Banks. We have some work to do there, no doubt. And re-institute Glass Seagall. Put the firewalls back in place.

Posted by: phx8 at August 4, 2015 11:12 PM
Comment #397069

Phx8

“I’m curious. What do you think of those kinds of positions?”

I think they are based in fear and run contrary to the first 150 some years of our nations history.
Do I consider those positions extreme? No, just very naive. Circumventing the Constitution to achieve those positions is what is extreme.

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2015 9:05 AM
Comment #397070

Warren

As some one on the left, of course your opinion will differ. Especially on the things you support.

“Abortion: Nothing has changed on this front in the last 30 years.”

Yes, it has. Millions and millions of tax-payer dollars are pumped into abortion organizations yearly. Children can get them without parental consent, and there is a push to get them provided with tax-payer dollars directly. It is now promoted as no big deal.

“Private businesses operate as they please so long as they do not violate anyone else’s rights.”

No, they do not. Government mandates how much they must pay, what service they can offer, how they offer it, and how much of their profits must go towards their employees.

“The Civil Rights Act is the same today as it was 30 years ago. If you have a problem treating everyone equally, then that is your problem.”

But what is said to be a violation of that act, is not the same. It is no longer about equal treatment, it is about special treatment.

“30 years ago, the interpretation of the 2nd amdnement as a group right was the more popular.”

Not really. Yes, I know it is the latest talking point, but it’s not based on reality.
See, infringing on the 2nd with gun control used to be a local thing. Large liberal urban areas can not handle the responsibility that comes with our rights. It’s not right, but the fact is that people not affected really didn’t care all that much.
But then came the far-lefts push to force gun control onto small town America. Telling people you have to infringe on their rights, because people no where near them can live with those rights. You brought this back-lash upon yourselves.

“Our debt is through the roof and unsustainable.
And things were different 30 years ago?”

Yes. The number of government programs and the amount of money we spent on them was less than it is today. As was the number of people receiving government ‘assistance.’

“30 years ago, government did not support faith-based organizations. Today it does.”

That does not take away from the fact that it now mandates where one can and cannot exercise their religion.

“Over half of our paychecks go to taxes.
Bullshit.”

You are smarter than that, Warren, so I am guessing we do not look at taxes the same way.
EVERY tax you pay comes out of your paycheck.

“Government takes our personal property at will.
Eminent Domain has been around for 200+ years. Kelo v. New London lead to some abridgment of citizen’s rights.”

Yes, I know. But, as with other things, it is changing for the worse. It is frequently abused, and used as a form of punishment.

“However, I do not see Republicans devoting much time to this issue.”

Totally agree. And the one’s who do are said to be anti-government extremists. It’s pretty messed up and is just further proof that the two party’s really aren’t all that different.

Things are changing, Warren. The country has moved much further left and a large number do not agree with it doing so. That doesn’t make them extremists.

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2015 10:22 AM
Comment #397072

RF, your standing in awe of the art accumulation of the Catholic church is something shared by a lot of people. However it seems Pope Francis is not one of them. He seems to play down that aspect of the church. I sometimes wonder if he might liquidate those assets and distribute them to the poor people of the world. He has a lot of socialist in him that is bubbling up. What do you think of him?

Glad to hear that you are not opposed to helping provide women’s health counseling. Your adamant dislike of PP would seem to indicate otherwise but it is clear you are just caught up in the moment of denigrating them for a small part of their overall objective, like so many other people. Nice to know. Also good to know that you are against tax funded abortion and I can understand that without agreeing with you. I do however think you are being hyperbolic again when you speak of wholesale slaughter and the marketing of body parts based on gonzo journalistic gotcha type videos. Hey how about your personal experience with someone who has used Planned Parenthood? As I suspected you are continuing an argument from and uninformed and unknowing position unless you can provide that for us.

