Political Issues And Theory

(Danix/151410) "In terms of immigration I am saying, this land is mine right no...

Danix@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:53:00 -0600

"In terms of immigration I am saying, this land is mine right now and the
land of the citizens of this country and if you want to come in and become a
citizen.... great.... we have a legal means for you to do that.  You just want
to come over here is loot from us?"

You do realize those are two, different issues? Or are you going to Paladin
Grendel the issue into assuming that all illegal immigrants are murdering
rapists working for druglords and gangbangers? NEWS FLASH: Criminals actually
*don't* want to cross the border into the US. They know that they'll actually
get caught and rot in jail if they pull the same shit over there.

(Gespalder/151409) Feb 4, 2012 13:08 from Puffergoose

Gespalder@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 09:36:00 -0600

Feb 4, 2012 13:08 from Puffergoose
Gespalder>  Yes, even if it takes up to 20 years.  We should have the right to
just say no, we don't want you here at all.


Why should the high-teh workers from India have an easier time getting US
citizenship than the workers from Mexico, Central America, etc. who are willing
to work the blue collar jobs that Americans don't want to do (picking produce,
meat packing plants, etc.)?

(WORF/151408) Feb 4, 2012 13:12 from Puffergoose

WORF@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:46:00 -0600


Feb 4, 2012 13:12 from Puffergoose
Worf>  In terms of immigration I am saying, this land is mine right now and the
land of the citizens of this country and if you want to come in and become a


So, your ancestors decided to take the land from their ancestors...and that's
OK because it was before your time?

If that's the case, they why is it not OK for them to cross an arbitrary border
that your ancestors setup?

They're not taking anything physical. They're not demanding private property.

(Puffergoose/151407) Worf> In terms of immigration I am saying, this land is mine ri...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:12:00 -0600

Worf>  In terms of immigration I am saying, this land is mine right now and the
land of the citizens of this country and if you want to come in and become a
citizen.... great.... we have a legal means for you to do that.  You just want
to come over here is loot from us?  You are no better than some looter that
breaks into a store and steals from them and yea, I would shoot you and find a
good taxadermist to put your head on my wall.  Ok, maybe not go quite that far
but I have no sympathy and feel the worst should come to them.  Myself and the
citizens of this country have worked hard to make this country someplace great.
If they want some of that, they can come in legally or even better yet, stay in
their own damn country and work to make their country better through the things
we did.  It is called entrepreneurship, capitalism and a free market which is
what has made the USA the superpower it is.

(Puffergoose/151406) Gespalder> Yes, even if it takes up to 20 years. We should hav...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:08:00 -0600

Gespalder>  Yes, even if it takes up to 20 years.  We should have the right to
just say no, we don't want you here at all.
WORF>  If you talking about money, yes I would say something more like hey I
worked and earned mine, go earn your own and leave me alone.

(PsychoSy/151405) Gislef> Not only are they card-carrying members, they're also cl...

PsychoSy@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 05:07:00 -0600

Gislef> Not only are they card-carrying members, they're also clients ...

(Danix/151404) Ironically, Capa did mostly describe Mexico with that. Most of...

Danix@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:57:00 -0600

Ironically, Capa *did* mostly describe Mexico with that. Most of the Mexican
population is the result of Spaniard/Native parings and cross-fucking between
'em. The caste system was made to discriminate between 'em; and even then it
was the "criollos" (Spaniards born in the territory but not acknowledged as
"true spaniards") who fueled up the Independence War.

(Gespalder/151403) Feb 3, 2012 11:16 from Puffergoose

Gespalder@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:28:00 -0600

Feb 3, 2012 11:16 from Puffergoose
No.  Nor would I let the woman just cross the border but send her and her kid
back and tell them to come in through legal means.  Not too much to ask for.


Even when it can take up to 20 years? See, we fast-track high tech workers but
put others towards the back of the line.

(Gislef/151402) And toupee wearers everywhere take offense at the use of the epi...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:45:00 -0600

And toupee wearers everywhere take offense at the use of the epithet "wigger."

(PsychoSy/151401) >

PsychoSy@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:53:00 -0600

>
> PUFFER: ... and people like PsychoSy stated that America
> needed to be taken down a couple of pegs and it was
> good that 3000 died that day.
>

.... and you can see how badly they sucked at it and how extremist the rich
insulated super moral centrist elites responded to it. Having America taken
down a couple a pegs and having a America devolve right back into its tribalist
plantation master/house wigger roots is one honking ocean of fucking difference
there.

(Gislef/151400) Perhaps Capa thinks that the U.S. was created by persons other t...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:41:00 -0600

Perhaps Capa thinks that the U.S. was created by persons other than George
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, et al? In
fairness, nine of the total number of delegates were immigrants, but none of
the "Big Seven" were.

(Lochner/151399) Huh? The USA was created by people who were mostly born on this...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:21:00 -0600

Huh?  The USA was created by people who were mostly born on this soil and in
many cases had never left it or lived anywhere else.  You're assigning to the
descendants of European conquerors blame for the sins of their fathers.

If that's how the game is played, we all need to figure out what cave our
ancestors first crawled out of of and go back to it.

(Capa/151398) The U.S.A. was created by a bunch of immigrants breaking into it...

Capa@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:53:00 -0600

The U.S.A. was created by a bunch of immigrants breaking into it from Europe
and totally fucking with the natives.

(WORF/151397) Puffergoose> So, basically what you're saying is "I got mine, so...

WORF@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:43:00 -0600


Puffergoose> So, basically what you're saying is "I got mine, so suck it,"
right?

(Puffergoose/151396) Worf> Actually, the Native American's and Mexicans would have b...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:55:00 -0600

Worf>  Actually, the Native American's and Mexicans would have been better off
if they had killed the whites when they came over.  A number of my ancestors of
my family were brought over against their will.
It basically was immoral to come over and just take the land, but not much can
be done about that now.  Now some of this land we bought from them and some of
it was gone to war over to get it.  Manifest destiny definately had an immoral
component if they believed they should take land from people to expand the
United States.  Give it to us for this much money or we kill you isn't exactly
the most moral way to negotiate something.
Now, nobody still living was apart of that time and there isn't much we can do
about that.  We should learn from the history you point out Worf and realize
that just letting anyone is not exactly a good thing.

(WORF/151395) Puffergoose> So you wouldn't have a problem if a Native American...

WORF@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:51:00 -0600


Puffergoose> So you wouldn't have a problem if a Native American or Mexican
killed you or your relatives?

After all, Europeans established the US via illegal immigration which you state
is a highly immoral act and have also stated that it is justified to kill
someone over it. Much of the Western US originally was part of Mexico before
the US took the land.

Your ancestors took the land from their ancestors. By your logic, don't they
have the right to take it back from you?

(Copper Lethe/151394) "People that just want to throw open the borders and let anyone ...

Copper Lethe@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:44:00 -0600


"People that just want to throw open the borders and let anyone in and who
cares are the ones that really hate America"

Weird.  I just call them "The Founding Fathers."

(Puffergoose/151393) I am concerned about people breaking into this country and I don...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:27:00 -0600

I am concerned about people breaking into this country and I don't care what
race they are.  It is because I love America that I am concerned about it.
People that just want to throw open the borders and let anyone in and who cares
are the ones that really hate America and I could not tell you why they hate
America.  Ok, I can take a few guesses.  They see us as an unjust country
because we had slavery and we have such a huge % of the world's wealth and they
are ashamed of our Superpower status.... that is why people like Ward Churchill
called the victoms of 9/11 little Eichmans and more or less deserved what they
got and people like PsychoSy stated that America needed to be taken down a
couple of pegs and it was good that 3000 died that day.
It is no lie that I am concerned about "illegal" immigration because it is
something that immoral.  Now the reason it is illegal is because it is
something immoral..... it is not immoral because it is illegal.

(Lochner/151392) We've been through this and you've admitted that you are lying a...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:26:00 -0600

We've been through this and you've admitted that you are lying about being
concerned about "illegal" immigration, you just don't want dirty brown people
here.  Stop lying.  Why do you hate America?

(Puffergoose/151391) No. Nor would I let the woman just cross the border but send he...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:16:00 -0600

No.  Nor would I let the woman just cross the border but send her and her kid
back and tell them to come in through legal means.  Not too much to ask for.

(Copper Lethe/151390) So, would you support a Mexican woman having an abortion if her ...

Copper Lethe@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:36:00 -0600


So, would you support a Mexican woman having an abortion if her fetus is
crossing the border illegally?

(Puffergoose/151389) No, they were created there when conception happened..... most o...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:15:00 -0600

No, they were created there when conception happened..... most of the time when
the woman chose to have sex.

(Knightshade/151388) But those cells are just breaking into a womans uterus.

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:34:00 -0600

But those cells are just breaking into a womans uterus.

(Puffergoose/151387) Well, yes. I take breaking into my home seriously and I take br...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:29:00 -0600

Well, yes.  I take breaking into my home seriously and I take breaking into my
country seriously.
I also take seriously a 14 cell human being just as much as a 2 cell human
being just as much as a 14 million cell human being just as much as you  or
anyone else person.

(Egregious/151386) They way I would want Lochner's Wellness program to be funded is

Egregious@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 07:13:00 -0600


They way I would want Lochner's Wellness program to be funded is
identical to the way I would want a privately purchased plan to
be funded.

1. It takes in a certain amount of money.
2. Based on that money and number of patients, it decides what to
   cover to best improve the health of its patient base.
3. It covers only what it decides to cover in #2, and nothing else.

It's only as expensive as in #1.  However it's funded.

(Spastic Chicken/151385) What about a Mexican woman crossing the border while pregnant. S...

Spastic Chicken@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:46:00 -0600

What about a Mexican woman crossing the border while pregnant. Should she be
shot as well (The answer would be yes according to PufferLogicTM)?

