Steven Den Beste: An interesting symmetry

[Andy -- I wouldn't normally swipe an entire post like this, but see the lead-in. Steven, you're welcome to post here anytime.]

If I still had posting privileges to the Green Room, I'd have put this there. But I no longer have any kind of political mikan box to stand on, so I guess I'll put it here. (I thought of asking Ace if he wanted it, but then I decided that would have been pretentious.) So politics, for a change.

Work with me here: there's a highly controversial right, with people on one side of the political fence deeply committed to defending it and people on the other side equally deeply committed to outright eliminating it. The latter deny that it is a right; they think it should be a crime, heavily punished, because it leads to a lot of unnecessary and unjust deaths.

The issue is a major controversy in Congress and in the states, and over the course of decades no consensus emerges. It is deeply contentious. Laws are passed, and new laws override old ones. It is a major factor in election campaigns all over the country every two years. Finally, defenders of this right take to the courts, and after years of effort and loads of appeals, finally get the Supreme Court to issue a landmark opinion declaring that it is indeed a right, protected by the Constitution.

But the opponents won't accept this. Now no longer able to outright outlaw this thing, they instead fiddle around the edges and try to pass laws which have the effect of making it inaccessible, even though it is nominally legal. As an issue it refuses to go away; it still figures in elections all over the country, and shows no sign of any consensus ever appearing.

What am I talking about? Well, actually two things: abortion and gun rights.

Without considering the merits of the issues themselves, it occurred to me the other day that the way the two issues have been handled by proponents and opponents have been surprisingly symmetrical. Understand that I'm not saying the various points of view are equally valid. But in terms of strategy and tactics, the issues are almost mirror images. (Yes, the word "abortion" never appears in the Constitution, and the Second Amendment explicitly is about gun ownership; you don't have to mention that. Also it is irrelevant to the point I am making.)

And, of course, the sides are opposite on each. Defense of abortion is a left-wing position, whereas defense of gun rights is generally considered to be right-wing. (And of course, there are loads of exceptions in both cases.) Even so, it's almost like each side in one issue has been studying what worked for the other side on the other issue, and copying it.

Did the people behind District of Columbia v. Heller study the litigation history of Roe v. Wade?

Posted by: Andy at 08:24 AM



Comments

1 the president is a scoamf

Posted by: phoenixgirl waiting for spring training at January 23, 2013 08:27 AM (GVxQo)

2 It's all about "penumbras" and "emanations."

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 08:28 AM (XkWWK)

3 Which Amendment ensures that the right to dismember a child in its mother's womb "shall not be infringed"?

Posted by: Thorvald at January 23, 2013 08:30 AM (1V6Pv)

4 the GOP no longer stands for anything they used to stand for....they cave at EVERY OPPORTUNITY to take a stand....yes, they claim that the 2nd amendment is the hill on which they will die but it's not....

remember the dems voting on their platform booing GOD and ISRAEL...that will be us next time on PROLIFE and GUN RIGHTS and CUTTING TAXES oh and GHEY MARRIAGE! and SCHOOL CHOICE

LET IT BURN

Posted by: phoenixgirl waiting for spring training at January 23, 2013 08:30 AM (GVxQo)

5 I predict this comment thread will be filled with jocularity and good natured ribbing.

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at January 23, 2013 08:30 AM (NF2Bf)

6 >>Steven, you're welcome to post here anytime

That would be great.

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 23, 2013 08:32 AM (SUKHu)

7 @5 Love the official bilingualism in Quebec!

Posted by: Thorvald at January 23, 2013 08:32 AM (1V6Pv)

8 2) J.J. Sefton,

The Constitution is a rather malleable document to the left and viewed as an impediment to "government doing its job." The problem is to the right the Bill of Rights and Constitution are the entire justification for government at all at the Federal level. I am losing the ability to ever see the left stopping and I will never stop trying to protect the document so there is not a way to a happy ending.

They will keep adding magic "rights" with invisible ink additions while ignoring plain language that is intrinsic, and expect the same deference from me for their usurped power that they refuse to grant the enumerated rights therein.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 08:33 AM (LRFds)

9 5 Lurking Canuck,

Oui, oui.

Serious question what do you think of your own basket case province in "plain language intent" the Je Me Souviens brigades in Quebec?

All Canada is bilingual by law but ONE magical province.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 08:34 AM (LRFds)

10 From the comments at his place:

>>I'm curious to know: when I was talking in vague terms before I identified which issues I was talking about, did you realize what I was talking about, and if so, which did you think I was discussing?

I realized that you could be talking about either one.

And that was without noticing the word "symmetry" in the title. (Sigh.)

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 23, 2013 08:35 AM (SUKHu)

11 Ditto on Steven posting. He started it all for me.

Posted by: pawn at January 23, 2013 08:35 AM (iMsF6)

12 I'll read the whole thing later, but remember: when the Sup Ct rules the way the left wants, it becomes permanent chisled into granite law; when the left loses, they just keep appealing tilll they win. Think death penalty. History can only go in one direction, after all.

Posted by: mallfly at January 23, 2013 08:36 AM (jDjlM)

13 6) Mama AJ,

Yes it would, SDB at his best is one of the more reasoned political analysts out there.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 08:36 AM (LRFds)

14 What about our rights wingnts?

Posted by: Gay Marriage AND Free Shit for Deadbeats at January 23, 2013 08:36 AM (VrVBw)

15 First thing in the morning, my uncle brings up Hillary Clinton's popularity on hot air and how she is invincible. He lives in CT. The guy is scared shit.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 23, 2013 08:37 AM (9e+9n)

16 and also don't forget: the 2nd Amendment proves that "the people" really means "the State", and abortion rights are guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

Posted by: mallfly at January 23, 2013 08:37 AM (jDjlM)

17 Damn sven. That was pretty coherent.

Posted by: pawn at January 23, 2013 08:37 AM (iMsF6)

18 The Heller decision leans heavily on Glenn Reynolds, if not explicitly, many of the points were laid out in the mid 90s by Reynolds at a big Tennessee gun rights confab. Reynolds is also proabortion. Coincidence?

Posted by: Golan Globus at January 23, 2013 08:38 AM (/1U3u)

19 17) pawn,

I'm capable of decent writing, unfortunately it is timed on a complicated Lunar/Martian Refractory Light Schedule.

Thanks for the compliment.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 08:39 AM (LRFds)

20 Just eliminate your personal debt ceiling first, and the Abortion and Gun rights fall right into place,

Posted by: Clemenza at January 23, 2013 08:40 AM (x59Gv)

21 I've thought this for a long time. There's a disturbing amount of dishonesty on both sides, on both issues, really.

Posted by: Zippity Doo Dah at January 23, 2013 08:40 AM (E55AK)

22 The 2 issues have symmetry, they are merging.

The left wants to abort gun ownership.

I say let them poor little baby guns live! If anyone is thinking about a late term abortion on some guns or ammo, ole Judge Bean will throw money at ya, to save that baby!

Have FFL will travel!

Posted by: Judge_Roy_bean at January 23, 2013 08:40 AM (v+It9)

23 I did not realize abortion was a right.

Posted by: EC at January 23, 2013 08:40 AM (GQ8sn)

24 There is no similarity between the Second Amendment - the right to defend life, and the unmentioned "Sanger's right" to end life before birth.

Scrap this stupid fucking post, shove the symmetry up your ass, and punch yourself in the gut. It's well deserved.

Posted by: really at January 23, 2013 08:41 AM (y5B3J)

25 Now here in Mexifornia we had a MS petuli oil today op eding the El LAy Times in regards to crying out on the inhuman way Sturgeon are treated to Harvest their eggs so the Elite can have roe. Now Their was not a mention of the 50 plus mill abortions .
But I guess if we ate unborn children then we would have an issue.

Posted by: Clemenza at January 23, 2013 08:43 AM (x59Gv)

26 Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 23, 2013 08:37 AM (9e+9n)

She's ugly and shrill and linked to many failures.

She's a lock!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 23, 2013 08:43 AM (GsoHv)

Posted by: Captain Ned at January 23, 2013 08:45 AM (0E7ho)

28 @ 6, 11, 13:

Agreed. SDB brought me into the blog world and taught me that every comment post is it's own mini-blog, so get it right.

Like I didn't above while whacking random keys on the abysmal work laptop.

Posted by: Captain Ned at January 23, 2013 08:47 AM (0E7ho)

29 @7, 9

Appeasing whiny Quebecersby pretending to care about the 'threat to French culture' andpaying them offto shut the fuck up once in a while is our true national sport.

I would be happy to have another separation referendum, but this time for the Rest of Canada, with 'Get the fuck out' being option one.

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at January 23, 2013 08:47 AM (NF2Bf)

30 we are all fucked...the only difference is the conservatives know it, the rinos are in denial & the libs don't believe it

Posted by: phoenixgirl waiting for spring training at January 23, 2013 08:48 AM (GVxQo)

31 Flush the Republican Party with the Dim Wits down the rat hole. We are on a political centrifuge with both party's spinning out of control. When you can not tell the bear poop from the buckwheat..and they form their own wall of defense to prevent a third party U know your bogged down in a quagmire.

Posted by: Clemenza at January 23, 2013 08:48 AM (x59Gv)

32 "I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."

- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)


Strangely I could not find a quote from any of the founding fathers regarding their thoughts on infanticide.

Posted by: General Woundwort at January 23, 2013 08:48 AM (RrD4h)

33 Good thing Steven was clear about this:

>>Without considering the merits of the issues themselves, it occurred to me the other day that the way the two issues have been handled by proponents and opponents have been surprisingly symmetrical.

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 23, 2013 08:49 AM (SUKHu)

34 I understand what the author is saying here. But I think a major difference between the two issues is that one is trying to protect a right and the other is trying to sort things out between two sets of conflicting rights. 2A is about the right to defend yourself and the arguments against it don't have anything to do with anyone else's rights being infringed. Abortion is about the right of one person to their life and the right of another person to do what they please (for various reasons, obviously) and which person's right trumps the other.

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at January 23, 2013 08:49 AM (qFpRI)

35 Abortions. I don't like em. I am a Christian, but not a very good one.

Damn me to hell maybe, but when I see liberals, illegal aliens etc. get abortions, I think, that's one less asshole I have to deal with.