C&J nice to see you posting again. I have always told you that I admire your wont to not only make a posting but to discuss said posting. You, Warren and Stephen (who we haven’t seen much of lately) are about the only ones who do that with a sense of encouraging the discussion without hyperbolic and over the top rhetoric. I don’t think I could defend those “old ideas” you refer to any better than phx8 has. There are some old ideas like the Constitution and Declaration of Independence that seem to have stood the test of time. I figured you would like Webb, he’s about the closest thing to a Republican that is out there. I think this comes down to perception. You don’t like HRC and never have along with other people commenting here. I am not enamored with her but I do look forward to the Democratic Primary process to sort out who I will eventually support, it is looking like it will be HRC for now but she has a lot of work to do.

How about the Republican candidates? Anyone you are leaning towards? Looking forward to the debate?

Posted by: Speak4all at August 5, 2015 10:59 AM
Comment #397073
Yes, it has. Millions and millions of tax-payer dollars are pumped into abortion organizations yearly. Children can get them without parental consent, and there is a push to get them provided with tax-payer dollars directly. It is now promoted as no big deal.


No, they do not. Government mandates how much they must pay, what service they can offer, how they offer it, and how much of their profits must go towards their employees.

ETC

Read any rhetoric from conservatives from 30 years ago. The complaints are no different than today. PP received government funds 30 years ago, just as they do today. Consent laws regarding abortion are more restrictive today than they were 30 years ago. Minimum wage in the ’80s was greater in real terms than it is today.

The story is the same for all the rest. 30 years ago, fewer states had “shall issue” CCW permitting laws. 30 years ago, federal debt increased rapidly even though there was no recession.

You are smarter than that, Warren, so I am guessing we do not look at taxes the same way. EVERY tax you pay comes out of your paycheck.
I live off of a research assistant stipend. It isn’t much, but it is enough to fund my austere lifestyle with enough left over to maximize my contribution to my Roth IRA. If I was losing half that money to taxation, I think I would know. I pay a bit more than 10% of my income in income taxes (Federal + State). Include a 7% or 8% sales tax on some of my consumption and I might be paying 20% of my income in taxes at worst. I don’t drink, smoke or drive a car, so I don’t pay those Pigouvian taxes either. Posted by: Warren Porter at August 5, 2015 11:07 AM
Comment #397074

The discussion about Planned Parenthood and what a terrible, terrible organization it is seems to be prompted by the success of the PPACA (Obamacare) and the recent SC decision to uphold the mandates and funding of that act. It is as if the conservative right wing fury needs something to vent about and it is difficult to vent against success and the rule of law.

Planned Parenthood Replaces Obamacare as the GOP’s Boogeyman

Pent up frustration is a dangerous emotion to attempt to control and it would appear that the GOP is just trying to make sure there is a place to vent that frustration but has found that in doing so they are attacking a popular idea in this country. “Planned Parenthood” is a good idea and has helped many, many people.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 5, 2015 11:35 AM
Comment #397075

“Record for consecutive months of private sector job growth.”

The June US jobs report is out, and while the unemployment rate is down, part of the fall in unemployment came from a 0.3 percentage point drop in the labor force participation rate to 62.6%, the lowest rate since October 1977. Americans are considered to be in the labor force by the Bureau of Labor Statistics if they are employed or actively looking for work.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-force-participation-rate-falls-to-38-year-low-2015-7#ixzz3hxSUUWor

“RF, your standing in awe of the art accumulation of the Catholic church is something shared by a lot of people.”

Agree. And, the historical significance of this place is considerable.

Why would you be interested in what I think of the pope Speak. If the Vatican sells off some of its valuable assets to feed the hungry perhaps the US and other countries should follow by selling off some of their assets as well. Would you support that?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2015 12:32 PM
Comment #397076

I might but I would need more information. I was just curious of your thoughts since you have much more of a connection with religion than I do. Glad to see you don’t harbor any ill feelings towards Pope Francis. I can’t say the same of the reports I have read that he is to much of a socialist by some other conservatives.