(Danix/151384) See, when a viability/fetus/etc line is established, you can act...

Danix@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:15:00 -0600


See, when a viability/fetus/etc line is established, you can actually separate
the valid arguments from some pro-lifers from the bullshit ones.

Notice that the goretastic slander used by some pro-life groups focus on
late-trimester abortions, where the fetus has passed the viability line.

(Copper Lethe/151383) I think it's funny that you believe that stepping on the wrong p...

Copper Lethe@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 04:33:00 -0600


I think it's funny that you believe that stepping on the wrong piece of dirt is
something you think is worthy of the death penalty, but you find a 12 celled
bit of slime so sacred.

Say, if a Mexican woman crosses the border legally, but does not have
documentation or a passport for her fetus, is it okay for her to sentence her
unborn child to death and have an abortion?  It seems to me that you would
support abortion in this case.

(Knightshade/151382) Feb 1, 2012 09:22 from Puffergoose

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 04:32:00 -0600



Feb 1, 2012 09:22 from Puffergoose
The national border, sure.  Trespassing into our country is an immoral act





Yes, but so is murder according to your previous post.

hence in your book two wrongs make a right.

(Puffergoose/151381) The national border, sure. Trespassing into our country is an i...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 04:22:00 -0600

The national border, sure.  Trespassing into our country is an immoral act
taken by choice.  There are certain choices you make in life that some you
should just suffer the natural consequences and other choices are immoral and
you should be shot.  Selling drugs to kids, rape, murder, and trespassing into
the country all fall into that catagory.
I do advocate for illegals kind of a three strikes policy.  First time we catch
you, you should just be shipped back.... second time we will fly you over your
home country and throw you out with a parachute and the third time we do
something similar but without the parachute.

(Knightshade/151380) Well, unless they cross a border, right?

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 04:04:00 -0600

Well, unless they cross a border, right?

If they do that it's exactly correct to murder them on the spot according to
you.

(Puffergoose/151378) >The line of birth is not a standard. It changes based on the wo...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 04:01:00 -0600

>The line of birth is not a standard. It changes based on the woman and child.
>Perhaps viability should be the standard?
>What would happen if, when an abortion was requested, the hospital removed the
>child/fetus/whateveryouwanttocallit and treated it as a premature birth?
>As technology increases viability is pushed back earlier and earlier.
>Eventually even an embryo will be viable outside the womb.

Hey, all the quicker we can understand what I know already that no matter what
standard you create, this is a person, a human being we are deciding when we
can kill.  The truth is that we should not kill them at any stage and it is
immoral to do so.

(Marigolds/151377) risk-based casualty insurance has a higher profit margin than ri...

Marigolds@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:33:00 -0600

risk-based casualty insurance has a higher profit margin than risk-based
casualty insurance + comprehensive health care. But risk-based casualty
insurance + comprehensive health care will create more net profits than
comprehensive health care. When you take away health care from the insurance
industry, they lose an enormous source of revenue.

(Lochner/151376) You're assuming that all 300 million people will switch from the...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:12:00 -0600


You're assuming that all 300 million people will switch from their current
family doctor to public health care.

I highly expect they will not all do so.  I won't.

Otherwise, your point about the uncertainty of the figures is well-taken.

Obamacare is slated to cost a trillion over ten years, and that figure ignores
that the majority of the cost is not included in that figure because it will be
borne by states.

I believe there are ways we can provide more and better care for the same or
less money.

(Knightshade/151375) err... some issues with your math Lochner-

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:27:00 -0600

err... some issues with your math Lochner-

One, 50,000 doctors for 300,000,000 people is 6000 patients per doctor.  So
you're probably still at least 1 zero short.  That alone puts your costs quite
a lot higher than Obamacare.

And that's using the comparison of lawyers, who need little besides physical
office space and staff.  I suggest things like MRI machines are a lot more
expensive than law reference books.

That's not to say these numbers can't be improved perhaps by leveraging some
existing government facilities (expanding VA hospitals or something maybe)....
but 50,000 docs is way, way, way low for 300 million people.

It's about 1/7th the number of primary care doctors that exist today, and
that's a number serving largely the insured only, not the expanded "services
for everyone" pool you project.

(Salamano/151374) "Why is public transit fee-based? Unless the fee is somehow ess...

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:58:00 -0600


"Why is public transit fee-based?  Unless the fee is somehow essential to the
operation of the program (other than through funding), then it's not a fee-
based service, and fees are charged only for cost recovery.  We could not
charge at all and the service would still work."

The service would still operate.  Whether it "works" or not is a judgment call
that would require a cost/benefit analysis.  Wouldn't it?

I think a fee-less health care program is an invitation to massive abuse via
over-utilization.  I'm basically with you when it comes to providing health
care to that segment of the population that is truly in need, but I don't like
the idea that its beneficiaries neither pay federal income tax, nor make even
nominal co-payments.

I believe a massive government health-care system will prove to be a far more
complex undertaking, from a strictly organizational perspective, than an
operation that dispenses legal services.  Such complexity is the mother's milk
of union contracts.  Believe me when I tell you that the number of attorneys
you referenced will increase by 50 percent just to oversee compliance!

(Lochner/151373) Why is public transit fee-based? Unless the fee is somehow esse...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:42:00 -0600


Why is public transit fee-based?  Unless the fee is somehow essential to the
operation of the program (other than through funding), then it's not a fee-
based service, and fees are charged only for cost recovery.  We could not
charge at all and the service would still work.

Yes, it will be expensive.

Obviously, I haven't (and can't) do a proper cost assessment.  For comparison
basis, the budget for the Office of the United States Attorney is about two
billion dollars per year, which includes the salaries of more than 5,000 public
lawyers.  Now, I doubt that we could staff a Department of Public Wellness with
only 5,000 physicians, but even if you require an order of magnitude more
(50,000 doctors), and even if you assume that 100% of the $2 billion for the US
Attorney's office is salary, that's $20 billion/year, or $200 billion over ten
years, which is 80% less than Obamacare, and Obamacare's stated cost is, I
submit, laughably low, considering that it ignores the burden on the states for
providing Medicaid to 32 million of the 40-50-odd million people that Obamacare
will cover.  Then we have the cost of facilities and equipment, etc.

How do we pay for it?  Well, how are we paying for Obamacare?  My plan, so far,
requires one-fifth as much money, so I think we're in good shape so far.  Some
of the revenue would come from increased treasury receipts from the taxation of
health insurance premiums which were previously tax-exempt.

(Salamano/151372) Lochner>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:09:00 -0600


Lochner>>

You wrote:  " It does not follow that because public service X charges a fee,
public service Y must charge a fee as well."

Indeed, it doesn't.  But it does attenuate the comparison between a fee-based
service and a non-fee-based service.

Absent a fee-for-service basis, the program you describe is going to be
astronomically expensive, isn't it?  Can you place a "ball park" price tag on
it?  I know you've said it will be financed by federal taxes and supplemented
(voluntarily) by state-provided services.  So, how do you foresee the required
revenue being raised?

(Lochner/151371) Marigolds> I suspect that risk-based casualty insurance is more...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:18:00 -0600


Marigolds>  I suspect that risk-based casualty insurance is more profitable
than is coprehensive health care.

That said, comprehensive health insurance needn't go away.  That said, part of
how I'd pay for this (to avoid rising taxes too much, because it *will* be
expensive) is to discontinue the tax-deductibility for health insurance
premiums.

(WORF/151370) Jan 30, 2012 22:39 from DesCartes

WORF@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:15:00 -0600


Jan 30, 2012 22:39 from DesCartes
You say a line of demarcation must be made, but you reject the line of birth?
[Political Issues And Theory> msg #151360 (8 remaining)] Read cmd ->



The line of birth is not a standard. It changes based on the woman and child.

Perhaps viability should be the standard?

What would happen if, when an abortion was requested, the hospital removed the
child/fetus/whateveryouwanttocallit and treated it as a premature birth?

As technology increases viability is pushed back earlier and earlier.
Eventually even an embryo will be viable outside the womb.

(Lochner/151369) It does not follow that because public service X charges a fee, ...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:12:00 -0600


It does not follow that because public service X charges a fee, public service
Y must charge a fee as well.

For the simple model I am contemplating, no fee would be charged and there is
no need for a fee structure.  The clinical model is that of a general or family
practitioner.  An individual need only walk in and provide sufficient
identification for the facility to determine the patient's identity for
purposes of retrieving medical records.

The funding comes primarily from federal taxes, which are used to pay for the
basic services that are provided.  If a given state wishes to provide
additional services above and beyond the federal minimum, it may do so and fund
those services however it sees fit, so long as no fee is charged for the basic
set of federally-mandated services.  Similarly, if a given municipal
corporation wished to provide additional services, it could do using whatever
funding mechanism it felt appropriate.

(Marigolds/151368) The public transit comparison might be very useful. One aspect o...

Marigolds@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:10:00 -0600

The public transit comparison might be very useful. One aspect of public
transit is that it does a fairly good job of pricing to services utilitized.
I still think someone like my type i coworker, who needs multiple insulin shots
a day and uses a monitor (despite being in great shape... he simply has no
insulin production any more), or like myself whose cholesterol only responds to
extremely expensive lipitor, is going to present difficulties to a public
clinic system.
But if you can adequately price the system to deal with these expensive chronic
conditions, you could separate health insurance from routine health care.
I see one huge problem though. Does health insurance remain profitable if it is
only catastrophic care insurance? Or does the volume shrink too much relative
to the enormous risks involved for it to remain profitable?

(Salamano/151367) Lochner>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:28:00 -0600


Lochner>>

OK...that's helpful.  I may have missed this, having joined the conversation
late, but given that public transportation charges all passengers, how would
you establish the fee structure for the government service you have in mind?