Posted by: Judge_Roy_bean at January 23, 2013 08:49 AM (v+It9)

36 I guess I just don't understand how killing a baby is a right.

Posted by: DangerGirl at January 23, 2013 08:50 AM (yDr5/)

37 Sounds a lot like the battles over the issue of slavery in the 19th century.

Posted by: CommonSenseMom at January 23, 2013 08:50 AM (RNvbh)

38 Huh. This has always been self-evident to me. I didn't know it was something that wasn't as obvious to everyone.

Posted by: Truman North, at 25% battery life at January 23, 2013 08:50 AM (nr/As)

39 She's ugly and shrill and linked to many failures.

She's a lock!


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 23, 2013 08:43 AM (GsoHv)

She is really popular though. Why do you think? I dont know if she'll run. The clintons are power hungry but I'm unsure. Cuomo seems to be preparing a run

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 23, 2013 08:50 AM (9e+9n)

40 What did Steven say that led to his being evicted from the Green Room? Whatever it was, I agree with him.

Posted by: Shakin' Like a Man on a Fuzzy Tree at January 23, 2013 08:51 AM (eMtQ2)

41 1 Golan Globus,

I'd say it was not coincidence, but neither a causative. The right gets angry with "traitor conservative appointed justices" without understanding that for better or worse the Justices are ducks. The duck will never run down and devour a tiger, because its job is to muckrake the bottom and fly.

Roe v Wade has been taught to a generation of legal students as being just about the maximum acceptable limit of magic thinking allowed by "men of sober conscience wearing the robe." While I disagree and view the creativity they used to magic up a right at the national level wholecloth, I am not a legal instructor Elizabeth Warren is. This leads to the Conservative judiciary being constrained in counter-revolution in the law's interpretation precisely because they are conditioned to defer to the prior overreaches.

Crafting your arguments in such a way that you show harm in the manner that the "Roe" in R v W was, and then having the support of plain language contained therein the document will be a bulletproof forgive the pun method of winning your point at court so long as the liberal faction does not have raw numbers. The crisis the right faces is the margin is razor thin, and if the President's prior appointments are ANY indication the new liberal wing will be even less bound by restraint and deference to prior history than even the Warren court was. "Lawfare" will now be practiced at every level of the Federal legal maze and the existing structure of protections of original intent will be crushed.

I am not excusing Justice Roberts' desperate flailing efforts to find some way not to overturn Obamacare, but I researched and now understand why Larry tribe was so smug about Roberts' actions whether he had contacted and leaned on the Chief Justice or not-the fact of the matter is that Tribe is the one who burnt Roberts' hand to teach him the oven was hot.

Parents have power over their kids for a reason, and "our" Justices are at best the left's wayward kids we adopted.

The Right would be well served nominating State Supreme Court Justices from here on out if Reid destroys the filibuster to exert more ability to have a prior resume of activity.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 08:51 AM (LRFds)

42 5 I predict this comment thread will be filled with jocularity and good natured ribbing.
Posted by: Lurking Canuck at January 23, 2013 08:30 AM (NF2Bf)


Your shit's fucked up and you talk like a fag!

Posted by: Truman North, at 25% battery life at January 23, 2013 08:51 AM (nr/As)

43 Funny to see this right now. I was working on a tweet about this very subject. A liberal woman said to me the other day that when she hears pro-lifers spout the 55 million abortions number, it just reminds her that millions of women have exercised their right to end a pregnancy (her words, not mine) and it would be wrong to rescind a right that has been exercised by so many. I thought about this for a day or two, then realized that many pro-choice people probably would agree with it; but then, the very same people would say that 80 million people exercising THEIR right to own a firearm are wrong, wrong, wrong, and that numbers of people exercising THAT right are meaningless compared to "society's" need to restrict gun ownership.

Can't have it both ways, liberals. And this is where it DOES matter that gun ownership is a right guaranteed by our Constitution, whereas abortion is not. It doesn't matter if 80 million, or 80, or all 350 million people in the U.S. own a gun. WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE AND NON-NEGOTIABLE RIGHT TO DO SO. There is no "natural right" to an abortion.

Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2013 08:51 AM (O/Ize)

44 Again Steven is just saying the tactics are the same. Not the merits.

Posted by: Hobojerky at January 23, 2013 08:52 AM (tmTDE)

45 As I have been advocating Andy, conservative pundits need to go full mad dog crazy on this with the liberals. The common refrain should be OK, the 2nd amendment is plainly written for anyone who can read English. And you maintain it is not a right and it can be abrogated.


IOW you want to trash the Constitution and wit the help of liberal judges appointed by liberal Presidents of both parties you have got your way since FDR was President. Based on that we must now agree with you. The Constitution is trashed. Beginning this year the States with Republican control (Red States) will begin passing laws outlawing Democrats.


And we will ignore the Supreme Court since it is an outgrowth of the Constitution and a bad ruling anyway.

Posted by: Vic at January 23, 2013 08:52 AM (53z96)

46 Hah! at 40. You guys are brutal, that why i like ya!

Posted by: Judge_Roy_bean at January 23, 2013 08:52 AM (v+It9)

47 An interesting question on the symmetry of the arguments regarding the 2nd amendment and abortion.

I'll consider it just as soon as I finish pondering how many angels can dance on the head of this here pin...


Posted by: Nighthawk at January 23, 2013 08:53 AM (RSqz2)

48 Your shit's fucked up and you talk like a fag!
Posted by: Truman North


LOL

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at January 23, 2013 08:53 AM (NF2Bf)

49 Interesting and clever comparison, and one that, now that you've pointed it out, is obvious, though it wasn't obvious to me before.

The analogy extends further: while it's political suicide to demand confiscation of guns (though Mr. Cuomo disagrees), you can advance gun control by degrees. "Oh we just want a registry." "Oh we just want a public listing of who owns guns." "Oh, we just want children to rat out their parents to the pediatrician."

Likewise, the anti-abortion folks can't get Roe v Wade overturned so they work, just the same way, to nibble at the edges, whether it's partial-birth abortion, or parental notification, or public financing, and so on.

Which means in the end, for both arguments the advocates can only succeed by stealth and deceit. That's a sad commentary on American democracy today, eh?

Posted by: Steve White at January 23, 2013 08:54 AM (XB4No)

50 GUILTYYYY!

Posted by: Blind and Retarded Justice at January 23, 2013 08:54 AM (tmTDE)

51 I often make the same case about being consistent on individual liberties. That's why I think Rand Paul is right to nudge the GOP into a more libertarian stance.

We're so good at making the gun rights argument that we can apply them to other things like abortion, marijuana, gay marriage, and regulatory overreach. And why we don't do that more often is beyond me.

Abortion certainly has a moral argument attached to it that simply owning a gun does not. That's a tough hurdle, but I think if you make your arguments consistent about how we view individual liberty and responsibility, it will resonate with a lot of people (read: electoral majorities).

Posted by: bjjfiter at January 23, 2013 08:56 AM (8z3Pa)

52 Abortion is about dead babies, but they're not the only victims of abortion. Women carry that experience to the grave, some being much more affected by the trauma than others.

Has this been factored into the symmetry?

Posted by: Fritz at January 23, 2013 08:56 AM (/ZZCn)

53 29 Lurking Canuck,

I rather enjoyed Lansing Lamont's book on the issue "The Break Up" it argued, quite persuasively I might add that Quebec's exit would in all likelihood obliterate the Confederation with dire results for North America's prosperity. Lamont was, of course, trying to argue for that to be reason enough to cave to Pierre Le Stinque in Quebec City but I took the opposite tack and figured that an unfettered Canadian prairie would finally reach its potential. Demographics says they have missed their opportunity, the "Original Gangsta" Francophones are being diplaced by the Allophonic and non Quebecois Francophonic populations and both see "Froggonian Only" as being a burden on commerce.

I give the language Nazis with their charming little rulers another 10-20 years tops.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 08:56 AM (LRFds)

54 Except the conservative position on both issues is pro-life. So there, genius.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 23, 2013 08:56 AM (ltdV/)

55 Unfortunately, no matter what side of an issue you're on, most people think the best solution is more regulation, laws, rules, etc to limit the side they don't like. Of course when the same tactic is used against them, it's a whole different ballgame.

It seems many laws and rules are just put in place due to major butthurt from the losing side.

Or maybe I'm just not awake enough yet to think coherently.

Posted by: DangerGirl at January 23, 2013 08:57 AM (TggD9)

56 Ron Paul is vehemently pro-life.

Pro-life libertarianism is completely coherent. There is no liberty without life.

Posted by: Blind and Retarded Justice at January 23, 2013 08:57 AM (tmTDE)

57 '54
Except the conservative position on both issues is pro-life. So there, genius.'

Wut?

Posted by: Zippity Doo Dah at January 23, 2013 08:58 AM (E55AK)

58 ::::3 Which Amendment ensures that the right to dismember a child in its mother's womb "shall not be infringed"?
Posted by: Thorvald at January 23, 2013 08:30 AM (1V6Pv)::::

He specifically asked you not to bring that up, presumably because it makes the "symmetry" fall apart. Frankly, I fail to see the tight similarity between judicial activism which used extremely tortured reasoning to infer a right to infanticide, and a plainly worded, enshrined right in our Founding Document.

Unless your argument is that both issues, at various times, involved lawyers and courts. Umm, okay.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 08:58 AM (mOyDx)

59 O/T ... the senate live feed is up on Fox, everyone just milling around getting settled in right now, no sound yet. Supposed to be up on C-span 3 at 9et.

Posted by: and irresolute at January 23, 2013 08:58 AM (DBH1h)

60 I don't think the two issues are similar except in the way that opponents will nibble around the edges of the issue if they can't take a big bite---and really that's all big issues.

I really take issue with the "unjust and unnecessary deaths" part.

Guns cause unjust and unnecessary deaths, of course, but that's a bug, a side effect, and to some extent a coincidence---plenty of murders and suicides that have been done with guns would've been done with something else. And anyway, the right acknowledges this. We get that there's a risk, with every gun and every gun owner, that a moment of poor judgment, or error or evil will result in tragedy and we take steps to mitigate that risk where we reasonably can.

With abortion, the unjust and unnecessary deaths aren't just a feature, they're the only feature! And what's more, the left refuses to acknowledge these deaths are such---they just claim they're not unjust or unnecessary, they claim they're not even deaths, or at least not human deaths.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 23, 2013 08:59 AM (b+8h9)

61 Ok, I know this is totally unrelated, but where is all the affordable 7.62 x 51 mm ammo?

I called a buddy in Texas, he said it was all bought up by the 'gummit" . I told him don't get that tinfoil hat too near the microwave, you may catch fire!

However he may be right. With thart said I hoping it is a combination of the Christmas rush and gun owners trying to duck Sotero's latest gun grab.