The LFPR has been predicted to decline with the advent of baby boomers retiring at record rates and an economy beginning to recover and people wanting to work less. We need a good, well thought out immigration policy reform to address the drop in that indicator. But I don’t see any chance of that happening to soon.

With great wealth comes great responsibility. Glad to see you entertain those ideas of helping the less fortunate. I was fairly certain that you held those beliefs but your support of Pope Francis solidifies that for me. Thanks.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 5, 2015 12:55 PM
Comment #397077

RF,
Long term, the labor force participation rate is expected to be even lower than it is today. By 2030 the Federal Reserve predicts it will be under 60%. Why? Demographics. Baby Boomers are retiring. Another factor is Millennial delaying entry into the workforce by extending their educations at the graduate level.

Using labor force participation as a measure of unemployment and the health of the economy will cause a misreading of the economy. The number does have its uses. If we learn nothing else from it, we can see it is obvious we need to encourage immigration.

About 40% of the illegal immigrants are people who overstay visas or stay in this country after schooling. We need to make these people citizens. For the most part they are already working and supporting themselves, and they obviously want to be Americans. This is an easy fix.

If you want to persist in using labor force participation rate, remember to look at the long term trend, why it is happening, and what we need to do in order to bring more people into the job markets. A good economy is not enough to counter the demographic trend. We need more immigrants.

Posted by: phx8 at August 5, 2015 12:59 PM
Comment #397079

Btw, I’ve heard Rush Limbaugh push conspiracy theories about the economy. It is common among conservatives. All of the economic data showing the economy is doing well is ‘fixed,’ while data that sounds like it might not be is the real story, even when the data comes from the same source! In Limbaugh’s case, he cites the labor force participation rate as evidence unemployment is worse than it seems. That is false. He also cites the fact that Millennials live with their parents longer as evidence the economy is bad. That is also false. Other common ways of attempting to mislead people usually involve citing the number of part-time jobs as a sign that unemployment is worse that it really is, or that there are more part-time jobs than there should be as a result of Obamacare.

These conspiracies and intentionally misleading use of statistics result in bad decisions for conservatives. For example, it leads people to believe gold is a good investment, or other decisions which turn out badly.

It leads people to say silly things about Obama being a communist or heaven knows what.

Next thing you know, Donald Trump will be the presidential nominee. And that is funny- I mean, I literally laugh out loud when I listen to Trump do his schtick- but it is a sad comment on the current state of the GOP and conservatism, and really, it is not good for the country.

Posted by: phx8 at August 5, 2015 1:40 PM
Comment #397080

We need to target immigrants most likely to help our advanced industries, start businesses and families, and whose descendants will provide critical demographic vibrancy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2015 1:47 PM
Comment #397082

RF, hear/hear, excellent points. And a good immigration reform policy will go a long way to accomplishing those goals. But we seemed to be mired in an “all immigrants are bad” attitude. I hope to see that change.

A little more about Pope Francis. I really like him although I can’t hold him in the esteem that Catholics do. I just think a lot of what he says and does is long overdue. Coming from an early Catholic background myself, he speaks to the things that made me question the religion very early on in my life. I look forward to the ideas he will bring and I am actually looking forward to his visit in September to the US with an address to congress. First time ever for a pope!

Posted by: Speak4all at August 5, 2015 2:20 PM
Comment #397083

Warren

“Read any rhetoric from conservatives from 30 years ago. The complaints are no different than today.”

The complaints may not be all that different, but the amount people are willing to bend has reached a breaking point. On every issue, people are saying that’s enough.
All but the most anti-abortion folks have accepted it, but don’t want government funding them, parents not being involved etc…
All but people such as myself, have accepted a government mandated minimum wage, but think $15 an hour is way too much.
Fewer states had “shall issue” CCW permitting laws because a permit wasn’t really needed where they lived.
Federal debt increased rapidly even though there was no recession, but NOW, people are saying enough.