(Lochner/151366) (From Inside>)

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:05:00 -0600


(From Inside>)


"I was initially trying to get at what I see as a philosophical problem.  To
wit, how can something that's regarded as "far short of a right" be treated as
an entitlement, without acknowledging all manner of additional "rights?"  You
want to fervently endorse housing and food?  OK.  How about personal (as
opposed to public) transportation?  Cell phones?  Clothing?  Paid vacations?"

  You have a human right to food and shelter.

  You have a statutory right to certain public benefits if you qualify for
  them.  They cannot be arbitrarily denied or taken away from you, the
  government must provide due process.

  That's different from a positive right to health care, whereby if you are
  ever NOT provided health care, your rights have been violated.  That's not
  what I'm talking about.

  The health care clinics I'm talking about are closer to public transit
  than to an entitlement.  There is no statutory qualification.  Just as
  with public transit, anybody who wants the services can walk in and
  get them, whether you are poor, middle class, or the richest man in
  America.

  You are not required to get them.  They cannot be granted to you or taken
  away.  You cannot be disqualified.  At most, you can be denied access to
  services that the public wellness administration simply does not provide,
  just like everybody else is denied those services.

  I do not think the comparison to "entitlements" is apt.  Obamacare is
  a terribly flawed entitlement program.  What I am proposing is nothing
  of the sort.

  I don't understand your comparisons to personal transporatation.  Are you
  saying that if we provide a public health clinic, we then somehow have
  an affirmative duty to also give people cars?  I don't follow.


"With the exception of insurance, the factors mentioned by Egregious have (as
has Medicare) produced government initiated distortions and artificial pricing
structures in what was once a considerably less fettered market.  Remove the
government distortions, and I don't believe the effects produced by private
insurance would be anything akin to what they have become."

  I've long maintained that the #1 thing that must be done to fix the health
  insurance system is to eliminate the tax deduction for group plans.

(PsychoSy/151365) My suggestion has always been to wonder why people with perfect ...

PsychoSy@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:48:00 -0600

My suggestion has always been to wonder why people with perfect crotches of
their own (relatively speaking - John Bobbit might be an invisible member of
ISCA and could pull a Geico caveman act with my use of the term "perfect")
absolutely fucking insist on choosing to have an emotional, spiritual, and
psychological stake in the crotches of others -- which all too soon dovetails
into choosing to have a finanical stake in the wallets of others?!?

Karen DeCrow - feminist and former head of NOW - once said to the chagrin of
many politicians, pundits, and journalists ...

---
Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring
pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in
this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support. Or, put another
way, autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not
expect men to finance their choice. If women have the right to choose if they
become parents, men [should] have that right too. There is a connection between
legalizing abortion for women and ending of paternity suits for men. Giving men
their own choices would not deny choices to women. It would only eliminate
their expectation of having those choices financed by men.
---

.... which once again erupted over the Linda/Hulk Hogan divorce where many many
outraged *WOMEN* came to the defense of the latter who -- despite believeing
Hulk Hogan is a narcisscistic selfish douche and always will be -- demanded to
know why is he being expected to bankroll and finance the continued lifestyle
of Linda Hogan on top of child support obligations of well two grown fetuses
who lived a rather sheltered and insulated life up until reality television
exposed their warts.

(Lochner/151364) (Moved from Inside>)

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:56:00 -0600

(Moved from Inside>)

KS>

I agree that chronic conditions are expensive.  However, if we assume that
somebody must be forced to pay for them other than the person who has them,
does it make sense to force an insurance company - whose financial model is
premised upon understanding and avoiding risk and pricing product on the basis
of known risk - to undertake that care and re-allocate the expense back to
other policyholders, or for a public clinic to provide that care and
re-allocate the expense back to the tax base?

I submit that in a nation generally premised upon free-market principles, it
makes no sense to force the transaction upon two private actors - a would-be
policyholder and an insurance company - especially since the insurance
company's entire business model is premised upon identifying people like the
would-be policyholder and NOT insuring them.  Doing this is basically co-opting
the insurance company - a private organization - as a quasi-public entity with
little market discretion.  They simply administer the particular public health
care schema for profit.

Alternatively, we could put those people into a public clinic system and
allocate the burden to the tax base more evenly, including in part back to the
very individual who showed up at the health care clinic in the first place.

The government, as a bulk purchaser, will be able to get the
insurance-discounted rates that Big Pharma provides to other bulk purchasers.

As far as paying doctors, it's pretty straight forward.  Physicians, as
professionals, would be paid on the same public salary scale as federal
attorneys.  For every year that a physician spends in full-time practice at a
public facility, some percentage of federally -issued- loans (not
federally-guaranteed loans) made to that physician - graduate or undergraduate
- will be forgiven.  Because we're only talking about federally issued loans,
this can be relatively aggressive, such that a physician who spends 10 or more
years in public clinic practice not only sees a huge number of patients and
gains a ton of early practical experience, but has all of his federal loans
paid off automatically, while also not having to pay for malpractice insurance,
office or clinic space, hospital and equipment lease fees, not having to deal
with insurance companies or worry about collecting on deadbeat patients, etc.
If the individual works 10 or more years, we could also consider paying off a
(much smaller) portion of his federally-guaranteed but privately-issued loans,
such as Graduate-PLUS loans, perhaps up to a maximum of 15-20% of the
disbursement balance of said loans (meaning it doesn't include accrued and
capitalized interest).

I'm thinking that one of the reasons that public law practice is so highly
sought-after is that you basically get an absolute shitload of extremely
valuable experience that is VERY difficult and expensive to get in private
practice.  If you want to get real trial experience in private practice, you
need a massive book of business, and even then, trials are exceedingly rare and
as a young associate attorney, you will do nothing but document review and
research in private practice.  In public practice, you'll get a ton of trial
experience *AND* you don't have to pay for anything.  In exchange, you get paid
substantially less.

Can medicine present similar opportunities for young physicians, whereby they
can gain an enormous amount of experience in public service while also saving
on costs normally incurred in private practice, which, when coupled with a good
but not insane salary, makes those jobs attractive?

Another thing that makes public law very attractive is the hours.  If you're a
family person, working in private practice in big law is a nightmare, because,
especially as a young association, you will work 60-80 hour weeks routinely,
for years straight, just for hope of making partner.  Whereas public practice
attorneys work less than 50 hour weeks on average.

Medicine is even worse, I'm told, as far as the hours go, especially for
residents.  People who want to be both doctors and families may line up in
droves for the opportunity to do some real practice, some real good, for a
decent salary and public sector benefits, while not having to slave away for 80
hours a week for years on end.

(QUITTNER/151363) I have suggested in the past that the point when abortions shoul...

QUITTNER@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 03:02:00 -0600

I have suggested in the past that the point when abortions should get to be
illegal should depend on when, in a given jurisdiction, a person is declared to
be dead - but in reverse. If a person is dead legally as soon as breathing
stops, then abortions in that jurisdiction should be legal up to the point at
which breathing starts - if somewhere else a person is not legally dead until
brain activity stops, then there it should be legal to abort only as long as
there is no brain activity, - you get the idea!

(Steve Austin/151362) DC> Yes, I do. There is such scant difference, developmentally...

Steve Austin@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:48:00 -0600

DC>  Yes, I do.  There is such scant difference, developmentally, from a
pregnancy at the end of 8 months and a full-term newborn that, if one is to
define said newborn as a "person", it makes absolutely no sense to me that the
36-week old fetus would not also qualify.

This is why I strongly prefer the earliest medical point of viability as the
demarcation line...because, up to that point, you're not dealing with those
questions.

(Steppenwolf/151361) STandard liberal response to the partial-birth abortion question...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:37:00 -0600

STandard liberal response to the partial-birth abortion question: "Well, that's
so rare, why are you even talking about it!"

Because, again, in order to attack that head-on it weakens the easy argument
that it's ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS the mother's body, no matter whether there is a
live child there or not. And they're afraid of that argument.

I think that SA's belief is perfectly reasonable, and though it's kinda funny
from a philosophical level it's probably the easiest to decide from a policy
level short of banning all abortions. Like I said, I think that what we
consider the aspects of a person that make them a PERSON start earlier, but I'm
hard-pressed to turn that into law.

I'm going into all this about why people want abortions to be rare, though,
because I think it reveals another inconsistency in the standard pro-choice
philosophy that it would be good to interrogate.

(DesCartes/151360) You say a line of demarcation must be made, but you reject the l...

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:39:00 -0600

You say a line of demarcation must be made, but you reject the line of birth?

(Steve Austin/151359) But then that draws us right back into the debate of "exactly wh...

Steve Austin@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:27:00 -0600

But then that draws us right back into the debate of "exactly when is a person
a 'person'?".

And frankly, that's the least desirable debate out of anything related to
abortion, IMO.

Is the point of no return at the moment of birth -- and when exactly is that
defined, given the difference between C-sections and vaginal deliveries?

And if that point IS at the moment of birth, are we then to allow abortions at
40 weeks?  You then enter into a situation where you can have 25-week olds
survive and 40-week olds aborted...simply because of where they are (inside vs.
outside the womb).

And really...if you allow abortion up to the moment of birth, then is
infanticide really a big leap?  Babies outside of the womb are just as
vulnerable and dependent as they are inside of the womb...the only real
difference is that the biological mother is no longer forced to be the
caregiver.

A truly tenable solution that would actually reduce the number of abortions
would have to be multi-pronged...but honestly, I wish this debate could be
ended by simply using this solution:  abortions before the earliest point of
medical viability are legal, no questions asked; abortions after the earliest
point of medical viability are illegal, with the sole exception being that the
life of the mother is in immediate danger and no other procedure will work.

In other words, a line of demarcation MUST be made.