Posted by: Judge_Roy_bean at January 23, 2013 08:59 AM (v+It9)

62
Mr. Den Beste,

I miss your thoughtful and reasoned posts from the USS Clueless days. And I know many others feel the same way. Your posts on Energy, Innovations, and Terrorism helped shape my thinking and my ability to ask the important questions. If you ever decide to post more, please ask Ace or Glenn to host them.

Your postswill be worth it.

Posted by: rd at January 23, 2013 08:59 AM (zLp5I)

63
I sure wish I could post a link, but if any of you stop by the Tatler check out the Roe V Wade anniversary ad from the Center for Reproductive Rights.
It is definately racist, chauvinistic and something between laughable and sad.
This suave, handsome black man seductively talks about an anniversary which turns out to be the anniversary of R V W, and finishes with "Happy anniversary, baby."
Astonishing.

Posted by: Justamom of the LiB camp at January 23, 2013 09:00 AM (Sptt8)

64 Frankly, I want to quit. I need to pack up my Constitution, flag, and gunsand go somewhere THEY ain't at. Any suggestions? A lot of people I talk to say Idaho...I'm thinking Utah.
Of course Oklahoma is 100% red countywise.
The fact that I have to breathe the same air as those pricks is making me sick. Whatever happened to the Clean Air Act? Whatever happened to the Right of Association?

Posted by: torabora at January 23, 2013 09:00 AM (t4veC)

65 I would add that both of these issues are front and center in the separation of Blue and Red states. Which is all the more reason why we should be able to beat senseless the 7 Democrat Senators from red states who are up for reelection in 2014. And I can't WAIT to see whoever the Dems throw up against Pat Toomey trying to defend Obama's gun-grabbing in Pennsylvania. LOL

Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2013 09:01 AM (O/Ize)

66 We don't need to stinking facts!!! Give it to me fast and dirty...

Posted by: low info voter. at January 23, 2013 09:02 AM (UZQM8)

67 #63 They played that ad and analyzed, er, trashed it on "The Five" yesterday. Even Bob Beckel thought it was atrocious and counter-productive to the pro-abortion side.

Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2013 09:02 AM (O/Ize)

68 And, of course, the sides are opposite on each. Defense of abortion is a left-wing position, whereas defense of gun rights is generally considered to be right-wing. (And of course, there are loads of exceptions in both cases.)


"loads of exceptions" is a loaded gun

I think in most cases, it is simply the loudest and most ubiquitous group that gets heard, and how you are defining "left wing" and "right wing" "sides."

The libs.

I still think the majority believes in the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment.

And, I also think most people will not oppose abortion under certain circumstances.

Both abortion proponents and anti-gun fanatics are loud and obnoxious.

No one is speaking for all of the rest. The media has a lock on that. As does the invisible shield of protection the libs enjoy -- as they guilt you to death with emo.

Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 09:03 AM (LpQbZ)

69 I am so glad English has those super safe gun laws.

http://tinyurl.com/a8834hp

Imagine if this man had been able to defend himself.

Posted by: gigg at January 23, 2013 09:03 AM (41VCE)

70
What did Steven say that led to his being evicted from the Green Room? Whatever it was, I agree with him.
Posted by: Shakin' Like a Man on a Fuzzy Tree




My take from the comments I read as it was happening...

Hotair management purged the green room at the back-end of last year of everyone who was too conservative, with no advance notice to the bloggers. Then they tried to turn it into an Ed and Allah longform twitter feed with no commenting allowed, until the hue and cry forced them to promise to turn comments back on.

Oh, and the awful Jazz Shaw got leveled up to co-blogger.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 23, 2013 09:04 AM (kdS6q)

71 8 Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 08:33 AM (LRFds)


Listen to Levin's show from yesterday. He plays a few select SCOAMF speech soundbites and plays most of Reagan's speech from '81.

The contrast could not be more stark; and the left's vision more terrifying.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 09:04 AM (XkWWK)

72 44 Again Steven is just saying the tactics are the same. Not the merits.
Posted by: Hobojerky at January 23, 2013 08:52 AM (tmTDE)

But I don't necessarily think they are. One one issue you have supporters saying, "These are my rights, do not infringe," and opponents saying, "We don't care because those rights are icky." On the other you have supporters saying, "These are my rights, do not infringe," and opponents saying, "But what about the rights of the other people involved?"

"You're rights are icky and we don't like them" versus "the rights of other people conflict with yours" isn't quite the same tactic. What the author seems to be suggesting symmetry for is less the actual tactics of the various sides so much as the timeline of events.

Issue A has support and opposition, goes to court, court says it's ok, issue A still has opposition :: Issue B has support and opposition, goes to court, court says it's ok, issue B still has opposition

That's not tactics, it's timeline or sequence of events.

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at January 23, 2013 09:04 AM (qFpRI)

73 Bob Menendez licking the Hillary snatch as we speak.

Posted by: Opus An Arcus at January 23, 2013 09:05 AM (5Tgpu)

74 On the abortion front I really do not have a dog in that fight. My belief is that it all boils down to when you believe an embryo becomes a "person". I think it is largely a religious issue. But what I do know is the court cases leading up to overthrow of the State laws were absolute bull shit of made up crap.


Roe v Wade was based primarily on Stare Decisis and Griswold v Connecticut. The latter case found some magic right to privacy among the penumbras and emantions of the Constitution. Sure the CT law was a damn bad law. But, so what? If the people of CT are that stupid let them suffer.


But they first found this right to privacy and then that enabled the "right" to an abortion. Both cases are shit and Starre Decisis creep has no buisness in appellate jurisprudence. (That is also how we got Kelo)


But thanks to elections by the FSA it is going to be virtually impossible to get rid of any of this shit. It is time for an Art V convention before we have a revolution.

Posted by: Vic at January 23, 2013 09:06 AM (53z96)

75 Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 23, 2013 09:04 AM (kdS6q

Figured it was something like that. Thanks.

Posted by: Shakin' Like a Man on a Fuzzy Tree at January 23, 2013 09:07 AM (eMtQ2)

76 Love the official bilingualism in Quebec!
Posted by: Thorvald at January 23, 2013 08:32 AM (1V6Pv)


LOL, but, in reality, there is no such thing.

Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 09:07 AM (LpQbZ)

77 70 LDC,

Part of the reason Poppin' Fresh and I split paths was his inferiority to SDB, and Watt's up with that on the energy issue. Tepid is not as entertaining as here, and neither Ed nor AP offer anywhere near the precise reasoned insight of Watt or Den-Beste or even Ace when the ewok has his dancing shoes on.

Hotair takes hit whoring to a new level.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 09:07 AM (LRFds)

78 Can we trade DrewM for Steven Den Beste?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 09:07 AM (mOyDx)

79 #63 RvW is black genocide. Now since they vote Dem 93%+ I'm not sure there is a problem there. I just wish we could get the other Dems to follow suit. This problem of Dems destroying the country would end with them destroying themselves. Maybe we can give taxpayer funded euthansia to registered Dems? They'd probably line up to get the latest free shit. That way we get them to rid the world of themselves on the front end and back end and all we have to do is pay for it. Maybe the last one alive would off themselves when the program runs out of takers. I'm getting pissed. rant\

Posted by: torabora at January 23, 2013 09:08 AM (t4veC)

80 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 23, 2013 09:08 AM (/eBe8)

81 The one thing lurking in the background of all this anti-gun community organizing going on by the Obamans - and make no mistake, that is what it is - is that they actually LIKE the existence of the Second Amendment. I fear that their real goal is to make a majority of low-information, easily-manipulated people believe that the entire Constitution is antiquated and that it is a hindrance to a better America. Eventually, I guarantee that the mask will slip from either Obama himself or one of his key lieutenants on this. They are going to try to convince Americans that the Second Amendment is proof that the entire Constitution is wrong, and those of us clinging to it are backwards troglodytes who are on the wrong side of history.

Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2013 09:09 AM (O/Ize)

82 #73...need brain bleach now. Thanks.

Posted by: torabora at January 23, 2013 09:10 AM (t4veC)

83 I would be happy to have another separation referendum, but this time for the Rest of Canada, with 'Get the fuck out' being option one.
Posted by: Lurking Canuck at January 23, 2013 08:47 AM (NF2Bf)



amen to that

and half of the quebeckers would leave quebec as well

Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 09:11 AM (LpQbZ)

84 83: Hey, Hill's cooter could probably use a good Cloroxing too!

Posted by: Opus An Arcus at January 23, 2013 09:12 AM (5Tgpu)

85 Wow, he's really going to town on her beef curtains now.

Posted by: Opus An Arcus at January 23, 2013 09:12 AM (5Tgpu)

86 Re: tactics vs. merits

The two issues still aren't the same. The right defends the second amendment based on the principle that we've all agreed to follow a constitution that allows us all a given right. We argue that we all have the same right to bear arms.

The left argues for its issue, abortion, based on the principle that we've all agreed to follow a constitution that allows *some* of usl some given rights---the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. They argue that we don't all have the same right to life; only those people who are either wanted by their mothers, or over a certain size, or do not have certain "defects" like Down Syndrome have the right to life.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 23, 2013 09:12 AM (b+8h9)

87 Eventually, I guarantee that the mask will slip from
either Obama himself or one of his key lieutenants on this. They are
going to try to convince Americans that the Second Amendment is proof
that the entire Constitution is wrong, and those of us clinging to it
are backwards troglodytes who are on the wrong side of history.

Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2013 09:09 AM (O/Ize)



Barry has said, in the past, that the Constitution is deeply flawed. He will vigorously pursue his leftist agenda at the expense of the country. The MFM will cheer him on and destroy anyone who attempts to stand in his way. And right now enough cretins buy into the bullshit

Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 23, 2013 09:12 AM (1Jaio)

88 Do 2A supporters have Whoopi Goldberg screeching about her "bush" while waving a coat hanger?

Plushie pink vagina suits?

The tactics, they are different.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 09:13 AM (mOyDx)

89 86- Damn you I wanted to say meat curtains again, you suck.

Posted by: gigg at January 23, 2013 09:14 AM (41VCE)

90 Hillary getting ass kissed at the Senate committee in FOX right now.

Posted by: mallfly at January 23, 2013 09:15 AM (jDjlM)

91 I bet they are tongue-punching her fart box.

Posted by: gigg at January 23, 2013 09:16 AM (41VCE)

92 71) J.J. Sefton,

I may, I purposefully have not listened to Levin, Limbaugh, or the news much because I was soul searching over what I feel the correct course of action is.

I've decided, for the sake of clarity and not to hype my own standing I am not advocating the initiation of any act of overt violence against the general public or government of the United States.