It cannot be denied that things are changing, that our government is larger and has more control over our private lives than ever before. That our individual rights are being trumped by the desires of society. It really shouldn’t come as a surprise that some people are saying that’s far enough.

I do wonder though, if the complaints today are the same as yesterday, then why does the leftist rhetoric of today pretend they are unheard of and label them as extremist positions?

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2015 2:44 PM
Comment #397084

Speak,
I’m not a Christian, but I think Pope Francis is great for Catholicism and great for the world. It’s about time the Church had a leader who could get beyond stultifying traditions and doctrines and politics and stress the love that underlies the best part of religions, especially caring for the poor.

RF,
Re immigrants- we have targeted immigrants with skills for a long time. But we need the economic refugees too. The country has a long history of drawing those people in and it has been enormously beneficial to us all.

Posted by: phx8 at August 5, 2015 2:45 PM
Comment #397085

Oh, and Warren, congratulations on the lifestyle you have. Putting yourself into a position to where only 20% of your income goes to taxes is very commendable.
Great job my friend.

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2015 2:50 PM
Comment #397086

phx8, well said. I believe you and I hold similar views regarding religion. Neither of us are beholden to one or the other from what I discern, although you might be of a religion other than Christianity, I don’t know and don’t need to. But I have much respect for people’s beliefs in their religion as long as I am not expected to contribute to that in either a monetary or spiritual form. Religion has been a great help for some people but it has also fomented derisive and ignorant behavior by others. I don’t dismiss it all, as some people do, and I definitely try not to ridicule someone who evidently gets satisfaction from religion as long as they don’t contribute to derision or ignorance in the support of their religion.

I look forward to the discussions in 2016 regarding immigration reform and how badly it is required of our country to move forward. Economically, politically and socially immigration is the fiber of the entity called the USofA.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 5, 2015 2:56 PM
Comment #397087

The pope is the spiritual head of a large number of Roman Catholics and has the authority to address church and religious issues.

He is beyond his authority and competence when addressing capitalism versus other market forces and the science of MMGW.

The assets of the Roman Catholic church are not his to give away. He is a custodian, not an auctioneer.

There are numerous “church” laws (not God’s laws) that need improvement. Celibacy among the priesthood prevents many good men from entering Holy Orders. Women should be allowed the priesthood. Divorced Catholics should be allowed the sacrament of communion.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2015 2:58 PM
Comment #397088

Don’t kid yourself Speaks.
While PP was probably initially targeted for providing abortions, the recent discussion about PP is due to the fact that the common person did not know PP sold the results of abortion for study.
That alone is proven by how careful Hillary has been with her words.

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2015 2:59 PM
Comment #397089

RF, “He is beyond his authority and competence when addressing capitalism versus other market forces and the science of MMGW.” I must disagree with you on that point. As a member of the human race he is entitled to his opinion regarding those subjects. From everything I understand that is what he has expressed in regards to his views about those points, his opinions not the churches. That is partially why I can respect him more for what he is. He seems to understand his obligations as the head of a religion but doesn’t mind giving his opinions regarding views outside of that realm. That sounds like a man who thinks for himself but that could be a dangerous place for someone with his sway on authority.

kct, believe what you will but Planned Parenthood has helped many, many people. I don’t mind the attention that they are given for the practice that you mention(I will continue to make donations to their cause due to that) however I don’t have the opinion that they are in the market to merely sell body parts from abortions. What would you have them do with them if the person responsible doesn’t want them? Trash bin? Using them for research seems to be a viable alternative. But to portray them as in the business of abortion for body parts is both disingenuous and false. The anger left over from the PPACA success needs to find a vent somewhere. I just think that the wrong choice was Planned Parenthood, they help to many people to be considered the monster that they are being portrayed as. But they may need to review the processes they use when speaking with gonzo journalists or other pretenders.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 5, 2015 3:11 PM
Comment #397090

Speaks, I didn’t mention who or how many PP has helped. I didn’t share an opinion about them selling ‘baby parts.’ What I stated was that this recent uproar is over the fact that average people were not aware that PP sold the remains.