(Steppenwolf/151358) I don't disagree with anything you said, MMM. But here's my ques...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:12:00 -0600

I don't disagree with anything you said, MMM. But here's my question: what
moral standing do I have to disapprove of a mother's feeling differently about
that potential, and regarding the fetus as nothing at all, and abortion as just
another contraception?

I don't think I have that standing at all. I respect any woman who feels that
there is potential there, but I don't think we can sit in judgment of those who
do not. And not wanting abortion to be used as contraception is exactly that
sort of sitting in judgment.

(Let me add a few caveats. 1) Obviously, abortion is a costly and needlessly
risky way of providing contraception, which is to be avoided. 2) People who
don't have sufficient reproductive ed to use effective pre-conception
contraception and are tormented by abortions but keep on doing it aren't those
I'm talking about either. I just mean that plenty of people don't have a
problem with using abortion as contraception, and I have yet to hear a good
reason that I shouldn't think, "Well, if they're happy that way, I'm all for
it.)

(Mean Mr Mustard/151357) Or maybe I should say, "more complex that you or I really DO u...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:13:00 -0600

Or maybe I should say, "more complex that you or I really *DO* understand."

(Mean Mr Mustard/151356) Then perhaps there's a cultural component at play here. In any ...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:09:00 -0600

Then perhaps there's a cultural component at play here.  In any event, there's
a third angle here: although a fetus may not be a "person", nor have the rights
of same, there still remains a "potential" person--one who does not exist, but
could.  And people mourn lost potential, too.  That doesn't make a woman's
action wrong, Step.  It makes it complex--more complex, probably, than you or I
can really understand.

(Steppenwolf/151355) But why are the consequences grave?

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:04:00 -0600

But why are the consequences grave?
If it's because the fetus is a person, then killing the fetus is wrong.
If not that, then if the woman chooses to use it for contraception without
remorse, it shouldn't be a problem at all.

And we shouldn't assume that it's such a painful and wrenching choice. In
Russia, abortion _is_ a form of contraception, and as I understand it little
more wrenching than taking a birth control pill.

(Mean Mr Mustard/151354) To me, that is what has always characterized the pro-choice stan...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:54:00 -0600

To me, that is what has always characterized the pro-choice stance, though. 
Most choice advocates will agree that the decision is painful and wrenching for
the woman involved, and often her family and support system are impacted nearly
as much, emotionally, mentally, financially, spiritually.  It's exactly
*because* the consequences are so grave that many of us advocate for choice,
and recognize that no one can make the decision to abort or not to
abort--either way--except the woman who is directly involved.

If, let's say, the choice does not belong to the woman, then what happens when
population, economy, class, or some other issues give rise to a popular forced
abortion movement?  Ok, not likely.  But still--when the roles are reversed,
and this is viewed as it should be--as a decision to be left to the person
directly affected--choice is really the only fair approach.

(Steppenwolf/151353) Hee. OK.

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:34:00 -0600

Hee. OK.

In that case, I'll answer my own question. There are two likely reasons, and
the answer's probably a little bit of both:

1) It's good politics to say that you don't want abortion to be extended
contraception. That way, you put yourself on the same side as the pro-life
activists--worried about the proliferation of teenage sex, tied to
pre-Sexual-Revolution morals, sympathetic to their goals. In the end, it's a
nod to saying, "YOU PEOPLE STOP HAVING SEX ALL WILLY-NILLY!"

2) Most pro-choicers still put a great deal of value on the fetus, and are
willing to grant it some sense of personhood and value. Again, they won't come
out and say this, because it devalues the philosophy behind being pro-choice.
But lots of people get kinda queasy about the idea of abortion as birth
control, and recognize how tough a choice it is for the mother, and that's
because they've already imbued it with some human value. The rational thing to
do is to say that it has some moral standing but not so much as a born child,
and not sufficiently so that it can override a woman's right to her bodily
sovereignty. But that makes the pro-choice argument less absolute, and so
people avoid it.

(PsychoSy/151352) Your question has beed preached to the ISCA choir time and time ...

PsychoSy@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:53:00 -0600

Your question has beed preached to the ISCA choir time and time again, and alot
of good it does. The only thing that has changed over all those years is the
username and keyboard that very same question eminates from. The response has
always been the same ...

(Steppenwolf/151351) I... I have no idea what that means. Do you agree? Disagree? I t...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:24:00 -0600

I... I have no idea what that means. Do you agree? Disagree? I think it's
agreement, in which case I'm pleased, but I really don't know.

(PsychoSy/151350) >

PsychoSy@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:04:00 -0600

>
> STEPPENWOLF: Here's what I don't get: if you don't
> feel that a fetus has any inherent value, then why
> would you care if abortion is used as extended
> contraception?
>

[*whirls around*]

[*taps baton on pedestal*]

[*ISCA Choir takes cue*]

NOOOOOOOOO FUUUUUUCCCKING SHIIIII-HIIII-HIIII-hiiiiit!

[*tosses the Roger Taylor clones in the back a pair a pliers*]

[*chroir suddenly registers 2 octaves higher*]

(Miser/151349) Puffer>

Miser@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:54:00 -0600

Puffer>
You don't have to be unemployed to be on food stamps, or vice versa.  When such
lines begin to blur, it might be time to take a step back and reconsider how
we're viewing such programs.

(Puffergoose/151348) Capa> People should start making a consideration if they are wi...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:37:00 -0600

Capa>  People should start making a consideration if they are willing to be on
the hook for a quarter of a million over the next 18 years BEFORE having sex,
even protected.  I shouldn't be on the hook for that cost because you made the
choice to have sex..... and no, the option of killing the child shouldn't be on
the table.  Hell, I'm already on the hook to support 12 million illegal
immigrants, 3 million crack heads, the food stamps for 42 million unemployed
people and 2 million people in over 243 prisons all on top of the 535 idiots in
the US House and Senate.
It does not take a village to raise a child, it takes parents.  If your not
willing to be a parent, don't have sex.  Very simple.
What about pregnancies due to rape and incest?  Not sure 2 wrongs make a right
in that we kill some innocent child because someone else did something
horrible.  If you really want to kill someone in those cases, kill the rapist,
not the innocent kid created.

(KAM/151347) Well, other than the fact that it's ILLEGAL nearly everywhere bu...

KAM@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:31:00 -0600


Well, other than the fact that it's ILLEGAL nearly everywhere but a few parts
of Nevada, methinks the wife is eventually going to be clued in to all your
"business trips" out into the middle of a desert.

Unless you're a drug dealer. Or an arms dealer. Or Charlie Sheen.

Okay, maybe movie producer, but who goes "on location" to the same spot every
other week?

(QUITTNER/151346) For those who ca afford it, a whole industry, called prostitutio...

QUITTNER@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:19:00 -0600

For those who ca afford it, a whole industry, called prostitution is available
when the wife doesn't want any additional pregnancies and insists on
abstention. No need for husbands that used to be princes to turn into frogs.

(Lammam P Yrruf/151345) Adoption can involve and historically has involved some morally ...

Lammam P Yrruf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 03:35:00 -0600

Adoption can involve and historically has involved some morally questionable
and outright inhuman practices.  But that's not a condemnation of the very act
of adoption, and it is not fair to say today that every adoption is a case of
"human trafficking".  To equivocate so blankly does damage to the healthy and
stable adoptions that happen every day, and sets people up to think of "human
trafficking" (slave trade and sex trade) as something less ugly than it is.

Matter of fact, a stable and accountable adoption system is one of the ways we
MITIGATE problems such as child trafficking, abortion, and child neglect.  To
speak as if adoption is morally the same thing as selling an eight year old
girl to a pimp... well that's either sloppy logic or you're just plain wrong.

That said, /YES/ as a society we need to be attentive and vigilant to how,
where, and when children leave their families of birth for new adoptive homes.
But don't call my dear friends P and A human traffickers for giving orphan
children homes.  Don't call ME a human trafficker for helping my dear friend L
find a home for her daughter when she was pregnant and unable to raise a child.

And don't call my aunt Judy a human trafficker for adopting her new husband's
daughter after the child's mother washed her hands of responsibility.  (Call
Judy a lot of other names, but that's a side point.)

Now, my father WAS adopted by a woman who essentially wanted a farmhand - and
was abusive and degrading of him from day one, reminding him he was somebody
else's bastard and not her problem, etc.  So I know a bit about adoption as
human trafficking; But the two are not congruent, and to say they are is to
tell my father his childhood is everything it should have been as an adopted
boy.

(Steve Austin/151343) Danix> Rape/incest pregnancies are a small percentage of all pr...

Steve Austin@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 03:22:00 -0600

Danix>  Rape/incest pregnancies are a small percentage of all pregnancies,
obviously, so I don't think those ought to be driving any sort of policy
decisions outside of what would directly impact those pregnancies.

With that said, I agree with your first trimester stance.  In fact, I'd extend
that to the extreme earliest point of viability, which is just after the
halfway point (20 weeks).  In an imperfect world, it's the right policy.

And with THAT said...if I had one wish, I'd want this whole abortion debate to
be over so those with power can make sure that pregnant women are well-informed
about ALL choices available to them.  I don't care to push an agenda, I just
think there is a LOT of good accomplished in ensuring that women have that
information.  If a woman then chooses to have an abortion...who is ANYONE to
tell her that she's wrong?

(Lochner/151342) "That's all "adoption" ever was, ever is, and ever will be."

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 02:59:00 -0600


"That's all "adoption" ever was, ever is, and ever will be."

  I'll be sure to tell my adopted son that at the adoption party we're
  having in two weeks.

(Danix/151341) I separate the embryo stage from a fetus stage. I've already men...

Danix@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:07:00 -0600

I separate the embryo stage from a fetus stage. I've already mentioned that
previously; the line is drawn mostly at the point where the fetus develops a
central nervous system, at which point the fetus might have cognitive functions
and thus no longer just a "clump of cells".