I will spend the rest of my political life trying actively to depower the Federal government and undermine its usurped power by every moral means necessary as a way to agitate for an Article V convention, and will lobby openly when my family leaves federal service for the the secession of states who are tired of the federal Government's extra-Constitutional assault on their ability to generate wealth by usurped regulatory means.

If asked by a federal agent or officer I will invoke the 5th amendment while it is the more sensible course of action, and will openly admit my intentions when we are more isolated from potential retribution by the forces therein.

It is my sincere, heartfelt analysis that at least 30% of the electorate could not pass the US citizenship test I aided the immigrant community in study for as a young man and I no longer trust the Blue states to honor the contract the people have with the Federal government to allow the states to conduct the majority of law making.

I am slowly reconciling myself to pay no more honor to the federal government than i felt was owed to the Soviet Union.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 09:17 AM (LRFds)

93 Fact 1) - They will never be able to take all our guns ...

Fact 2) - If they were really afraid of legal Gun owners ,
They wouldn't hold public forums to discuss the reasons
for confiscation...

Fact 3) - There true Fear of guns is raced based....

Posted by: American Dawg at January 23, 2013 09:17 AM (trA4n)

94 92: Yeah, they're moving on to a Rusty Clarinet.

Posted by: Opus An Arcus at January 23, 2013 09:17 AM (5Tgpu)

95 Republican National Committee meeting in town. Got invited to reception tonight. I guess when you pissed away as much money as I did on these idiots they feel sorry for you.

Will report on it on the ONT.

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at January 23, 2013 09:17 AM (wR+pz)

96 They're treating her better than Slick Willie ever has

Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 23, 2013 09:17 AM (1Jaio)

97 Abortion is about dead babies, but they're not the only victims of abortion. Women carry that experience to the grave, some being much more affected by the trauma than others.

Has this been factored into the symmetry?
Posted by: Fritz at January 23, 2013 08:56 AM (/ZZCn)



And, so many regret it "when they grow up."

Sad, really. Immaturity plays a role in abortions.

Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 09:17 AM (LpQbZ)

98 Bob Menendez licking the Hillary snatch as we speak.

Posted by: Opus An Arcus at January 23, 2013 09:05 AM (5Tgpu)


Bob's a real favorite of Dominican hookers and sex offenders he hires as interns. Good choice to represent the donks imo.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 09:18 AM (j8wNz)

99
Hey Sven,

To answer a question on the last thread: yes, I also am a fan of Three Kingdoms.

Posted by: Grey Fox at January 23, 2013 09:18 AM (hJesl)

100
Republican National Committee meeting in town. Got invited to reception tonight.
Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual





The Lord and Masters of the Party probably expect you to park cars and bus tables...

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 23, 2013 09:19 AM (kdS6q)

101 95 - She might leave a little mud on their helmets.

Posted by: gigg at January 23, 2013 09:20 AM (41VCE)

102
This is sophistry at best. Maybe a strange sorta vague connection exists, but only if you vague everything up (in a sense.) I suppose that's the new normal of argumentation, but I don't like it. Maybe if it convinces a few libtards (who weren't otherwise going to be swung on abortion anyway) to see the issue with gun control, maybe it's worth it.
To be clear, I don't think that makes it "bad" (I'm all for novel approaches to argumentation) but I think it shoots itself in the foot in a sense.
Consider that there is signficiant overlap between "pro-Life" and "Pro-Gun" (like the overlap is stronger for "Pro-Life, Gun lovers" than it is for "gun loving pro-lifers" if that distinction makes any sense. In any case it's meaningless at this point.)
To sucessfully fend off the "Anti-Gun horde" (for whom it doesn't matter if they're pro-life or pro-abortion) you need to form a successful coalition amongst all "Pro-Gun" people, regardless of their views of abortion. This undercuts that in a big way.
As I mentioned, it's sophistry, cool word tricks (that were fairly obvious at the outset, I expected the "ohhh! hah, see this is about abortion or gun conrol" early on). But it's going to be nothing but babble to a pro-lifer. To those who believe life begins at conception (or even implantation) these issues couldn't be farther apart. Proper gun ownership by me does not infringe upon any one else's rights. Proper abortion (to a pro-lifer at least) infringes upon the unborn child's right to life. (Protection against counter-snark: Lethal self defense is not an infringement upon the attacker's right to life, as there is a well accepted norm of using force to protect oneself against harm. There is simply no connection here. Simply put, actions by a person can put inperil their right to life, legitamately, a fetus is not capable of such action.)
By conflating these issues you're driving a wedge in your coalition, which now factured, will be over taken by the united front on the other side. (It's also possible you'd move some strong Pro-life/weak gun-rights people over the line in the wrong direction, but I think that number is small enough to not be important.)

So, meh, interesting thought experiment, but horrible outcome.

Posted by: tsrblke at January 23, 2013 09:20 AM (GaqMa)

103 I have been thinking and posting the same thing. It's all to protect the children, right up until we are talking about turning them into hamburger before they are born.

Additionally, they are not exactly symmetrical, one is a clearly delineated right, the other is a "penumbra."

Posted by: gulfkraken at January 23, 2013 09:20 AM (WBfjO)

104 @98

Not so sure about all of that. Women are so selfish now, that it's all about them. I know several who have had abortions. They look at it as a root canal or something. Total disconnect.

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at January 23, 2013 09:20 AM (wR+pz)

105 Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at January 23, 2013 09:17 AM (wR+pz)

I realized how bad the Republican party has gotten when my Romney/Ryan bumper sticker and decal order arrived three weeks after the election.

I hang up on them now.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 23, 2013 09:20 AM (GsoHv)

106 If it was my decision to determine who would best be able to run a death camp, I'd pick the woman-who-has-had-5-or-more-abortions over a gun criminal.

Tactics indeed.

Posted by: Fritz at January 23, 2013 09:20 AM (/ZZCn)

107 Fact 3) - There true Fear of guns is raced based....


---------

Well, there's some symmetry at least. The left fears guns and supports abortion for racial reasons.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 23, 2013 09:20 AM (b+8h9)

108 100 Grey Fox,

hey great glad to hear it, I feared it went over like a fart in Church.

It is probably my favorite work of historical fiction from a non-Anglic source.

Hope you enjoy the series.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 09:21 AM (LRFds)

109 The Lord and Masters of the Party probably expect you to park cars and bus tables...


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 23, 2013 09:19 AM (kdS6q)

They better have an open bar, just saying, I bought my bartenders coat.

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at January 23, 2013 09:21 AM (wR+pz)

110 I realized how bad the Republican party has gotten when my Romney/Ryan bumper sticker and decal order arrived three weeks after the election.
---------------------------
LOL
That's fucking priceless. I'm glad I sent in money. Fucking jerks.

Posted by: gigg at January 23, 2013 09:21 AM (41VCE)

111 I think that part of the symmetry here is conjecture because the fight is for the hearts and minds of people who rightly think that the immovable forces on both sides are morons, though we're stuck with a media that only divulges half of that equation.

Posted by: Zippity Doo Dah at January 23, 2013 09:22 AM (E55AK)

112 Tepid is not as entertaining as here, and neither Ed
nor AP offer anywhere near the precise reasoned insight of Watt or
Den-Beste or even Ace when the ewok has his dancing shoes on.

Hotair takes hit whoring to a new level.


Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 09:07 AM (LRFds)


One of the biggest fucking wastes of my time was hanging around that dump for one of its open enrollment windows. It was before AllahPander and Poppin' went on one of their purges while giving the trolls free passes. I never got banned so I can still go back there and tell them all to go fuck themselves if I'm ever terminally bored.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 09:22 AM (j8wNz)

113 Bob's a real favorite of Dominican hookers and sex offenders he hires as interns. Good choice to represent the donks imo.

Yes. Since Domincan hoes most likely douche with mole sauce, Menendez was able to go into the Hillary whisker-biscuit sans snorkle.

Posted by: Opus An Arcus at January 23, 2013 09:22 AM (5Tgpu)

114 Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 09:17 AM (LRFds)


I hear you. If I could, I would insist on being paid in cash only - that is IF I can find steady work. We are most definitely in post-Constitutional America. All the masks and pretense of the left and its media/culture arm are now off, and they are in full-throated glee at the prospect of destroying the republic and the rights of the individual.

What our next moves are - considering we do not have a political party or an independent judiciary to hear our cause - are anyone's guess.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 09:22 AM (XkWWK)

115 Hotair management purged the green room at the back-end of last year of everyone who was too conservative, with no advance notice to the bloggers. Then they tried to turn it into an Ed and Allah longform twitter feed with no commenting allowed, until the hue and cry forced them to promise to turn comments back on.

Oh, and the awful Jazz Shaw got leveled up to co-blogger.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 23, 2013 09:04 AM (kdS6q)



It's sad, really. HotAir used to be my first goto in the a.m. when Michelle was still there, Ed and Allah. Then I tried, I really did, but gave up. I rarely go there, now. Nothing peaks my interest.

Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 09:23 AM (LpQbZ)

116 A little bit of a sidebar question related to this topic. Re abortion, why don't we conservatives ever go after the fact that the law is biased against men? The feminists defend abortion with arguments of equality, so it seems rather logical to turn the argument around on them with that same equality. What if a man wants a woman to have an abortion but she refuses? In that scenario he should be able to file an official protest and in so doing waives all rights as the father and also becomes exempt from child care. I have never even once heard this argument put forth anywhere. If abortion is legal this seems only fair.

Posted by: Andrew at January 23, 2013 09:23 AM (HS3dy)

117 Can we trade DrewM for Steven Den Beste?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 09:07 AM (mOyDx)

We might have to toss in some first round draft picks.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 23, 2013 09:24 AM (l86i3)

118 101 Laurie David's Cervix,

Not quite that bad, but you are expected to listen not talk unless you are a superstar donor and even with the amounts I slung I am not there yet....not even a quarter of the way actually.

I'm not going if that tells you where my head is at and I've been to two, and have been invited to 4 meetings.

I wrote a fairly coherent letter to my contact explaining that I wanted to thank the national committee for undermining every argument I have made for deference to the GOP for conservatives in just 2 short years.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 09:24 AM (LRFds)

119
Billy Bob, I think some women look at getting an abortion more closely to getting a mani pedi than a root canal.
Except for nail salons are regulated more closely than abortion mills.

Posted by: Justamom of the LiB camp at January 23, 2013 09:24 AM (Sptt8)

120 I think the "symmetry" only exists if you look at the highest levels. As EoJ so eloquently put it:
Plushie pink vagina suits?


I think it's easy to forget that strategy (as opposed to instance specific tactics) includes maneuver and terrain as much or more than it includes actual skirmishes and battles.