“What would you have them do with them if the person responsible doesn’t want them?”

Personally, I could care less.

However, I see nothing wrong with PP getting permission from the woman before selling the remains, or with the public being made aware of what is happening with their tax dollars.

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2015 3:27 PM
Comment #397092

”.” I must disagree with you on that point. As a member of the human race he is entitled to his opinion regarding those subjects.”

How simplistic Speak. The pope is always speaking for the church. The pope is never “off the record” in public.

Speak; “What would you have them do with them if the person responsible doesn’t want them? Trash bin?”

How revealing. Too refer to human life remains as “Trash”.

Perhaps the homeless and unwanted could be butchered for body parts.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2015 3:34 PM
Comment #397093

kct, your comments about “average people” is somewhat strange. I always considered myself to be an average person and have been aware of what Planned Parenthood does. I don’t however believe that the videos that were presented are an example of something every Planned Parenthood clinic is doing or strives to do. Your “average person” must live in some shell of existence but you could be right. I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that this sudden attack on Planned Parenthood and the subsequent failure of a vote to attempt to defund them by congress seems contrived because now they don’t seem to be attacking Obamacare. But I could be wrong. You know I have always stated that. Can you say the same?

Posted by: Speak4all at August 5, 2015 3:38 PM
Comment #397094

RF, I said trash bin to make a point, that obviously went way over your head. You should know that I value human life more than to think that is something I would do with human remains.

In regards to Pope Francis, that is where you and I differ. I hold strong beliefs that as a human he can express an opinion. You do not. But you see I don’t believe in the religion that you do so why wouldn’t I believe he could have an opinion? I can and I do. How about you and kct tell us about your personal experiences with someone you know who has used Planned Parenthood. Got anything?? Didn’t think so.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 5, 2015 3:43 PM
Comment #397095

Thrash explanation accepted…thanks.

”. How about you and kct tell us about your personal experiences with someone you know who has used Planned Parenthood.”

I can’t. Those I wish to speak with are all dead…millions of them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2015 3:46 PM
Comment #397098

What a great labor force of American citizens we would have if all the aborted human life were allowed to live.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2015 3:48 PM
Comment #397099

RF, you are now being maudlin in a discussion. You never knew any of those “millions” so that wouldn’t qualify as an answer to my question as I posed it. So I can say without reservation, I didn’t think you had any firsthand knowledge of what you are attempting to converse on here and that is a shame since you seem to have such strident beliefs it would make someone think that you must know what you are commenting about. Obviously you don’t.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 5, 2015 3:50 PM
Comment #397100

Ah, yes Speak…the “Greater Good Theory”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2015 3:51 PM
Comment #397101

RF, you will need to explain yourself more thoroughly. Heck I thought you were the only one here that knows what the “greater good” is. At least that is what you project. None of us have a clue when compared to your morals and ideals seems to be the main focus of your arguments. Can you tell us different now?

Posted by: Speak4all at August 5, 2015 3:54 PM
Comment #397102

Perhaps Speak can share stories with us of his conversations with those denied a place in their college of choice due to racial quotas.

Perhaps Speak can share stories with us of his conversations with those who are denied work due to union rules, or those who lost their doctor of choice thru obamacare.

I have friends in all three categories.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2015 3:57 PM
Comment #397103

The “good” PP does outweighs the “bad”. Is that simple enough Speak.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2015 3:59 PM
Comment #397104

Speaks

Average people, regular Joe, regular Jane, common man = Just everyday people with no interest, or who are too busy with their own lives, to delve into the inner workings of things.
Heck, I am pro-abortion and had no idea they sold the remains.

Either or both of us could be wrong on this, and I have no problem admitting so.