(Steppenwolf/151340) Here's what I don't get: if you don't feel that a fetus has any ...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:02:00 -0600

Here's what I don't get: if you don't feel that a fetus has any inherent value,
then why would you care if abortion is used as extended contraception?

(Danix/151339) Steve Austin> There's the small problem of rape pregnancies.

Danix@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:51:00 -0600

Steve Austin> There's the small problem of rape pregnancies.

I concur with the idea that abortion shouldn't be used as "extended
contraception" and that people stupid enough to have unprotected sex and
getting pregnant deserve to suffer the consequences of their irresponsibility.

But I don't complain about first-trimester abortion (don't have to restate that
position) or the cases where the fetus is clearly going to die anyway (seen
this happen, unfortunately). What I have seen is that the most radical pro-life
movements will also condemn those women who's pregnancy was a result of out of
wedlock sex. One such person went as far as calling all single mothers whores.

I do like organizations that do tackle on the adoption model, and it is a good
alternative to abortion. But not all pro-lifers think like that.

(Steve Austin/151338) So...let's just round up the little booger eaters in all the orp...

Steve Austin@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:24:00 -0600

So...let's just round up the little booger eaters in all the orphanages and
kill them all, if they'd be better off.  Maybe?

(PsychoSy/151337) >

PsychoSy@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:02:00 -0600

>
> AUSTIN: You know ... the funny thing is, there ARE
> people out there who are willing to support unwanted
> children.  It's called, uh ...
>

Legalized Human Trafficking.

That's all "adoption" ever was, ever is, and ever will be.

>
> And then pro-choice ... uh, "supporters", like yourself
> (obviously) mock it.
>

Because considering the dark history of adoption in America -- from the days
where Polish and Slavic immigrants had their children stolen from them during
our often repeated "Red Scare" periods, to the days where the welfare offices
were just fronts for the States vested interest in keeping the warehouses full
of moving human merch, up to now where adoption is impossible if the adoptive
parents are too old, too faggot, or too dirt poor, there's quite a lot of shit
to mock there ...

(Steve Austin/151336) Capa> You know...the funny thing is, there ARE people out there...

Steve Austin@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:59:00 -0600

Capa>  You know...the funny thing is, there ARE people out there who are
willing to support unwanted children.  It's called, uh, ADOPTION.  And
pro-lifers virtually across the board trumpet that as a perfectly good
alternative to, you know, snuffing out life.

And then pro-choice...uh, "supporters", like yourself (obviously) mock it.  So,
maybe you shouldn't say anything.

Of course, you also seem to be the type to act like the abortion debate is an
either-or proposal, when it's really not.

I'm adamantly against forcing people to bear children they don't want.  I'm
also adamantly against people aborting pregnancies they don't want.

My strong preference would be for people to actually, uh, use their brains and
make intelligent life choices.  Like, you know, understanding that sex leads to
pregnancy and that, when you have intercourse, no method of prevention is
completely fool-proof.

Our country would be far better off if people recognize that not all choices
are equal.  Some choices are outright foolish.

(Capa/151335) It's one thing to say "I support teh babiezzz!" and another thin...

Capa@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 08:58:00 -0600

It's one thing to say "I support teh babiezzz!" and another thing to start
paying for all the baby food, daipers, child care, insurance, health care,
school supplies, college fund, housing, clothing, etc etc.

Otherwise they're just saying "I love babies, but I don't want to do a damn
thing for 'em once they're born."

(Capa/151334) It costs a quarter of a million bucks to raise a child.

Capa@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 08:56:00 -0600

It costs a quarter of a million bucks to raise a child.
I think anti-abortion folks need to start ponying up if they *truly*
support babies as much as they say they do.

(Puffergoose/151332) My stances on Gay marriage has nothing to do with religion or ev...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 08:02:00 -0600

My stances on Gay marriage has nothing to do with religion or even
homosexuality but on social dynamics, tradition, the structure of society and
the ability for a society to chose how to define its own social institutions.
Religion plays no part in any of that.  Homosexuality does not play any part in
that and it is just side variable in all of it.
Religion plays ZERO part in my stance in abortion.  A central belief that we
should not kill kids is central to that.

(DesCartes/151331) Note: I did not say he was Christian. I said that this was a Chr...

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:49:00 -0600

Note: I did not say he was Christian. I said that this was a Christian country,
which, I believe, is a position he does hold.

(Knightshade/151330) If he's not it certainly makes his already kinda nonsensical sta...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:27:00 -0600

If he's not it certainly makes his already kinda nonsensical stance on gay
marriage even more nonsensical.

(and his one on abortion too, albeit to a lesser degree as there I can at least
conceive of arguments that don't sum to "god hates it")

(Steppenwolf/151329) I don't think Puff's ever really represented himself as a Christ...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:26:00 -0600

I don't think Puff's ever really represented himself as a Christian in here.

(PsychoSy/151328) >

PsychoSy@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:25:00 -0600

>
> PUFFER: Again, give the pricks something really to be
> afraid of.  Make the business of dealing drugs as
> dangerous and as lethel as possible and yes, you will
> actually cut down the flow of drugs onto the streets.
>

George Carlin said it best ...

http://youtu.be/qDO6HV6xTmI

My only problem is the crucifixions need to done with dollar signs instead of
wooden crosses, and expanded to include every single hocking and pawning,
enabling and rewarding, shielding and defending house wigger Democrat who
refuses to prosecute the aforementioned white Republican bankers for their
crime and corruption under the false rubrics of "moving forward; not backward"
and "stop re-relitigating the past" ...

Man, a lot of fuckin' heads would roll then. President Aveveda, Joe Lieberman
Nancy Pelosi, right on down the partisan house wigger line. Shit, the only
survivor woulds be Barry Sanders and Dennis Kucinich, and the latter is a real
stretch. It would take alot to keep him off the chopping block for holding his
snotlocker and casted his retarded vote for HCR ...

(WORF/151327) Jan 27, 2012 12:03 from Puffergoose

WORF@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:27:00 -0600


Jan 27, 2012 12:03 from Puffergoose
....
Do I hate Jesus?  No.  I'm not sure he ever exsisted but many of the ideas he
represents are good, and some aren't.
[Political Issues And Theory> msg #151325 (1 remaining)] Read cmd ->


Not to get too off-topic, but accepting Jesus is one of the tenants of
Christianity. If you don't agree with Jesus, you're not Christian.

(Steppenwolf/151326) "Sure on one hand he says to turn the other cheek, but then on t...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:24:00 -0600

"Sure on one hand he says to turn the other cheek, but then on the other
he had no problem with self defense until he chose to allow himself to be
sacrificed."

What?

(Puffergoose/151325) Yes, and Christ was a Jew. He also was fairly clear by the stan...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:03:00 -0600

Yes, and Christ was a Jew.  He also was fairly clear by the standards to how to
judge our fellow man and had no problem with taking aggressive action against
evil.  Sure on one hand he says to turn the other cheek, but then on the other
he had no problem with self defense until he chose to allow himself to be
sacrificed.
Do I hate Jesus?  No.  I'm not sure he ever exsisted but many of the ideas he
represents are good, and some aren't.

(KAM/151324) You do realize that "eye for an eye" doesn't come from Christian...

KAM@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:54:00 -0600


You do realize that "eye for an eye" doesn't come from Christianity, but
Judiasm? You do realize that Christ (y'know, that guy that Christianity is
named after) came along and asked his followers to go beyond the Jewish law and
to come closer to what God desires for us?

Maybe not.

(Knightshade/151323) Jan 27, 2012 11:52 from Puffergoose

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:53:00 -0600


Jan 27, 2012 11:52 from Puffergoose
....Apparently you try to ignore the Old Testament which is part of Christianity
as
much as the New.



Not exactly, no.

Jesus is kinda clear on the fact the new covenant replaces a decent bit of the
old one.

You'd know this if you'd ever actually read the bible.

(Puffergoose/151322) >Well, there is a war on the poor it seems.. not so much on pove...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:52:00 -0600

>Well, there is a war on the poor it seems.. not so much on poverty.

Yes, and the fight is against those things that lead people to be poor.  The
nanny state keeps poor people poor.  Someone else making a million plus dollars
does not make anyone else poor.  Education, business opportunity and business
growth, and people working harder and smarter is how poor people grow and not
be poor.  This attitude that we get from the Democrats that you can not
possibly help yourself, you need the government to come in and give you this
and give you that and not expect you to make any effort, that keeps them poor.
It is a learned helplessness and liberals are the teachers.

>Jan 27, 2012 07:52 from Knightshade
>Apparently in addition to the constitution, you've also never read the actual
>christian bible.  Especially the parts with jesus in them.

Apparently you try to ignore the Old Testament which is part of Christianity as
much as the New.

(KAM/151321) I think it was the scourging of the moneychangers in the temple ...

KAM@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:46:00 -0600


I think it was the scourging of the moneychangers in the temple that got his
goat. Or maybe it was feeding all those poor people who followed him around.
AH! I know, turning water into wine - clearly Jesus was a drunkard and a
bootlegger.

(Gislef/151320) Probably beause he burned the flag. Or scraped a flag decal off ...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:43:00 -0600

Probably beause he burned the flag. Or scraped a flag decal off of his cart.

(Knightshade/151319) Why does Puffergoose hate Jesus?

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:39:00 -0600

Why does Puffergoose hate Jesus?

(DesCartes/151318) Indeed, Jesus does also talk about it:

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:33:00 -0600

Indeed, Jesus does also talk about it:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes
you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants
to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should
anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to
the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow."

Matthew 5: 38-42 (NAB translation)

Jesus talks about it specifically to condemn it.

(Copper Lethe/151317) While "eye for and eye" is from the OT, Jesus also talks about i...