This holds true politically as well. For instance: the legislative and litigious tactics are very similar in the same way that two armies fighting in the same location will have similar tactics. It's what happens outside the specific battles and skirmishes that makes up the "strategy." How does one side "maneuver" (which, in these cases, could be correlated with attempting to sway public opinion)? How does the other select terrain (which events do they choose to politicize)?

And on those two the groups are very different.

Pro-life groups point to the fact that Planned Parenthood (the largest Abortion provider in the US, and therefore a fair representative of the species) was the brain-child of Racist Eugenicist Margaret Sanger. We point to the case of Richard Grennell (did I get that name right?) not to say that his abortion mill was representative of all abortion providers, but to point out that the media has an agenda (to whit: to legitimize abortion).

Gun Control groups seize on minor and rare instances (such as school shootings) and try to claim they are representative of gun owners in general. "If we can save even one life!" as it were.

On the other side, Pro-Abortion groups stick to pablum and rhetoric, because they have no facts or figures on their side. Vagina suits may make good theater, but they're hardly reasoned argument.

Gun Rights groups use facts, figures, and positive anecdotes to make their case. They use actual events and reasoned argument.

So while their may be similarities, I do not believe there is "symmetry."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 23, 2013 09:25 AM (/eBe8)

121 They are going to try to convince Americans that the Second Amendment is proof that the entire Constitution is wrong, and those of us clinging to it are backwards troglodytes who are on the wrong side of history.
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2013 09:09 AM (O/Ize)


good point

Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 09:26 AM (LpQbZ)

122 113 I never got banned so I can still go back there and tell them all to go fuck themselves if I'm ever terminally bored.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 09:22 AM (j8wNz)

I got banned after O-care was rammed down our throats/up our asses for writing the word - gasp - "revolution."

I re-registered under a different name and gave Allah-putz a reaming the other day for some idiotic drivel about how Bloomberg can fund Christie's presidential bid in 2016 and it will attract everyone. It was so stupid it Meggie Mac look like a friggin' mensa member.

They truly are useless.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 09:26 AM (XkWWK)

123 Since Domincan hoes most likely douche with mole sauce, Menendez was able to go into the Hillary whisker-biscuit sans snorkle.





Posted by: Opus An Arcus at January 23, 2013 09:22 AM (5Tgpu)


He probably found a barren dusty wasteland with maybe some Vince Foster graffiti on the walls.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 09:27 AM (j8wNz)

124 Posted by: Andrew at January 23, 2013 09:23 AM (HS3dy)

Men lose all rights after the Orgasm. If you don't want to father a child, control your base urges. No birth control is 100%. Most understand that.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 23, 2013 09:28 AM (l86i3)

125 Hmm. Apparently, Hillary!'s strategy is to A) bore folks to death and B) tout the *awesome* job she's done of locking the barn door after the horse has gotten away.

Posted by: Citizen Anachronda at January 23, 2013 09:28 AM (1c58W)

126 news dump

Posted by: Vic at January 23, 2013 09:28 AM (53z96)

127 He probably found a barren dusty wasteland with maybe some Vince Foster graffiti on the walls.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 09:27 AM (j8wNz)

And a framed portrait of Webb Hubbel.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 23, 2013 09:29 AM (l86i3)

128 They truly are useless.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 09:26 AM (XkWWK)
Tits on a boar.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 23, 2013 09:29 AM (GsoHv)

129 If only Sharyl Atkisson were up there questioning Hillary. THAT would be something.

I can't understand how Atkission is still allowed to be on the air on a major MFM outlet.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 09:30 AM (XkWWK)

130 Men lose all rights after the Orgasm. If you don't want to father a child, control your base urges. No birth control is 100%. Most understand that.Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 23, 2013 09:28 AM (l86i3)I read that and thought it was a bad example too.Interesting counter-point though. If I do father a child, decide I'd like to go ahead and raise him or her, (and have sufficient means) I have no rights to do that either.The example of forcing a woman to get an abortion is crappy. Now the example of having to merely sit by and watch your future child get killed, I think is on more much more solid ground.

Posted by: tsrblke at January 23, 2013 09:30 AM (GaqMa)

131 Allen, no, no.

Kermit Gosnell.

Richard Grenell is someone quite different.

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 23, 2013 09:31 AM (SUKHu)

132 129 Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 23, 2013 09:29 AM (GsoHv)


And a couple of boring tits.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 09:31 AM (XkWWK)

133 115) J.J. Sefton,

My opinion? Practice personal generosity to people of good character as much as your means allows, give good service to your community, county, and state while reinforcing the notion that your primary loyalty should be to your state and that the federal government has become a tyrannical beast as subtly as one can muster. Prepare the endure an implosion of at least 90 days in length as a means of showing good civic virtue, and if able husband the resources you can bring to bear to protect those of good character in your new circle from predations of fate that may test their ability to endure to the limit.

Simply put the government cannot match our efficiency in aid and preparation in the same way we can never compete with the federal power straight out.

I want good people to rebuild this ship of freedom when we are shattered on the crash, and if need be I'll settle for a canoe of freedom versus this decaying supertanker of power.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 09:31 AM (LRFds)

134 And a framed portrait of Webb Hubbel.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon.
http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 23, 2013 09:29 AM (l86i3)


I don't know if it's possible to scrape off enough layers to find any evidence that Slick was spelunking there.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 09:31 AM (j8wNz)

135 "I realized how bad the Republican party has gotten when my Romney/Ryan bumper sticker and decal order arrived three weeks after the election. "

At least yours eventually showed up. Mine never did.

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at January 23, 2013 09:31 AM (qFpRI)

136 "Men lose all rights after the Orgasm. If you don't want to father a
child, control your base urges. No birth control is 100%. Most
understand that."

You're missing the point of my question. From a perspective of tactic this seems like a good approach to go after... relentlessly point out that the current law is just another form of men protecting women as they are incapable of doing it for themselves.

Posted by: Andrew at January 23, 2013 09:32 AM (HS3dy)

137 :::113 Tepid is not as entertaining as here, and neither Ed
nor AP offer anywhere near the precise reasoned insight of Watt or
Den-Beste or even Ace when the ewok has his dancing shoes on.

Hotair takes hit whoring to a new level.


Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 09:07 AM (LRFds)

One of the biggest fucking wastes of my time was hanging around that dump for one of its open enrollment windows. It was before AllahPander and Poppin' went on one of their purges while giving the trolls free passes. I never got banned so I can still go back there and tell them all to go fuck themselves if I'm ever terminally bored.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 09:22 AM (j8wNz)::::

I can't imagine you as a Hot Air commenter. How could you contain your disgust at the posters and other commenters enough to not get banned?

I'd blame Michelle Malkin for selling it, but it went to shit long before the sale, but as soon as she realized she had a salable commodity.

There's just no excuse for AllahPussy. He USED to be hilarious and had a pair of balls. And it seems he traded them in for a pay check.

Bitch.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 09:32 AM (mOyDx)

138 I can't understand how Atkission is still allowed to be on the air on a major MFM outlet.





Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 09:30 AM (XkWWK)


She probably has the goods on the rest of those dumbasses.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 09:32 AM (j8wNz)

139 134 Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 09:31 AM (LRFds)


Be safe, and don't let the bastards get you down. Off to the showers.

Later, mes frères et soeurs.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 09:32 AM (XkWWK)

140 Steven,

I happen to like both Chizumatic and your longform pieces. I tried pointing out the similarities between the abortion argument - relying on Supreme Court decisions and the similar argument by gun rights people which rely on Heller (and, oh, the Second Amendment)

In the main, they hadn't heard of Heller. But considered themselves Very Well Informed otherwise.

I also pointed out to them that, unlike their issue, I could pick up a copy of the Constitution and actually read about my issue.

I hope Ace gives you the key to the blog.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 23, 2013 09:33 AM (RuUvx)

141 "21 I've thought this for a long time. There's a disturbing amount of dishonesty on both sides, on both issues, really.
Posted by: Zippity Doo Dah at January 23, 2013 08:40 AM (E55AK)"

Really? What dishonesty would that be on the 'follow the Constitution' side that says the 2nd Amendment means what it says, and then backs it up with direct quotes from the people who wrote it?

Posted by: blindside at January 23, 2013 09:33 AM (x7g7t)

142
Posted by: Mama AJ at January 23, 2013 09:31 AM (SUKHu)

I once pointed out to a libtard friend that Sanger was a horrible horrible racist/eugencist (BIRM). He accused me of slandering her.
So we googled (this was during that phase between google and Wikipedia). Found a page that had Sanger's writings, commentary, noted her eugenics positions. My friend cried "it's a baised website." To which another (conservative friend) who was with us said "It's New York University's website, since when are they bastions of conservatism? You find bias everwhere that doesn't fit your worldview. Suck it up, this one is true, and now you have to live with that knowledge."
(I may have the university wrong, but it was some liberal college.)

Posted by: tsrblke at January 23, 2013 09:33 AM (GaqMa)

143 Her personal statement complete with fake tears is over , so let the flogging begin...

Posted by: American Dawg at January 23, 2013 09:34 AM (trA4n)

144 Kermit Gosnell.



Richard Grenell is someone quite different.


D*mn. I knew that was wrong. I was just too lazy to double-check.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 23, 2013 09:35 AM (/eBe8)

145
There's just no excuse for AllahPussy.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff




Give the Devil his due, he is an excellent headline writer. He knows how to draw the clicks.

Of course, once you open the thread and read his "analysis", ye gads!

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 23, 2013 09:36 AM (kdS6q)

146 Does anyone here actually believe that bans on "assault weapons" and efforts to register all guns are common-sense measures as opposed to first steps in a desire among lefties to make gun ownership illegal?

Likewise, could any lefty reasonably believe that a group which opposes morning after pills and abortion in the case of rape is a rational actor with designs on anything other than a complete ban on abortion?

Arguments and facts in both these cases are just bullshit in aid of emotion-driven objectives.

Posted by: Zippity Doo Dah at January 23, 2013 09:37 AM (E55AK)

147 Can't have it both ways, liberals. And this is where it DOES matter that gun ownership is a right guaranteed by our Constitution, whereas abortion is not. It doesn't matter if 80 million, or 80, or all 350 million people in the U.S. own a gun. WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE AND NON-NEGOTIABLE RIGHT TO DO SO. There is no "natural right" to an abortion.
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2013 08:51 AM (O/Ize)

As rational people, we see you can't have it both ways.

Liberals aren't rational - they use the argument to advance their cause, then discard the argument when it is inconvenient to their cause. It's like trying to nail jello to the law because they have no moral code or principles, so they can, and will, do or say anything.