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2015 4:12 PM
Comment #397105

“How about you and kct tell us about your personal experiences with someone you know who has used Planned Parenthood.”

Not quite sure how I got pulled into that one, Speaks.

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2015 4:22 PM
Comment #397107

kct, there you go again with your “pro-abortion”. I have tried to explain to you before, I and no one I know is “pro-abortion”. In fact I can’t recall anyone ever saying they were “pro-abortion” other than you. Myself and people like me try to say that what we mean when we say we are pro-choice is that the decision should be made by the person most involved with the pregnancy. That would be the woman and to a certain extent the man but not to the exclusion of the woman’s choice. Glad to know you could admit to being wrong, it’s hard to determine that some times from the statements you make. I still see myself as an average person, regular Joe or common man. That you hold me is some different view might seem flattering but it is not correct. I am average.

RF, simple enough and I can agree with your beliefs but do not share them. Thanks for clarifying for me. I don’t have the examples that you ask for but then again I am not coming out in any of those instances with the adamant stances that you seem to take on the subject we were discussing. I think that affirmative action is a good thing, labor unions can contribute to the betterment of the middle class and the PPACA is meant to help most people and by virtue of the far reaching goals may adversely affect some people. Maybe you are right, the greater good is something I believe should be a goal but that doesn’t mean to the exclusion of the harm that it can wrought and the care that should be taken when making these decisions. Thanks for your honest opinion.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 5, 2015 4:29 PM
Comment #397109

kct, because you seem to want to express your negative views on Planned Parenthood. Not that you shouldn’t be able to but just wondering if you had some concrete real life examples or were just basing it on what you “heard”, “saw in a video” or “discerned from questionable news sources”. But that’s alright even if those are your only exposures, I just shared several exposures I have experienced with Planned Parenthood on a more personal level and found them to be very helpful for the people involved. Thought you might have some experiences to share that reinforced your views about them, that is all.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 5, 2015 4:34 PM
Comment #397110

Just imagine Speak, if our Founders had used the “greater good” theory in writing our founding documents.

Individual rights would disappear. Freedom and liberty would hardly resemble what we have today.

Tyrants and dictators operate on the “greater good theory”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2015 4:39 PM
Comment #397112

RF, and that would be your idea of the “greater good” not mine. That we hold different ideas is not surprising but my idea of the greater good is as I described. Looking for solutions to problems for most people but understanding the implications of the decisions you make and how they may affect some people. I don’t think that makes me a tyrant or a supporter of one, we just differ on what each of understands what the greater good is. Yours is negative, mine, from my perspective, is positive.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 5, 2015 4:49 PM
Comment #397113

If one examines the principle behind the “greater good theory”, one must conclude that most of our government largess, both for individuals and business rests on it. It is the primary reason our Democratic Republic is in trouble.

Government takes tax dollars and determines the most worthy to receive a share in the form of benefits.

The huge tax exemptions and favorable regulations of big business (including education and many non-profits) is not really for the greater good…is it? Paying farmers not to grow foodstuff is not for the greater good. Turning food into fuel is not for the greater good. Encouraging our jobs to flow out of the country is not a greater good.

Sanctuary cities is not a greater good and allowing more unskilled labor into our country illegally is not a greater good.

There are thousands more examples.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2015 4:54 PM
Comment #397114

Speaks

I very clearly was referring to myself when I said “Heck, I am pro-abortion.” I made no mention of yourself or “people like you.”

Also, my ‘average person’ comment had NOTHING to do with you or anybody else specifically. It was nothing more than a general comment about how the majority of people had no idea PP sold the remains.

“because you seem to want to express your negative views on Planned Parenthood.”

Um, no I have not. I stated that this is only an issue because most people had no idea PP sold the remains, and that Hillary’s careful choice of words is a sign of that.

“Thought you might have some experiences to share that reinforced your views about them, that is all.”