Copper Lethe@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:23:00 -0600


While "eye for and eye" is from the OT, Jesus also talks about it, as well
(and, after all, Christians also use the OT as scripture).

It's important to note that "eye for an eye" is really meant to make sure that
punishments are not excessive.  In that regard, you could say that we still are
a society of "eye for an eye," in that our Constitution is meant to ensure that
a punishment is not unreasonable or excessive.

(Danix/151316) DesCartes> Hey, eye for an eye was very much a Christian respon...

Danix@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:10:00 -0600

DesCartes>  Hey, eye for an eye was very much a Christian response.

Errr... you do realize that "eye for an eye" is actually from the OT? There's a
lot that has been superseded by the NT, which is what Christians actually
follow. (Notice that DesCartes is not only a Catholic, but seems to know a lot
about Christianity as well.)

I might dislike radical "Christian" attitudes, but at least I know when they're
pulling hate stuff out of their ass and saying "da Bible told me to kill teh
gheys".

(Knightshade/151315) Jan 27, 2012 02:48 from Puffergoose

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:52:00 -0600



Jan 27, 2012 02:48 from Puffergoose
DesCartes>  Hey, eye for an eye was very much a Christian response.






Apparently in addition to the constitution, you've also never read the actual
christian bible.  Especially the parts with jesus in them.

(QUITTNER/151314) As I keep repeating, only those are Christians who follow a Chri...

QUITTNER@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:46:00 -0600

As I keep repeating, only those are Christians who follow a Chrisr's lifestyle
and his, and only his teachings. That means that all those many socalled
"Christianities" must be ignored that were invented after Jesus had been
crucified. A "Christian Nation"? You're dreaming!

(Gespalder/151313) Jan 27, 2012 02:48 from Puffergoose

Gespalder@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:14:00 -0600

Jan 27, 2012 02:48 from Puffergoose
DesCartes>  Hey, eye for an eye was very much a Christian response.

-> Jesus admonished us to forgive one another, aka to Turn The Other Cheek


 Many of the good Christians that came over here put people in stockads, hung
people, burned people and sometimes banashed people which in that day, you were
banashed into the wild which often resulted in the person's death.  Those were
completely Christian responces.

-> First off it is 'banished" (one learns to spell when one's mother was an
English Major in college)
Second, not all who came over were Christians and not all those who were
believed in those draconian methods (Quakers, Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites,
Shakers).
Did Christians do bad things? Yes, they did (see how many treated the native
Americans). Sometimes all your crime was was not adhering to the principles of
whichever denomination was in the majority of your chosen colony. Sometimes all
you had done was piss off someone powerful.


Christians tend to have a problem with killing the innocent, but the guilty is
a different matter.

-> Which Christians? The LRA (Lord's Resistance Army) doesn't. During the
crisis in Northern Ireland both sides, and both are Christian, had no qualms
about killing innocents so long as they were on the other side of the conflict.
Ditto the various groups in Lebanon (the Druze, Muslims and Maronite
Christians), those in the former Yugoslavia (Muslims and Christians), and lest
we forget, the Russians (mostly Orthodox Christians if you count religion) have
no problem killing innocents in Ingushetia, Dagistan, Chechnya and South
Ossetia.
And before you say it, NOT EVERYONE IN THOSE AREAS IS A COMBATANT!

(Mild Seven/151312) Jan 27, 2012 02:49 from DesCartes

Mild Seven@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:12:00 -0600


Jan 27, 2012 02:49 from DesCartes
Wait, it's a war on poverty and we can't shoot anybody? I think we're doing
that wrong. Who do we shoot on the war on poverty? Maybe we can shoot people
who are paying their workers too little, or who are overcharging for basic
goods.
[Political Issues And Theory> msg #151309 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
[Post by Puffergoose killed]
[Political Issues And Theory> msg #151310 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
[Post by Puffergoose killed]
[Political Issues And Theory> msg #151311 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Well, there is a war on the poor it seems.. not so much on poverty.

(Puffergoose/151311) Who do we shoot in the war on Poverty? Democrats but I wouldn't...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:55:00 -0600

Who do we shoot in the war on Poverty?  Democrats but I wouldn't do that.
Who is to decide that anyone is paid "too little".  The market decides that
just fine.  Overcharging for basic goods is where profit comes from which helps
hire people and helps fight against poverty.  Overcharging, what ever that is,
is rather essential to the fight against poverty..... it helps create the
opportunities for the poor to not be poor anymore.
In all seriousness since we are talking povery there are 5 points people have
to remember and it is basic economics.
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy
   out of prosperity
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for
   without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not
   first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because
   the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets
   the idea that it does not good to work because somebody else is going to get
   what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

(Puffergoose/151310) DesCartes> Hey, eye for an eye was very much a Christian respon...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:48:00 -0600

DesCartes>  Hey, eye for an eye was very much a Christian response.  Many of
the good Christians that came over here put people in stockads, hung people,
burned people and sometimes banashed people which in that day, you were
banashed into the wild which often resulted in the person's death.  Those were
completely Christian responces.  Christians tend to have a problem with killing
the innocent, but the guilty is a different matter.

(DesCartes/151309) Wait, it's a war on poverty and we can't shoot anybody? I think ...

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:49:00 -0600

Wait, it's a war on poverty and we can't shoot anybody? I think we're doing
that wrong. Who do we shoot on the war on poverty? Maybe we can shoot people
who are paying their workers too little, or who are overcharging for basic
goods.

(Puffergoose/151308) I also add that if we are going to have a war on drugs, of cours...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:37:00 -0600

I also add that if we are going to have a war on drugs, of course it is not
going to even come close to working unless we treat it like an actual honest to
God war.  You find a dealer, you shoot them..... or you take them somewhere and
waterboard the shit out of them to find out who their suppliers are, then you
shoot them.
Again, give the pricks something really to be afraid of.  Make the business of
dealing drugs as dangerous and as lethel as possible and yes, you will actually
cut down the flow of drugs onto the streets.
This is if you really want to be serious about having a war on drugs.
We aren't so we will have it as an issue for ever and ever.
You want to have a war on poverty?  Capitalism and pure social darwinism to
promote the strong and grow opportunities for all men and the weak will either
get stronger or die.  Of course then we will redefine upward what is poverty
like we tend to do in this country so then there will always be poverty.
Reminds me of the fun stuff with this using Warren Buffet's secretary to try to
make her out to me typical working class poster child.  She said in an
interview that she thinks she represents "average" Americans..... when she
makes over $300k, has just bought a 2nd house in AZ with a pool and PGA
specifications putting green...... my heart bleeds for her.... hehehehehe.

(DesCartes/151307) It's a good thing we live in a Christian nation, because that's ...

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:40:00 -0600

It's a good thing we live in a Christian nation, because that's certainly not a
Christian response.

(Puffergoose/151306) >Except that US law doesn't operate under the principle of "an e...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:35:00 -0600

>Except that US law doesn't operate under the principle of "an eye for an eye."

Well, it does not anymore, but it should.

>an illegal act of violence has a proper
>response of ARRESTING THE PERSON.... not engaging in the similar illegal
>violence against them.

That actually is not a very good response.  Arresting the person is not a very
good deterrent.  I know we want to work on correcting people and rehabilitation
and all that rot gut.  Screw that, it should be about simple revenge and as
brutal and violent against those that commit violence such as the flag burner.
Hell with eye for an eye, give me 2 eyes and a finger for an eye.  That might
make people think twice before doing something terrible to their fellow man. 
Real eye for an eye is if we could burn the flag burner alive.  Punching them
in the face and breaking a couple of ribs is letting them off rather easy.
I would say our current system is completely insane and considering the rate of
recidivism, not very effective.

(PsychoSy/151305) >

PsychoSy@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:58:00 -0600

>
> COPPER: Puffergoose has long claimed that violence is
> a perfectly reasonable reaction to a flag burning, and
> has long stated that if he ever did find someone burning
> a flag, he would beat them up.
>

At which point *I* gave him my address and told him to bring his home
waterboarding kit he bought off the The 700 Club web-store and a hatchet as
dull as Michele Malkin's wits ...

Shit, that was over 5 year ago, too ...

(Knightshade/151304) Jan 25, 2012 18:11 from Puffergoose

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 02:16:00 -0600



Jan 25, 2012 18:11 from Puffergoose
So then is the flag code unconstitutional?
Yes we burn a tattered flag that has in itself become an insult to fly and
stand for the United States of America.  That is why it is a proper retierment.
A flag in good condition is the living embodyment of the country.... thus
burning it is a kin to burning the country and thus should be protected.  It is
not speech, it is an act of violence and it is why an act of violence is the
equal and opposite proper responce.







Even if we accepted your idea that burning a flag was an act of violence (it's
not) or illegal (again it's not).... an illegal act of violence has a proper
response of ARRESTING THE PERSON.... not engaging in the similar illegal
violence against them.


At least in any normal, sane, law abiding society.


Why do you hate sanity and law so much Puffer?

(Lochner/151303) "BTW> Just for the record, I believe it is technically a violati...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:59:00 -0600


"BTW> Just for the record, I believe it is technically a violation of US law to
use the US flag and turn it into another object, such as a shirt or a diaper.
Congratulations, Lochner, not nly does your baby deservea punch in the face,
but a federal prosecutor should be along as well with a plea agreement. ;-)"

  Not true.  The flag regulation you're thinking of doesn't apply here,
  I have not turned a flag into a diaper, I have purchased a diaper with
  a flag printed upon it.

"Danix, is it legal in Mexico to wear a t-shirt with the flag of Mexico printed
on it? My friends in the US say that it is illegal there. I just want to know
if they're talking out their ass on that one. :-)"

  It's not illegal in the US to do that.  Flag codes are not criminal laws.
  There is no criminal sanction associated with it.

"So then is the flag code unconstitutional?"