Think of and treat liberals like dogshit because that's what they are.

Posted by: blindside at January 23, 2013 09:37 AM (x7g7t)

148 I don't get the point of the comparison. Sure on a high surface level there are some similarities between tactics on abortion and gun rights. Also some rather glaring ironies. There is no way to use these similarities to somehow marry the two issues though... so what's the point other than academics?

Posted by: Andrew at January 23, 2013 09:37 AM (HS3dy)

149 117 A little bit of a sidebar question related to this topic. Re abortion, why don't we conservatives ever go after the fact that the law is biased against men? The feminists defend abortion with arguments of equality, so it seems rather logical to turn the argument around on them with that same equality. What if a man wants a woman to have an abortion but she refuses? In that scenario he should be able to file an official protest and in so doing waives all rights as the father and also becomes exempt from child care. I have never even once heard this argument put forth anywhere. If abortion is legal this seems only fair.


---------------

It doesn't work because abortion isn't primarily about avoiding parenthood; it's about ending pregnancy and controlling one's own body.

Adoption is about avoiding parenthood and that's where the bias against men is. Men who would like to parent their children sometimes end up with baby being placed for adoption with the mother claiming not to know who the father is. Or if they do manage to get their own baby back, family courts are usually not as aggressive with child support for a mother.

No one gets to just say "nope, don't want this baby, I waive all my rights and responsibilities to him or her" before he or she is born, so it wouldn't be "only fair" if men got to do that. And women don't (or at least shouldn't) get to just dump their kids with the father and say "your problem, bud, I told you to have a vasectomy" and not pay child support, so it wouldn't be fair to let men say "I told you to have an abortion, no child support".

Even though I hate abortion, I get that the argument involves not just babies but everything a woman goes through in pregnancy and birth. Biology isn't fair, and pro-abortion people try to make it fair. They fail.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 23, 2013 09:39 AM (b+8h9)

150 147 Does anyone here actually believe that bans on "assault weapons" and efforts to register all guns are common-sense measures as opposed to first steps in a desire among lefties to make gun ownership illegal?

Posted by: Zippity Doo Dah at January 23, 2013 09:37 AM (E55AK)

Yes - do you know why? Because that's what they have lead to in other countries. That and the statemens of liberals that they would like to ban all guns - as Diane Feinstein once stated.

Learn your history before you open your mouth, idiot.

Posted by: blindside at January 23, 2013 09:39 AM (x7g7t)

151 I can't imagine you as a Hot Air commenter. How
could you contain your disgust at the posters and other commenters
enough to not get banned?



I'd blame Michelle Malkin for selling it, but it went to shit long
before the sale, but as soon as she realized she had a salable
commodity.



There's just no excuse for AllahPussy. He USED to be hilarious and
had a pair of balls. And it seems he traded them in for a pay check.



Bitch.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 09:32 AM (mOyDx)


I can mind my manners when that's the lay of the land (Mother Hate would be appalled at my language and state "He wasn't raised that way" while being secretly pleased that I can express myself in coherent sentences) although obviously I prefer unfettered profanity. You're right about how the place used to be and then it just got boring and pussified. It's funny that sometimes I see some of their current twatty posters refer to this place like it's where the wild things hang out.

Btw, nice anniversary vid. Your kids look wonderful and you obviously married well.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 09:40 AM (j8wNz)

152 Men lose all rights after the Orgasm. If you don't
want to father a child, control your base urges. No birth control is
100%. Most understand that.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon.
http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 23, 2013 09:28 AM (l86i3)

Oh, yeah? You got sperm that can go though a cut off dick?

Posted by: Mr Vasectomy at January 23, 2013 09:40 AM (wR+pz)

153 I'm going to disagree about AP - I think he frames the issues cogently.

I might not agree with the outcomes or strategies, but I've found his summary of the issues to be good.

Ed reads a bit like he's doing a term paper. I haven't detected any particular passion for any particular cause/issue that elevates his writing to Ace-on-a-Benderesque level.

- but, then, I'm a moron.
_

Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 23, 2013 09:40 AM (RuUvx)

154 fwiw -

I characterized the anti-gun position back to a friend as "So, basically, your position is 'Just Say No' - but with guns."

Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 23, 2013 09:42 AM (RuUvx)

155 155- Gun abstinence? Nice parallel.

Posted by: gulfkraken at January 23, 2013 09:43 AM (WBfjO)

156
Does anyone here actually believe that bans on "assault weapons" and
efforts to register all guns are common-sense measures as opposed to
first steps in a desire among lefties to make gun ownership illegal?




Do you understand why the second amendment exists?

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 09:44 AM (j8wNz)

157 "Learn your history before you open your mouth, idiot."

Right after you learn how to read, moron.

Posted by: Zippity Doo Dah at January 23, 2013 09:46 AM (E55AK)

158 Thanks, Cap'n. She's a wonderful woman with extremely poor judgment, which is right in my wheelhouse.

And I know you're smart enough to not have to "work blue," but I know you don't suffer fools, and that's the biggest pack of fools on the Internet this side of Hiffington Post.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 09:47 AM (mOyDx)

159 Men lose all rights after the Orgasm.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon.
http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 23, 2013 09:28 AM (l86i3)


What's the definition of eternity?

The time between when you come and she leaves.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 23, 2013 09:47 AM (GsoHv)

160 "Do you understand why the second amendment exists?"

What's your point?

Posted by: Zippity Doo Dah at January 23, 2013 09:48 AM (E55AK)

161 Btw, nice anniversary vid. Your kids look wonderful and you obviously married well.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 09:40 AM (j8wNz)

They clearly got her looks.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 23, 2013 09:50 AM (GsoHv)

162 >> (I may have the university wrong, but it was some liberal college.)

You're right, it's NYU. I used the same resource in my Attenborough post yesterday.

Posted by: Andy at January 23, 2013 09:51 AM (ytax8)

163 Hey, yutz! Guns aren't toys.

They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face.

- the point of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the Gubmint from exercising untrammeled power.
_

Posted by: Krusty the Clown at January 23, 2013 09:52 AM (RuUvx)

164 161 Zippity Doo Dah,

That your attempt to undermine the plain original intent of the founders with regards to manpack shoulder fired weaponry by extra-Constitutional means is the very definition of Tyranny the founders enumerated the right to thwart.

IOW for the sake of brevity what your stupidity is saying to people who understand what the federal government is and is not is "destroy my party."

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 09:52 AM (LRFds)

165 And I know you're smart enough to not have to "work
blue," but I know you don't suffer fools, and that's the biggest pack of
fools on the Internet this side of Hiffington Post.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 09:47 AM (mOyDx)


When places get too boring I just leave. That applies both on the internet and in real life (marital vows overrule all). I may still have a working account at Little Green Nerfballs although the pony-tailed bike-riding turd may have banned me in absentia when he was trolling to see what people were saying about him, because I don't even go back there out of curiosity of finding out the extent of degradation..

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 09:54 AM (j8wNz)

166 What's your point?


Posted by: Zippity Doo Dah at January 23, 2013 09:48 AM (E55AK)


It exists to protect you against the state; assault weapons included.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 09:55 AM (j8wNz)

167 165 sven...


I have no idea what you're babbling about. My entire point was that progressives have their designs on taking all guns, regardless of their more benign posture. Likewise, the Jesus zombies want to ban abortion, regardless of how, like the left on guns, they invest time in tinkering around the edges.

Posted by: Zippity Doo Dah at January 23, 2013 09:59 AM (E55AK)

168 I got banned after O-care was rammed down our throats/up our asses for writing the word - gasp - "revolution."


Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 09:26 AM (XkWWK)
Exactly what happened to me - suggested that the problem wasn't lack of term limits, it was the electorate itself, and that it would probably take a revolution to fix it.Have to wonder what they think of George Washington.

Posted by: Shakin' Like a Man on a Fuzzy Tree at January 23, 2013 10:00 AM (eMtQ2)

169 @43, you say that like the liberals give a damn about the Constitution. They don't, they never have. Constitution has a long history of abuse. Countless laws on the books right now are blatantly unconstitutional. But who is the check and balance?

Like look at the birther issue. And don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying Obama is foreign-born. But look at all the controversy there. Regardless of where Obama was or wasn't born, the fact is he was a douche bag and refused to release records showing his history. Well, where is the agency that vets presidential candidates to see if they are "eligible" or not? Nothing like this exists! It's just Congress. Obama said "I was born in Hawaii" and that was the end of it. They didn't ask to see records, they didn't perform an investigation. It was just this man's word. What does natural born citizen even mean? Some say born on US soil, some say both parents must be citizens and location born doesn't matter, some say born on US soil and parents must be citizens.

Constitution says war must be declared by congress. How many places do we have troops where war hasn't been declared?

Where the hell did executive orders come from? That isn't in the Constitution anywhere. A manager always has to give his personnel instructions. Since Washington presidents have written letters giving directions to people under their charge. But starting with Lincoln these letters changed into something that gave them the same weight as legislation and force of law. And then it's been incrementalism since that time, later a numbering scheme was created and an official title for these letters. Today the letters aren't at the level of legislation passed by Congress, but they aren't far behind. Give it a few more years. Especially with someone like Obama pushing the envelope the EOs gain more and more power over Congress.

Where the heck did the Fed come from? Department of Education? TSA? Unlawful search and seizure? Patriot Act? SOPA? Subsidies for farmers? What about existing gun laws? Automatic weapons for example aren't illegal but they are taxed to the point that it's the same thing. 2nd amendment doesn't specify the type of arms, it just says arms. And back in the day private citizen organized militias had cannons and all the same weapons of war that the feds had.

I would agree that a citizen should not have a WMD of course, but there is nothing in the Constitution to address something like this. There should be a specific amendment added for WMDs and a clear definition of what constitutes a WMD... anything nuclear or chemical. I don't have a problem with citizens having fully automatic rifles though. Why not? The gangs have them illegally. And fact is any semi-auto weapon can be made full auto with some rather simple mods. So if someone wants it they will get it.

Long story short, very little of the Constitution is still followed. How many of our Reps have even read the Constitution cover to cover? It's not a big document. If you were to randomly ask them about a specific amendment how many could even give you a high level gist of what that amendment says? A handful at most.

The only people in government who study the Constitution are on the supreme court, and they are partisan hacks that spend all their time trying to figure out how to bend the Constitution to justify what they want to do.

Posted by: Andrew at January 23, 2013 10:01 AM (HS3dy)

170 Biggest difference without getting into morality, merits etc is the media's influence on each issue. A protest of hundreds of thousands in support or opposition to either results in widely divergent coverage - and often public events supporting gun rights or opposing abortion are entirely sunk into the memory hole.