I have not shared my views about PP on here, Speaks. From what I can remember off the top of my head, the closest I have come to doing so is when I say that I do not believe PP should receive tax dollars, and when I asked if the 97% good that PP does, was worth giving up for the 3% that includes abortions.

As far as my experiences with PP, I’m afraid they would not fit into the stereotype you have going, so it’s probably best that you move on from asking that question.

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2015 4:54 PM
Comment #397115

“RF, and that would be your idea of the “greater good” not mine.”

Please explain how the “greater good” coincides and promotes freedom and liberty.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2015 4:57 PM
Comment #397119

“Please explain how the “greater good” coincides and promotes freedom and liberty.”

That is only possible when one uses freedom and liberty to define ‘the greater good.’

Sorry Royal, couldn’t resist :)

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2015 5:12 PM
Comment #397120

I get it Tim. How do we legislate freedom and liberty?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2015 5:14 PM
Comment #397121

RF, and that is why I typed “Looking for solutions to problems for most people but understanding the implications of the decisions you make and how they may affect some people.” That is how it could coincide and promote freedom and liberty and the well being of our citizens. The points you make are all valid but to get rid of everything just doesn’t make sense. Why not try to understand the process instead of just saying “nope it’s bad, not gonna work”. That seems like a defeatists attitude.

kct, OK I have no problem with that but you obscure your negativity, as you always like to do, by saying “I didn’t say that” but what you meant was a negative remark. You can’t have it both ways kct. It’s too bad that your are pro-abortion, that is a despicable thought and I can’t comment anymore about that. Hillary will always choose the words she uses very carefully. That seems to bother you but I don’t have any problems with it, she’s a politician.

I can leave you out of the Planned Parenthood discussion that I am attempting, no problem. But it would seem again, just like with our discussions of Social Security you expect me to agree with your assumptions about an organization that you are unable to back up with real examples. Don’t bother to cite the examples about your experiences with Planned Parenthood, I expect they would make about as much sense as what you typed about SS. They kept asking me questions I didn’t know and they didn’t treat me with respect when I told them I didn’t have the information they required.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 5, 2015 5:18 PM
Comment #397122

OK you two are talking in circles now. Which one of you is the pivot man? I need to explain to a granddaughter tonight that just got her first big paycheck ($436) that even though that reward is very good for hard work, she should stick to her career goals to become a lawyer because a good lawyer can make $436 an hour.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 5, 2015 5:22 PM
Comment #397123

”. Hillary will always choose the words she uses very carefully.”

Except when she doesn’t and is caught in a bald-faced lie.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2015 5:22 PM
Comment #397124

Speaks

I ‘obscure’ nothing. I tell it like I see it, on here and in real life. Some say to a fault.
We will have much more productive discussions if you stick with what I say, instead of what you think I meant.

Abortion is a medical procedure and I support it. I will not attempt to hide from that fact by saying I am pro-choice, simply because it sounds better.

I have no problem joining your discussion about PP, but you are so far off base, I thought I would be nice.
You flatter only yourself by thinking I ‘expect’ you to agree or disagree with me on anything. I enjoy discussion and debate, I don’t seek approval or agreement.

As you asked a question, I will answer it truthfully: I have limited experience with PP.
In high school, I drove my best friend and his girlfriend an hour and a half for a consultation. I waited in the car so as to give them privacy.
In the military, I drove one of my troops to her procedure and accompanied her to and from the door.
I have escorted a friend of a friend of a friend, and I have escorted a friend of a friend and her daughter, when there were protesters present.

I have no negative views of PP, Speaks. I just don’t think it should receive tax dollars. I can’t think of any clearer way to get that through to you.

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2015 5:54 PM
Comment #397125

Royal, the only way to “legislate” freedom and liberty is to respect and protect it.

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2015 5:56 PM
Comment #397126

Sorry Tim, I disagree. If freedom and liberty can be legislated it can be taken from you. Our founders held my view.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2015 6:01 PM
Comment #397127

Ah, Royal, that is why I put “legislate” in quotes, my friend.