  No, because it's not enforceable, and unless it's being enforced against
  you, you don't have standing to sue to throw it out.

"The Flag Code itself (USC Title 4) is constitutional. Enforcement of flag
desecration (USC Title 18 Chapter 33 Section 700) has been ruled
unconsitutional."

  Thank you.

(Mild Seven/151302) Well, if you ate it, you might get punched by backwoods rednecks...

Mild Seven@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:19:00 -0600

Well, if you ate it, you might get punched by backwoods rednecks but it's okay
to eat bald eagle since said rednecks shooting for sport are probably the
reason why the bald eagle is endangered. ;-)

(KAM/151301) I think the US flag has proven itself to be a hearty species of ...

KAM@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:55:00 -0600


I think the US flag has proven itself to be a hearty species of life which can
thrive in the most difficult of climates.

I wonder how good it tastes as a side dish to bald eagle?

(Mild Seven/151300) The flag is a living thing?

Mild Seven@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:41:00 -0600

The flag is a living thing?
It must be starving to death up there on the pole. UV rays, swinging dry in the
wind.. poor thing.

(KAM/151299) Puffergoose> "It is not speech, it is an act of violence and it ...

KAM@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:51:00 -0600


Puffergoose> "It is not speech, it is an act of violence and it is why an act
of violence is the equal and opposite proper responce [SIC]."


Except that US law doesn't operate under the principle of "an eye for an eye."

Interesting that out of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas ruling on Texas
vs. Johnson, they found the following:

"Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment
freedoms, a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its
citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of
unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that
symbol."

(KAM/151298) The Flag Code itself (USC Title 4) is constitutional. Enforcemen...

KAM@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:41:00 -0600


The Flag Code itself (USC Title 4) is constitutional. Enforcement of flag
desecration (USC Title 18 Chapter 33 Section 700) has been ruled
unconsitutional.

(Mild Seven/151297) The flag code uses the word "should", not "must" or phrases such...

Mild Seven@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:28:00 -0600

The flag code uses the word "should", not "must" or phrases such as "it is
compulsory".  Otherwise Obama would have to take over Wal-Mart to stop them
from using *cough*China's flag*cough*, I mean "American flag".

(Puffergoose/151296) So then is the flag code unconstitutional?

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:11:00 -0600

So then is the flag code unconstitutional?
Yes we burn a tattered flag that has in itself become an insult to fly and
stand for the United States of America.  That is why it is a proper retierment.
A flag in good condition is the living embodyment of the country.... thus
burning it is a kin to burning the country and thus should be protected.  It is
not speech, it is an act of violence and it is why an act of violence is the
equal and opposite proper responce.
Until we come to our senses and protect the flag through law, people will do
the right thing and protect it with their fists when they can.  When the law
will not do the right thing, the people will.  Cops will often just look the
other way because they know it is the right thing and if they do decide to
arrest and take it into court, at least no jury of your peers around here will
convict you.

(KAM/151295) United States Code, Title 4, Section 8:

KAM@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:56:00 -0600


United States Code, Title 4, Section 8:

"d.  The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It
should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to
fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue
above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering
a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in
general."

"i.  The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner
whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or
handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or
boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising
signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is
flown."

"j.  No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform."


ALTHOUGH... I hate to admit this, here's a part that actually BOLSTERS
Puffergoose's reaction of wanting to punch flag burners in the face and
soldiers literally dying for the flag:

"j.  ...The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living
thing."

(Danix/151294) IIRC, it is legal. But there are quite some Pufferrific laws on ...

Danix@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:45:00 -0600

IIRC, it is legal. But there are quite some Pufferrific laws on what are called
national symbols (National Flag, National Shield, National Anthem). So certain
actions that could be percieved as defiling either of these symbols are met
with heavy fines; this was used back in '68 during the Student Movement when
the students lowered the flag at the main plaza (Zocalo) and put up the black
and red strike flag.

I'm not sure how these laws are enforced, a lot of political cartoonists have
made toons similar to Cagle's one and I haven't seen 'em fined. I'd have to
check out our laws to see if they exclude printing the flag on a T-shirt. (They
definitely ban printing it on underwear, of that I'm pretty sure!)

(Mild Seven/151293) Danix, is it legal in Mexico to wear a t-shirt with the flag of ...

Mild Seven@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:12:00 -0600

Danix, is it legal in Mexico to wear a t-shirt with the flag of Mexico printed
on it? My friends in the US say that it is illegal there. I just want to know
if they're talking out their ass on that one. :-)

(Mild Seven/151292) They all seem to agree that assassinating US citizens abroad is ...

Mild Seven@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:07:00 -0600

They all seem to agree that assassinating US citizens abroad is okay and that
denying someone a trial (military tribunals) is still okay. (e.g. Gitmo)

I just saw a puffergoose fly by my window. ;-)

(Danix/151291) Heh. One thing that cracks me up is that the "flag underwear" ar...

Danix@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:04:00 -0600

Heh. One thing that cracks me up is that the "flag underwear" argument came up
when Daryl Cagle got a shitstorm of hate mail after drawing a bullet-ridden
Mexican flag with the eagle bleeding to death in the ground. Lots of those
people were in line with Puffer's ideals. I found it amusing, as my own views
are more in line with the rest of the ISCABBS US-based userbase. That is: it's
only a symbol. Don't get into a tantrum for that!

(KAM/151290) BTW> Just for the record, I believe it is technically a violatio...

KAM@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:00:00 -0600


BTW> Just for the record, I believe it is technically a violation of US law to
use the US flag and turn it into another object, such as a shirt or a diaper.
Congratulations, Lochner, not nly does your baby deservea punch in the face,
but a federal prosecutor should be along as well with a plea agreement. ;-)

But, the argument whether or not your two year old pooping on the flag is a
speech issue, I'd say not, unless your child can demonstrate that they
recognize the flag, what it represents, and what their act of defication also
represents. Otherwise, it's just an accident.

And defacing a window decal of the US flag also has nothing to do with free
speech or the flag, because techincally it's just an IMAGE of a flag, it isn't
the US flag itself. Well, I take that back, it COULD have something to do with
free speech, but it still isn't REALLY a flag. You could do the same to photos
of the US flag.

(Gislef/151289) The answer probably depends on what you consider a "moderate and...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:59:00 -0600

The answer probably depends on what you consider a "moderate and sensible" law.
If there's a law you prefer, but someone else thinks it's wrong and has a
moderate and sensible law to replace or overrule it, what protections do you
think current law should have?

(WORF/151288) Mild Seven> If all three branches of govt agree on something, it...

WORF@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:41:00 -0600


Mild Seven> If all three branches of govt agree on something, it's going to
happen.

Of course, if all three branches of govt agree on something, you probably just
saw a pig fly by your window.

(Mild Seven/151287) Congress makes the laws.

Mild Seven@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:18:00 -0600


Congress makes the laws.
Exec branch approves the laws.
Judicial determines if the laws are legit. - WORF

What if some right-wing party dominated Congress, holding 80 percent of the
seats?  They hold the Senate and House (80 percent in both).
Executive branch is of the same party and signs off on the bill, making it law.
Judiciary is stacked with people of similar political persuasion and agrees
that the law is legit.

After that, the minority of people get royally screwed.  Is that when the tree
of liberty needs to be shaken or blood spilled?

(Steppenwolf/151286) "If a majority of Supreme Court justices declared it constitutio...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:10:00 -0600

"If a majority of Supreme Court justices declared it constitutional to prohibit
flag desecration, would it still be constitutional?"

That depends on what you think the "law" is. Is it a set of Platonic principles
that we are grasping towards, created by the writers? Or is the law whatever
the people in power understand it and implement it?

I make no bones about it, I'm strongly in the second camp (legal realism).
However, pragmatically I think that it's more moral and wiser to use
interpretive tools so as to act as if we're in the first camp. I can't see how
you can justify the idea that something is constitutional even if the people
who are empowered by us to say if it is or is not constitutional say it isn't.
It doesn't make sense.

"What remedies are there if
the judiciary did that?"

1) Well, the legislature doesn't have to pass such a bill. Obviously.
2) Constitutional amendment.
3) Wait and hope the tide of popular belief swings in your direction.

(WORF/151285) The US Supreme Court is where the buck stops as far as interpert...

WORF@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:09:00 -0600


The US Supreme Court is where the buck stops as far as interperting CURRENT US
Law.

So if USSC says "it is constitutional to prohibit flad desecration" then that's
the law of the land until the Constiution is changed or the USSC says "Yo, we
fucked up. Our bad."

Congress makes the laws.
Exec branch approves the laws.
Judicial determines if the laws are legit.

(Mild Seven/151284) Sadly, there's a lot of people who agree with PG but they just d...

Mild Seven@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:53:00 -0600

Sadly, there's a lot of people who agree with PG but they just don't know how
to connect to a BBS.  That doesn't make them right though.  If the US was a
direct democracy, which thankfully it is not, a majority of people might vote
in favor of prohibiting flag desecration.  Tyranny of the majority comes to
mind.

If a majority of Supreme Court justices declared it constitutional to prohibit
flag desecration, would it still be constitutional?  What remedies are there if
the judiciary did that?  Wait until those justices die off and are replaced by
more moderate and sensible elements?

(Gislef/151283) CL: Or you're missing the point I'm trying to make. Saying, "If ...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:25:00 -0600

CL: Or you're missing the point I'm trying to make. Saying, "If you heard
that a flag was being burned, PG, would you do something about it?" is a
dead-end, because he doesn't act on what he's heard about.

(Giraffe/151282) Puffergoose has claimed that he did punch a flag-desecrator in...

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:19:00 -0600

Puffergoose has claimed that he *did* punch a flag-desecrator in the face, and
that the police stood by and watched because it was the appropriate response.