Posted by: Bigby's Itchy Trigger Finger at January 23, 2013 10:11 AM (3ZtZW)

171 @150, "It doesn't work because abortion isn't primarily about avoiding
parenthood; it's about ending pregnancy and controlling one's own body"

But the baby is part of the man's body too? I get what you're saying, but if that is the rationale, then we're openly sanctioning murder because the baby happens to occupying someone else's body?

If the mother has the right to abort the baby against the will of the father, father should have the same right to terminate his responsibilities.

Posted by: Andrew at January 23, 2013 10:12 AM (HS3dy)

172 Sorry,
No symmetry here. The major restrictions that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld on abortion include public funding prohibition, conscience amendments that allow individuals and facilities to refuse to perform abortions, a 24 hour waiting period, and parental consent with a judicial override. The only real restriction is that abortions after viability can be prevented (see third tier analysis of the balancing test) which was in the original Roe decision anyway.

Re 2nd Amendment mirror image--imagine court claims that public funding for firearms as self defense restricts a right to chose proper self defense weapons within the penumbras of the 2nd, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th, amendments. Conscience laws permit people and corporations objecting to icky self defense rights not to buy, own, or sell guns nor allow workers to have guns either. Since the penumbras dictate it, a juvenile under 18 cannot get a gun without parental permission but only if the state allows a judge to determine whether or not the youth is mature enough for the judge to allow them to buy a gun. Using a gun to end the viability of another, however, could result in criminal charges. Ammunition limits, types of weapons (surgical procedures), prohibition of vague laws, magazine limits, etc. could all result in an undue burden on the right to choose a firearm.

One last fact, prior to the last two court decisions of Heller and MacDonald, the NRA notoriously stayed out of most court battles because it reasoned that it had political clout on the Hill and state legislatures. They did not want to risk a negative decision by the Supreme Court that would harm legislation in Congress. NARAL is not a mirror image of NRA popularity as NARAL demands that plans cover abortions nearly sank Obamacare and so on. Abortion legislation extending abortion rights have generally floundered except in the most liberal states--California and New York. Abortion rights activists do their thing in court primarily.

BTW--so called pattern litigation did not start with Roe--see Muller v. Oregon and the Brandeis brief. This was later used by the NAACP for the pattern litigation over segregation. Likewise ACLU for freedom of speech and removal of religious faith from the public square. Since then, every group seeking legal change has adopted this strategy as par for the course. Unfortunately, there are a lot fewer conservative legal groups pushing for originalist legal change than those seeking an open ended Constitution.

Posted by: wg at January 23, 2013 10:20 AM (5hfZT)

173 The big difference, of course, is that abortion and gun ownership are not comparable.

The *point* of abortion is to end a life. That was the reason for Obama's post-natal-abortion bill in Illinois: to ensure that the child's life ended, even if the abortion procedure itself did not accomplish that goal.

However, the *point* of gun ownership is much more diverse: recreation, sport, and the preservation of life. Using guns to assault and murder is contrary to the purpose of gun ownership.

So, guns and abortion are simply not comparable.

Posted by: Brown Line at January 23, 2013 10:21 AM (VrNoa)

174 Steven, I hope you comment here often.
I can't comment on your site, but I want you to know Chizumatic is a daily read for me.

Posted by: flashbazzbo, s.e. at January 23, 2013 10:22 AM (i0rVe)

175 Noted this symmetry the other day as well. However, I also noted the extreme asymmetry in the coverage the protests got on the local news. Some abortion (and anti-abortion) marchers show up on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and its newsworthy. Did any 2A supporters march to show support for a bona fide, written into the constitution, right? You wouldn't know it by watching the "news."

Instead, we get coverage about how Beyonce might have lip-synched at the inauguration. What stooges!

Enemies of the republic they are, I think.

Posted by: Flounder at January 23, 2013 10:30 AM (Kkt/i)

176 Actually sounds like you're talking about slavery and emancipation, followed by "separate, but equal."

There's no equivalent with Roe v. Wade because that was made up out of whole cloth by the US Supreme Court after the Chief Justice asked for advice from his wife.

Both slavery, constitutionally outlawed, and gun rights, constitutionally protected, are written into the Constitution. Think about it Andy then get back to us with a rewrite.

Posted by: NJRob at January 23, 2013 10:30 AM (FVp26)

177 But the baby is part of the man's body too? I get what you're saying, but if that is the rationale, then we're openly sanctioning murder because the baby happens to occupying someone else's body?


--------------

The baby is made with material from the man's body; he or she is not "part of" your body. And, yes, the entire rationale for abortion is that it's okay to kill the baby because he or she is occupying the mom's body. The parts about avoiding parenthood, and keeping kids from growing up in families that don't want them (and therefore abuse them) and all that is just supporting details.

Really, look at your bottom line

"If the mother has the right to abort the baby against the will of the father, father should have the same right to terminate his responsibilities."

A woman doesn't have the right, even under Roe v. Wade, to just sign a paper and make her responsibilities disappear. She has the "right" to go through a somewhat costly and moderately painful surgery, which PP will lie to her about the risks and side effects of, to make that happen. Women just plain don't get away scott free after a pregnancy, even when they kill the baby in utero, so it makes sense that men shouldn't either.

Basically, biology just flat isn't fair. Women will always have more risk to their bodies when it comes to sex. Abortion sought to mitigate one of those risks, but trampled all over the rights of the unborn and of the father (I don't disagree that abortion is unfair to men, but I don't think it's unfairness is a good legal argument) and put a big wedge between men and women. Most harm, I think, comes in not acknowledging the simple truth that biology isn't fair.


Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 23, 2013 10:31 AM (b+8h9)

178 37 Sounds a lot like the battles over the issue of slavery in the 19th century.
Posted by: CommonSenseMom at January 23, 2013 08:50 AM (RNvbh)

------------------

Glad I wasn't the only one to see this.

Posted by: NJRob at January 23, 2013 10:36 AM (FVp26)

179 @178, understand of course I'm not at all for abortion, just academics here.

A slight correction. The baby is not part of the woman. It is simply growing in a chamber inside her. So that argument doesn't fly. After a child is born a mother would be negligent and guilty of murder if she didn't feed the child and let it die. Why is that burden any different than the burden of bearing the child? The 9mo burden is nothing compared to what comes after... as someone with a bunch of kids, I say this unequivocally.

According to the law, human life, any human life, has the same rights regardless of age. So I don't agree with the argument that we are sanctioning murder in this particular case. To my understanding Roe v. Wade only stands because unborn baby is not defined anywhere as being life afforded Constitutional rights. It's a grey area.

While the woman may have some burdens to deal with, they are very small compared to 18 years of indentured servitude. Not in the same ballpark, not even the same sport. And the issue of women terminating pregnancy against will of the father, same issue. For a man who is deeply against abortion and regards it murder, what kind of psychological effect does this have on him?

You can argue against abortion and I'll agree with you, but if you're saying current system is fair, sorry, completely disagree. And I'm not even saying it should be fair, just saying it isn't fair. And this is in a world where zero regard for the life of the child exists.

If the woman wasn't raped, she is just as responsible as the man. Both should have same rights and responsibilities. So there's a cost involved, ok, make him pay half.

Posted by: Andrew at January 23, 2013 10:57 AM (HS3dy)

180 Another thing I noticed the other day, from listening to talk radio sound bites of the inaugural address, was that the OneTM, and the left in general, have been co-opting the right's talking points about, well pretty much anything. I cannot remember the specific point.

And I realize it's just lip service, but it irks me to no end, probably mostly because I know the LoFo voters out there are thinking, "see, what can the opposition possibly have against this guy."


Posted by: Flounder at January 23, 2013 11:04 AM (Kkt/i)

181 I never said the baby was part of the woman's body. So, you're not correcting me, slightly or otherwise. The baby is occupying the woman's body, though. Abortion does come down to control of one's own body for women, and for the unborn who get controlled right into a garbage disposal, but not for men.

"You can argue against abortion and I'll agree with you, but if you're saying current system is fair, sorry, completely disagree. And I'm not even saying it should be fair, just saying it isn't fair. And this is in a world where zero regard for the life of the child exists."

Can you read? I said it's not fair, will never be fair. Here: Biology is just flat not fair.
Abortion is unfair to men, babies, women, everyone. What you're proposing, that men be able to have sex and still say "nope, your problem, not mine" is just a different sort of unfair. The kid didn't choose to be born to a single mom, and the man and woman both chose to have sex.

Re: 18 years of indentured servitude

It goes both ways. Men can choose to raise babies that women would rather place for adoption, and those men can sue for child support. Does the law usually work fairly in this regard? No. That sucks. Not fair.

Furthermore, dude, that's a risk of having sex, for men and women. If you have sex, a baby could happen. If a baby does happen, you have to deal with the person you had sex with and either come to an agreement to place the baby for adoption or pay for the baby's expenses for 18 years. If either parent wants to raise the kid, that parent has to pay part of the expenses and the other one has to.

I repeat: No one gets off scott free from a pregnancy, EXCEPT with abortion. Under the current abortion laws, if the vasectomy didn't take, and the woman wants an abortion, the man doesn't have to pay half, and there's no way he can come to truly bear any portion of the physical cost related to the abortion. So he does effectively get off scot free there. Is it fair? No. And neither is it fair that women are currently allowed to kill babies in utero. And neither is it fair when a woman has an abortion against the father's wishes.

No system can ever be truly "fair" and equal between men and women because pregnancy doesn't effect men and women equally. The only thing that should matter is the right of the baby to continue existing, and to be either supported by both of his/her parents after birth (baby don't give a fuck who bought the condoms or didn't) or placed, ideally by consent of both parents, with a family who will take care of him/her.

You brought up the idea that abortion laws are biased against men and said that people should argue that. All I'm saying is that "unfair to men" or "unfair to women" is not a good argument because laws cannot make relations between men and women fair, and attempts to do so will just make things worse.







Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 23, 2013 11:22 AM (b+8h9)

182 You brought up the idea that abortion laws are
biased against men and said that people should argue that. All I'm
saying is that "unfair to men" or "unfair to women" is not a good
argument because laws cannot make relations between men and women fair,
and attempts to do so will just make things worse.



Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 23, 2013 11:22 AM (b+8h9)


"Fair" is the wrong terminology. I would say that the argument that pro-abortion people use - "that it is the "woman's choice" and only effects the woman and therefore men shouldn't get a say" - should be used against them.