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2015 6:03 PM
Comment #397128

OK Tim…missed that, thanks.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2015 6:12 PM
Comment #397130
If freedom and liberty can be legislated it can be taken from you.

This is precisely why gay marriage, abortion and other things came about through the courts rather than Congress.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 5, 2015 6:38 PM
Comment #397131

Warren, we disagree about the meaning of liberty and freedom.

Do you suppose our founders intended the practice known as abortion and same gender marriage as liberty; as freedom?

Can you fathom those who fought in our revolution considering abortion and same gender marriage as their goal?

I understand our courts have made these practices legal. Surely you understand that those decisions were primarily political.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2015 7:24 PM
Comment #397132

“Can you fathom those who fought in our revolution considering abortion…..as their goal?”

Not really, Royal, because abortion was legal and widely practiced. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2013/08/08/71893/scarlet-letters-getting-the-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/

Posted by: Rich at August 5, 2015 9:30 PM
Comment #397133
Can you fathom those who fought in our revolution considering abortion and same gender marriage as their goal?

Royal do you believe that none of the founding fathers were homosexual?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Steuben

Posted by: j2t2 at August 5, 2015 10:09 PM
Comment #397136

Those who fought our revolution did not even allow women to own property, never mind vote or have a right to control their own bodies. Would anyone suggest we go back to treating women the way they were treated back then?

Posted by: phx8 at August 5, 2015 11:31 PM
Comment #397139

Phx8, the only people who suggest that are the one’s who use it for fear-mongering.

It is 2015, women own property, they vote and they control their own bodies. To equate respecting liberty and freedom with women being treated as if it was 1715, is silly.

Posted by: kctim at August 6, 2015 11:13 AM
Comment #397142

One person might believe that his definition of “freedom and liberty” is to walk into a restaurant with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder.

Another person might believe that his definition of “freedom and liberty” is to not have a strange person walk into a restaurant with a high powered weapon slung over their shoulder. I am one of those people.

While these beliefs are diametrically opposed all sorts of arguments can be provided by both sides, each with the validity of the argument vehemently substantiated by examples in support of their position.

The legislative process of this country attempts to settle that by the method that has been available for hundreds of years. Studies, expert testimony, committees and eventually laws that are voted on by Congress and submitted for signature by the President and then possibly adjudicated by the Supreme Court if necessary. This process is purposefully long and deliberative by nature.

A change is coming, it will be slow and deliberate. I just hope that my eventual decision will not need to involve body armor. I can only hope.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 6, 2015 11:51 AM
Comment #397148
It is 2015, women own property, they vote and they control their own bodies. To equate respecting liberty and freedom with women being treated as if it was 1715, is silly.

Exactly right kctim, but where were you when Royal was asking us “Can you fathom those who fought in our revolution considering abortion and same gender marriage as their goal?”, as if we are to be stuck with the progress made prior to the 1700’s. Instead of ensuring liberty, freedom and justice for all, not just the wealthy landowners of today. Hell that is as bad as trying to convince us that discriminating against somoene is an infringement of one’s liberty.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 6, 2015 7:44 PM
Comment #397162

J2

I didn’t reply to the question because the answer is so obvious. Neither of those issues had anything to do with the goals they were fighting for.

From their writings, we know they supported individualism and limited government, so we know they knew that governments absence did not mean the lack of liberty, freedom or justice.

Posted by: kctim at August 7, 2015 9:25 AM
Comment #397219
Neither of those issues had anything to do with the goals they were fighting for.

Jefferson wrote that all of us our endowed with certain unalienable rights by our Creator, that those rights cannot be abridged or restricted by any government without due process.

Surely, the idea that we each have basic freedoms, such as the control over what happens in one’s own body, should be considered one of the things the founders fought before? I don’t understand why you and RF want to make a distinction between rights that were recognized in 1715 and those recognized in 2015.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 8, 2015 8:20 AM
Post a comment