(Lochner/151281) my point is that puffer denies that flag destruction has any com...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:04:00 -0600

 my point is that puffer denies that flag destruction has any communicative
value, yet he implicitly acknowledges that some flag desecration is offensive
and some is not.  that's impossible unless there is some communicative power to
the manner or context of the destruction.

 hence, retiring by burning is respectful and does not communicate anything
offensive and nobody has a heart attack, nor when my kid shits in his flag
diapers.  but a protestor burning the flag is sending a different message that
is hurtful and offensive and that causes heart attacks.  because the act itself
is communicative and thus speech.

(Copper Lethe/151280) Puffergoose has long claimed that violence is a perfectly reason...

Copper Lethe@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:54:00 -0600


Puffergoose has long claimed that violence is a perfectly reasonable reaction
to a flag burning, and has long stated that if he ever did find someone burning
a flag, he would beat them up.

I think you're missing the point that Lochner and others are trying to make,
Gislef.

(Gislef/151279) Knightsade: Yes, but what's the first part of what he said? We w...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:51:00 -0600

Knightsade: Yes, but what's the first part of what he said? We were discussing
whether PG, upon hearing that someone was desecrating a flag (Lochner's
example), would "need" to com eover and punch the kid, as Lochner asked

My impression is that while PG "needs" to punch someone if he happens to
stumble across such an incident, but he doesn't as me and Lochner were
discussing "need" to do it if he isn't there at the moment it occurs. Nor does
he actively seek out incidents (such as when someone states they'll be burning
a flag in protest) and assault people when they try.

(WORF/151278) Shit, I'm still waiting for Puffergoose to post A SINGLE PIECE O...

WORF@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:48:00 -0600


Shit, I'm still waiting for Puffergoose to post A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE to
back up his claim that the HPV vaccine causes autism. According to PG Dateline
NBC ran a story claiming this, only he's the only one who saw it and there's no
record of this story ever running anywhere. According to PG there was a doctor
featured on the story, but no information can be found on him because "the
industry" made him keep quiet.

So NO ONE, well execept for Michele Bachmann (and she doesn't have any sources
either), agrees with PG, but he still expects everyone to take his word as
FACT.

What makes anyone think that his latest claim that "flag burning causes heart
attacks and strokes" has any more bearing on reality?

(Lochner/151277) Or the famous case of that soldier who ripped up an American fla...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:46:00 -0600

Or the famous case of that soldier who ripped up an American flag to use the
cloth as a turniquette to save his buddy's life.

He also ripped up America, and it's even worse because he's a SOLDIER!  That's
TREASON, he should be court martialled for aiding and abetting our enemies!

(Knightshade/151276) Jan 25, 2012 13:36 from Gislef

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:46:00 -0600




Jan 25, 2012 13:36 from Gislef
PG has never to the best of my recall argued that he "needs" to punch people
who burn, destroy, or otherwise desecrate the flag.



Jan 25, 2012 13:11 from Puffergoose
.... I would demand that he remove the rest of it or yes, I would punch him in
the face

(Copper Lethe/151275) "No they do not communicate anything, they are not speech."

Copper Lethe@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:44:00 -0600


"No they do not communicate anything, they are not speech."

In that case, I assume that you fully support assaulting people who are burning
a flag that has been damaged in order to dispose of it?

(Lochner/151274) Ok then, the fact that my kid literally took a shit on the AMeri...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:43:00 -0600

 Ok then, the fact that my kid literally took a shit on the AMerican flag,
then.

 IS that going to insult soldiers and cause heart attacks and is that an
assault and battery upon the United States?  Is that "violence" to the flag
such that punching my 2 year old is self-defense?

(Gislef/151273) PG has never to the best of my recall argued that he "needs" to ...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:36:00 -0600

PG has never to the best of my recall argued that he "needs" to punch people
who burn, destroy, or otherwise desecrate the flag. Conveniently, he never
seems to have run into any descration in process, or made any effort to seek
them out.

It's also not clear if he feels that frenzies of righteous flag-decration-fury
should be directed at people caught in the ct, or if it's okay to, say, spot a
tattered desecrated flag hanging from someone's house months after the act of
desecration, leap out, knock on their door, and punch them.

(Lochner/151272) So you DO need to come punch my 2 year old for shitting on the...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:29:00 -0600


So you *DO* need to come punch my 2 year old for shitting on the American flag,
right?

And you *DO* need to come beat up by 4 year old who spilled chocolate milk on
my flag?

If not, why not?

(PsychoSy/151271) "We don't consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for ...

PsychoSy@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:07:00 -0600

"We don't consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we
dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."

Justice William J. Brennan
US Supreme Court Decision
July 3rd 1989

---

When one reads Greenwald, Art Silber, and Paul Craig Roberts on a regular
basis, it's obvious that the freedoms the flag represents are rapidly turning
into illusions every day from an executive branch going rogue and a Congress
too skittish and pussy-whipped to reign in it. But all efforts to ban the
burning of the flag as a form a speech protest paradoxically ends up destroying
both freedom itself and the illusion of freedom. The day we cease having the
freedom the burn a flag is the same day Banshee's right to *PRETEND* that the
motherfucker represents what little freedoms we have left anymore goes up in
smoke -- right next to Puffergoose's right to be *CERTAIN* that the flag
represents freedoms he would waste no time doing away with.

(Puffergoose/151270) No they do not communicate anything, they are not speech.

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:11:00 -0600

No they do not communicate anything, they are not speech.
MMM>  I would demand that he remove the rest of it or yes, I would punch him in
the face or one of the vets that live around here probably would get to him
first.

(Lochner/151269) My 18 month also literally shit all over his American flag-theme...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:00:00 -0600


My 18 month also literally shit all over his American flag-themed diapers.

HE IS SHITTING ON AMERICA.

You need to come over here and beat him up.

Or, Option B, those acts are offensive because they do not communicate
anti-American sentiment, but flag burning does.  Hence, it's speech.

(Mean Mr Mustard/151268) Puffergoose, I need some advice. My neighbor had placed a flag ...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:51:00 -0600

Puffergoose, I need some advice.  My neighbor had placed a flag decal on his
windshield, but this weekend he scraped it off with an ice scraper, defacing it
horribly.  I'm wondering whether I should punch him in the face.

(Gislef/151267) The question is less whether they "exist" than if your claim tha...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:33:00 -0600

The question is less whether they "exist" than if your claim that they suffered
debilitating medical conditions simply by seeing a flag burned in a particular
context is accurate.

Then again, if seeing a flag burned gives them a heart attack, telling them
that someone doesn't believe they exist might induce an aneurysm. Or perhaps
a hangnail. People that sensitive, assuming such sensitivity exists, should be
carefully coddled and prevented from being exposed to anything disturbing. Not
told that someone doesn't they exist just for the benefit of a good laugh.

(Knightshade/151266) Yes, you feel no need to tell us more because they don't exist. ...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:23:00 -0600

Yes, you feel no need to tell us more because they don't exist.  As always,
everyone in the room but you is clear on the point :)


Here's a quote for you though-

""It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech. It is the
soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is
the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag, And whose
coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag"

-Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC



Notice that part about being the ones who allow the protestor to burn the flag?

Because people ACTUALLY in the military understand that's one of the rights
they fight to secure.

(Steve Austin/151265) And those deluded soldiers can believe what THEY want...

Steve Austin@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:24:00 -0600

And those deluded soldiers can believe what THEY want...

....but the fact remains, they absolutely did go and get shot at so somebody
here can burn a flag.

(Puffergoose/151264) You believe what you want Knightshade and I'm sure they will hav...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:08:00 -0600

You believe what you want Knightshade and I'm sure they will have a good laugh
when I tell them that you don't think they exsist.  :)  It is rather funny.
I feel no need to tell you any more about them.  I could walk them over to your
house and you still will not believe that they exsist.
Banshee>  Most soldiers I've been with have as much dislike for flag burners as
I do and comment to anyone that asks that they didn't go over and almost have
their ass shot off to come back here and have people burn the embodyment of
what they were fighting for.  No, they did not die to let people do that.

(Knightshade/151263) Of course you made them up, that's why you've been unable to pro...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:03:00 -0600

Of course you made them up, that's why you've been unable to provide any
evidence of them ever existing, including refusing to say where and when they
were hurt, what hospital they went to, or any other specific detail someone
could actually check.

(Banshee/151262) I've always been under the impression that the brave men and wom...

Banshee@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:02:00 -0600


I've always been under the impression that the brave men and women who've
lost their lives fighting for this country have given them so that I may
have the freedom to burn the flag, question our leaders, assemble in
peaceful protest, etc ...

I know that's not really the reason we've fought some of our recent "wars",
but I like to pretend it is.

(Puffergoose/151261) I made up none of them. Been part of a military family my whole...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:52:00 -0600

I made up none of them.  Been part of a military family my whole life.  The
flag is not just a piece of cloth to them, it is central to what they fight and
die for and if they die it is an honor to have that flag on their coffin and it
is always above them.

(Knightshade/151260) Jan 25, 2012 10:45 from Puffergoose

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:49:00 -0600



Jan 25, 2012 10:45 from Puffergoose
Many soldiers do not see any difference between dieing for the coutnry and yes,
dieing for that piece of cloth that embodies the country.



Really?  Which ones?

Did you totally make them up with no evidence like you did the ones who are
physically harmed by burning a flag?

(Puffergoose/151259) Many soldiers do not see any difference between dieing for the c...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:45:00 -0600

Many soldiers do not see any difference between dieing for the coutnry and yes,
dieing for that piece of cloth that embodies the country.  We don't pledge
allegence to the country, but to the flag.

(Lochner/151258) My flag isn't made of cloth, it's an all-weather winyl polymer.

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:09:00 -0600


My flag isn't made of cloth, it's an all-weather winyl polymer.