If the woman chooses to have the baby - the man is forced to pay child support until the child turns 18. Yet, the man has no say if the woman aborts. So the woman's choice effects the man very clearly. The man should have the right to a legal abortion. Whether the woman chooses to abort or not, the man should have the option of "aborting" his child in the same manner. Thus, the man can choose to "abort" and have no right to visitation, etc. to the child - but also no legal duty to support the child. This way, the right to "abort" is equitable and the man is not imprisoned by the woman's "choice". The man therefore gets full say in whether his "body" will be used as slave-labor to pay for the child the woman chose to have.

I have a feeling that the pro-abortion people would find this argument crazy - but in reality it is perfectly equal to the argument they make in favor of abortion. If I don't want a child as a man - why should I be forced to be responsible for one? I should have, under the equal protection clause, the same right to abort the child that the women has. Perhaps my right of "abortion" does not kill the child - but it frees me from any responsibility for the child, which is truly the only point of "abortion" for the woman involved as well. The woman does not abort for "health reasons". The sole and only reason for abortion is so that the woman does not have to take responsibility for a child. That is it, period (except, perhaps in about 0.001% of rape cases or the very, very, very rare medical cases). Anyone arguing otherwise is lying.

So, why should men not have the same right to avoid responsibility for a child?

Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 23, 2013 12:01 PM (sOx93)

183 Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 23, 2013 12:01 PM (sOx93)

the point I am making is not that the abortion should be legal but that the law should be equitable. This will have the impact of forcing pro-abortion people to realize that the "it's a woman's choice not effecting anyone else" is a lie. they can lie to themselves about a fetus not being a person because they never see the fetus and never know the fetus. But, if they know a woman whose baby-daddy "aborted" the child (i.e., has no legal duty for responsibility for the child) and know the child - they will realize the truth of their idiotic arguments.

Plus, of course, the fact that the law should always be equitable and not so one-sided favoring one group over another.

Arguing against this on the ground that the "child did not ask to be born" misses the entire point and in fact, helps the pro-abortion crowd. They get the best of both worlds - killing babies when they want to and forcing men to be their financial supporters when they want to. they can have their cake and eat it too.

If the gov't's job is to raise children - then the gov't has just as much right to round them all up and place them in gov't institutions as to force one person to pay for another person's child.

An anecdote - I have known men who never knew they had a child until the child was 14 or so when the mother sought child support (including 14 years of back child support). The man had no rights in such situation. The woman stole from him any chance to know the child or develop a true father/child relationship or watch the child grow - yet the man was on the hook for lots of money and was being penalized for not supporting a child he never knew he had.

that is not a reasonable or equitable or just law. Arguing "life is not fair" is a dumb argument. The law should in fact be fair and just. Whether life is fair or not is irrelevant - the law should not be purposefully set up to favor women over men or men over women or to screw some people to help others.

And all arguments of "do it for the children" are not rational arguments. They are emotional arguments that are not based on sound philosophical, ethical or legal basis. When conservatives start arguing to use the gov't "for the children" in the way you suggest, we may as well hang it up because we've bought into the left's argument about what gov't is and what role it should play in controlling our lives. We are arguing for a nanny state that "takes care of the children".

Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 23, 2013 12:13 PM (sOx93)

184 @73 Wow, an image I do not need in my head!

Posted by: Sinalco at January 23, 2013 12:15 PM (aT/Cc)

185 I miss USS Clueless. Also, why hasn't Nick Searcy posted here yet? Come on, y'all!

Posted by: Sinalco at January 23, 2013 12:18 PM (aT/Cc)

186 If the gov't's job is to raise children - then the gov't has just as much right to round them all up and place them in gov't institutions as to force one person to pay for another person's child.

----------

No one, least of all pro-life conservatives, is arguing that it's the government's job to raise children. It's the parents'---note the plural---job to either raise them (including the paying of their expenses) or to place them with people who would like to raise them. It IS the government's job to protect the rights of all citizens, including children. Children have the rights to

1)Not be killed in utero or at any other time. This includes the right to not be neglected to death, as would happen if either parent chose not to buy food and medical care for him/her.

2)Be supported by both their parents, unless an alternate arrangement (adoption) is made and approved by a judge.

-------------------------------

"Arguing "life is not fair" is a dumb argument."

Hmmm. How exactly does that assertion square with this, which you also said

"So, why should men not have the same right to avoid responsibility for a child?"

-----------------

If you argue that allowing abortion without allowing men to say "Not It!" is unfair to men and denies them equal protection under the law, you're conceding the left's point that babies don't have rights. Men and women will never agree that the aftermath of an unplanned pregnancy is fair, because it's not. And that's not the law's business. The laws business is to protect people's rights. The baby has a right to live and to be supported by his or her parents. No man or woman should be allowed to either kill the baby, at any point, or walk away from supporting him/her (before age 16 at the youngest) without first finding a suitable replacement who agrees to pay for the child's expenses.







Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 23, 2013 12:34 PM (b+8h9)

187

"Freedom to choose"

The Left always says that we cannot take away the "Freedom to choose"...with regard to abortion.

But they are okay with taking away the "Freedom to choose"...with regard to firearms.

Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2013 12:40 PM (fH4X9)

188 I was thinking about that symmetry when the gun-grabbers, in immediate "response" to Sandy Hook, began angrily reintroducing measures that won't make a damn bit of difference, but that they've always favored anyway.

They couch it in terms of, "No one's trying to take your rights away," but in truth they'd love to. So those of us who are pro-2nd-Amendment tend to react: "Don't believe them and don't give them an inch."

Which - though I don't defend this position at all - is how then-State-Senator Obama could vote against the Infants Born Alive Protection Act. Like den Beste, I am not arguing the relative merits of the position, but the reasoning is the same: They assure us this only affects extreme cases, but some of those people pushing it want all abortions illegal - they're just starting with the lowest-hanging fruit.

Posted by: JPS at January 23, 2013 01:02 PM (QnaW/)

189 Brown Line, #174:

"The big difference, of course, is that abortion and gun ownership are not comparable.

"The *point* of abortion is to end a life."

I agree - but to those who hate guns (several of whom are in my immediate family), a society in which guns are readily available to me (law-abiding, of sound mind as far as I know, highly trained) is one in which they're available to would-be murderers, who will get hold of guns and kill people.

Therefore, my ability to exercise my right leads to the loss of innocent life. I don't agree with this, but I have a damned hard time getting through to people who do.

Posted by: JPS at January 23, 2013 01:06 PM (QnaW/)

190 190 JPS,

Yeah but their "logic" taken to its conclusion means you and I can start a national hysteria campaign to end commerce, since money motivates criminals to take the guns and engage in violence n'est'c'pas?

Your family has decided that they are guaranteed a risk free planet to undermine an enumerated right, and if statistics hold are also perfectly okay with a magic markered invisible ink penumbra that is there by design to end life for personal comfort.

The cognitive dissonance ain't on my end.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 01:10 PM (LRFds)

191 Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 23, 2013 12:34 PM (b+8h9)

You are being blinded by the forest for the trees. Your argument is that we should not approach the argument any other way than to say "abortion is murder" and doing anything else is giving in.

Well - good luck with that. It is certainly working - what with no polls showing that for the first time a majority is in favor of abortion in almost all circumstances.

You have also missed the point completely about "live is not fair" argument. You argued that life is not fair and therefore it is o.k. for the law to be unequal between men and women. I pointed out that while it is true that life is not fair, the law is supposed to be fair and therefore the law should be applied equally to men and women.

Your argument that "children have the right to be supported by both parents" is interesting. It is the job of gov't to decide who supports what children and how much they should support the children? tell me more about this nanny state gov't you believe in?

Your arguments all come from the left. We must make gov't force people to care for their children because we as a society have a duty to "protect the children". by your argument, gov't should have the right to decide how to raise the kids as well.

Further, my point is that if we are going to have legal abortion - which we currently do - we should argue for equality of the law - that is men should have as much right to abortion as women as per my post above. This is another avenue for attacking abortion. This is not to say we should agree that abortion is right - simply that if we must have abortion (as we do) then we should also have equality before the law.

Men and women will never agree that the aftermath of an unplanned
pregnancy is fair, because it's not. And that's not the law's business.


what is the "law's business". the law is meant to be applied equally regardless of gender, race, wealth, etc. to allow a woman to chose to opt out of caring for the results of procreation but not allowing a man the same privilege under the law violates the most basic principals of law. I know that your answer is you don't agree with allowing a woman to opt out. I don't either. But here we are.

The baby has a right to live and to be supported by his or her parents.
No man or woman should be allowed to either kill the baby, at any
point, or walk away from supporting him/her (before age 16 at the
youngest) without first finding a suitable replacement who agrees to pay
for the child's expenses.


At the expense of sounding cruel - where is that right found, exactly? My constitution seems to be missing that clause? I understand that morally people should be responsible for their children - but we are not talking about morality here, we are talking about the law. You are confusing the two. My understanding of limited gov't allows for lousy parents who abandon their children and families. Freedom often allows unsavory things. You apparently have a different idea of what "limited gov't means". Apparently, to you, limited gov't means controlling people in ways you believe is right.

I'm not saying that either option is moral or ethical or nice. But then again, that is not the law's job. Or at least it should not be the law's job to make people moral or nice.

this is another instance showing why conservatism cannot win. People will always believe that gov't should be used to control people in the way that they believe is right. Just people have different beliefs about what that is. A conservative may be against requiring a religious hospital to pay for contraception for his employees, but has no problem using gov't to enforce how people pay for or raise children.

6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 23, 2013 01:28 PM (sOx93)

192 Monkeytoe at January 23, 2013 01:28 PM (sOx93)

I meant the clause about "the right to be supported by his or her parents" not about the right to live.

I don't think I've ever heard of a case where a baby is given up to state care and the state goes after the mother for child support. However, that does happen to men. Why is that? Why can a woman both opt to kill her baby and/or opt to give it up without supporting it but a man can not do either?

Again, I'm not saying it's right, just unequal - which the law is not supposed to be.

And one point in raising these arguments is to get pro-abortion people to realize that these "choices" are not simply affecting the woman making them. Once we get the vast majority of Americans to understand that simple point, the arguments against abortion become easier.

Most Americans live in a cocoon where they believe "it's none of my business, the "choice" doesn't effect anyone but the woman making it, so why should I care".

We have argued for 30 years about the "choice" affecting the unborn child to almost no avail. So, perhaps we should attack it from a different angle then blindly charging forward with the same arguments we've made for 30 years?

Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 23, 2013 01:35 PM (sOx93)






Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.1368 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.1039 seconds, 201 records returned.
Page size 150 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat