Friday, January 25, 2013

Democracy Schemocracy

"Republican legislators in several states have begun pushing to apportion electoral-college votes by congressional district, a move that has Democrats up in arms. Had a similar scheme been in effect in 2012, nationally or in a handful of key states, Mitt Romney could have won the presidency despite losing the popular vote. Up to now, these efforts appear to have sprouted independently as the work of individual lawmakers in Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The Virginia plan has passed the state House of Delegates and could become law as soon as next week."

-Molly Ball (reporting in The Atlantic, 1/25/13)

The organized criminal enterprise also known as the "Republican party" has come face to face with some ugly new realities as of late. There was a time when all they needed to do in order to win a national election was to appeal to impotent, gun-toting, middle-aged white men with beer guts and bad breath. Those were the days, my friend, we thought they'd never end. But they have indeed ended; in fact they're gone forever.   

The reelection of Barack Obama was a wake up call for those of them who have been bothering to pay attention. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal has publicly chastised the GOP for being the "stupid party" (It was a courageous thing for him to say. He can kiss the 2016 nomination goodbye). MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, a former congressman and staunch conservative, has stated on the air and in print that the time has come for that disgusting party to see the writing on the wall. They will either change with the times or they shall cease to exist very soon. At one time I couldn't stand Scarborough. I must admit, however, that he's grown on me a bit in recent years. He's still an unbearable bag of gas, but let us give credit where credit is due. He's perfectly capable of that rare moment on the mountaintop, God bless 'im.

You would think that those crazy elephants would come up with a plan that would make them electable again - and they have. Only their "plan" has nothing to do with a drastic, much needed image makeover that would make them more ideologically palatable to the masses. No; what they have in store for the American people is a scheme so blatantly unconstitutional that it would turn this nation into a banana republic - minus all those tasty bananas

On Election Day 2012, President Obama took a lot of swing states that are controlled by Republican governors and legislators. Mitt Romney did alright in the sticks, but his problem was in the cities, which are filled to the rafters with all those nasty minority types - Blacks, Hispanics, college kids, the elderly, people who read books - the usual suspects. African Americans in particular tend to shy away from a political party whose public gatherings are starting to resemble a Nuremberg rally circa 1937. 

Their plan is to install an Electoral College deal in each of these states - with the bulk of the goodies (number of votes) going to the counties in the rural districts. If this scheme had been law on November 6, Romney would today be jetting around the country in Air Force One, with an Irish Setter in a doggie crate strapped to the fuselage. 

They tried everything humanly possible last year to deny the vote to the traditional progressive constituency. They forced the voters in Democratic-leaning districts to stand in line for hours-on-end, hoping that they would become bored and exasperated and go home in a huff. It didn't work obviously. The people endured the heat of Florida and the cold of Ohio. Good for them. Because of their endurance, Barack Obama was reelected and Mitt Romney is today shooting at feral cats who dare to roam the property of any of his many homes. 

What to do? If they are unable to suppress the vote via extra-legal means, then all they need to do is to make voter suppression perfectly legal. Problem solved! That was easy! 

Well, maybe not.

Here is yet another reason that the reelection of Obama is something to be truly thankful for: Had Mitt won on Election Day, he would have been in the position of installing another blabbering, right wing derelict on the Supreme Court at the first opportunity. When this assault on our democracy is signed into law in any of these states, you can bet next year's crop that it will eventually be challenged in the Supreme Court. 

You can also count on the fact that it will be shot down like a flock of brain-damaged geese. The votes are there - even, I believe, from Chief Justice John Roberts. He has been eying his place in history lately, and I have a strong feeling that he's terrified of ending up being eternally compared to Roger Brooke Taney, author of the infamous Dred Scott opinion (and a relative of mine I'm ashamed to admit). I believe that is the reason he surprised everyone by ruling favorably on the Affordable Health Care Act. 

I am now more convinced than ever that the "Grand Old Party" will be extinct in ten years' time. Recently John Boehner told an audience of "moderate" Republicans (They still exist???) that the president was attempting to shove their party into "history's dust bin". That's an unfair accusation. Their mortal wound is self-inflicted. Unfortunately there is still time for them to do some serious damage to this country,

God gave Noah the rainbow sign
No more water
The fire next time 

-James Baldwin

Amazingly, Republican legislators in the aforementioned states aren't attempting to hide what they are trying to do. RNC chairman, Reince Priebus, has even gone as far as giving the scheme his public stamp of approval. This is arrogance at its most alarming and dangerous. This is a party that is attempting to overthrow this republic. They will fail this time. But whom among us is to believe that they won't resort to violence a few years down the road? The fire next time. 

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY 


Here is a link to the article by Molly Ball quoted above:

It's a damned good read.


At 3:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a Reoublic not a democracy.

At 3:29 PM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

It's a democratic republic. To imply that we are not a democracy only feeds into the totalitarian mindset.

At 3:45 PM, Blogger Catharine said...

And our PROCESS is democratic, not republican (small d, small r).

Good article, Tom. Surprisingly restrained. How long did it take you before you were able to stop banging your forehead on the keyboard in disgust so you could write it. (Note: I haven't stopped banging yet.)

At 4:29 PM, Anonymous Jay said...

Hey Tom,

Y'know this "swinery" on the part of the GOP is simply telling. I'm amazed that the GOP electorate isn't embarrassed by these desperate and naked attempts to seize power.

I've begun to think MORE of the GOP leaders and LESS of their electorate. How stupid can these people be? They send money to politicians whose only contribution is the latest Obama conspiracy theory. Don't they ask themselves, "What am I paying for?"

Last night, I had a discussion with a few younger guys. One was in a froth over "Obama's gun-grab" and "trying to destroy the Republicans."

Like you, I had to point out the self-inflicted wounds they are putting on themselves.

It's easy to blame a few hundred, a few thousand GOPers in office. But the start reality is that there are MILLIONS of people in this country, who are souless, selfish, xenophobic, ignorant morons, who simply insist they know better.

They are stubborn!

Anyone who wishes to oppose this would-be nightmare, needs to be just as stubborn as resolute. I've been thinking a lot about Andrew Jackson and how the Democrats wound up with Donkey logo.

Too often non-conservatives are labelled as sheep. We need to "fight" back.

It'd be great if you could do a piece on Jackson.

At 6:18 PM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...

The Republicans better be careful what they wish for if they rig the Electoral votes to elect a President. We are generally tolerant of an Electoral College winner despite losing the national popular vote (G. W. Bush, Rutherford Hayes, et al) because they “won” by following the long-accepted rules for elections.

I put “won” in quotes because G.W. Bush in 2000 carried Florida by 537“official” votes and the Supremes stepped in to end the recounts. Bush really won in Florida by the Florida Secretary of State earlier having disenfranchised tens of thousands of minority voters prior to the actual election with no notice they were taken off the voter lists. They showed up to vote and were just sent home. The actual election, however, did follow the long-accepted rules.

With regard to the current tinkering by the Republicans, Jay at 4:29 PM is on the right track in citing Andrew Jackson.

In 1824 there were four candidates for President, Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and William H. Crawford. None of the four received a majority of Electoral College votes so the election was thrown into the House of Representatives. In the House, a majority of each state’s members of Congress vote to award their state’s one vote to one of the top-three Electoral College votes getters. Henry Clay came in fourth place in the Electoral College and was eliminated.

There were widespread charges that Henry Clay made an unholy alliance in the House so that John Quincy Adams would be elected President and Clay would be appointed Secretary of State. Those charges were never substantiated but were widely believed, and supporters of Andrew Jackson used them to particular advantage in the following Congressional election to give Jackson supporters a majority in the House for the last two years of Adams’ term as President. And the resultant partisan fervor was widespread in the 1828 election of Andrew Jackson as President.

There was an interesting paper published in 2004 about the negative effect on the 1826 Congressional election for Congressmen who voted for Adams in 1824 and whose Districts favored Jackson in that 1824 election. That paper supports the notion that those Congressmen who voted contrary to their District’s vote in the 1824 Presidential election were punished in 1826.

Should the Republicans prevail in their current tinkering with the election rules so they result in a Republican being elected solely because of the vast gerrymandering of Congressional districts the demise of the Republican Party will be, in my opinion, rather swift and final. We can only hope.

For political junkies an Acrobat copy of that 2004 paper can be found by an internet search for “Carson and Engstrom.”

At 7:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck Morre said

You guys all must drink from the same well! This was the big topic on the Special Ed Schultz radio show and that wizard of progressiveness radio show, Thom Hartman two days ago. Both were blaming the evil rich Koch Brothers.
Talk about mindless robots!

Next you will be crying: "Earth to end in two days, progressives claim women, children and minorities will be hurt most".

At 7:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Think this is being done to take focus off the the attack on the 2nd amendment?
Naw, liberals would never do that!
Read down to paragraph noted with #

Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour joined MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Friday to discuss a recent speech delivered by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal in which he offered some advice on how to broaden the appeal of the GOP. The conversation quickly descended into an argument when Mitchell asked Barbour to respond to the desire of some Republican state legislators to change the way their states award Electoral College votes. Barbour called what Mitchell was alleging a “conspiracy,” and said that he found it frustrating that Democrats are never asked to defend the “stupid” proposals their state-level members advance.

Mitchell asked Barbour about efforts by some GOP lawmakers on the state-level who are pushing legislation that would award their states Electoral College votes to candidates based on the proportion of the popular vote.

“Hypothetically,” Mitchell said, “if it were done nationally, Mitt Romney would have taken the oath of office on Monday.”

“I’m a little bit skeptical of this,” Barbour said, identifying himself as a “traditionalist.” However, he said that there is no way to predict what party that proportionality would help from one election to the next.

Mitchell noted that, in Virginia at least, Gov. Bob McDonnell would block this proposal should it make its way to his desk. “Doesn’t this make it look as though the Republicans are trying to, sort of, game the system?” Mitchell asked.

# Barbour laughed. “I don’t know how you can ask that question when you, in the immediate previous breath, told me that Republics are not even going to let it out of committee,” Barbour said. “When some Democrat authors some stupid legislation that the Democrats won’t let out of committee, usually the Democratic Party doesn’t have to answer for what doesn’t make it out of committee.”

“We’ve been making the calls,” Mitchell said. “I’m just asking, is this the right move for the party nationally.” NOTE Barbour never said is was the right move, much less a move that was being planned!!!

Barbour repeated himself, and said that Mitchell was alleging a “conspiracy” theory that Republicans are trying to change how Electoral College votes are awarded.

At 7:53 PM, Anonymous Lomez said...

As state legislatures appoint the electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct", I suppose the electoral vote grab you describe is possible. Yet conservatives, by their very nature, are reluctant to change things so radically and that includes us beer-bellied, gun-toting types. Your rant does little more that rally the troops for an imaginary right-wing bogeyman.

I am not surprised you have warmed up to Joe Scarborough. Here at the vast right-wing conspiracy, the "Morning Schmoe" is considered neither conservative nor republican. You can keep him. What self-respecting conservative watches MSNBC anyway?

Finally, it is ironic that you site Dred Scot's Justice Taney. On the 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade we can marvel at how the Supreme Court got is so wrong ...twice.


At 8:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Yes We Can keep the labor participation rate at an all time low and unemployment around 8 percent!

Yes We Can have an all time high of people on food stamps!

Yes We Can have an all time high of people on Social Security Disability!

Yes We Can have helicopter Ben drop electronically created money from the skies!

Yes We Can squeeze every nickel we can out of small business so that they go belly up!

Yes We Can have private businesses limit their employee headcount, even if they need extra employees, so that they don't have to pay for ObamaCare!

Yes We Can get exempted from ObamaCare if we gave contributions to the Socialist I mean Democratic Party!


At 8:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous Too said...

Anonymous at 7:21, what the hell are you talking about? You say:
Think this is being done to take focus off the the attack on the 2nd amendment?
Naw, liberals would never do that!.....
and then proceed to spend the rest of your post discussing Republicans and how to broaden their base. What does that have to do with liberals or the 2nd amendment?
If this is the best you can do, maybe you should copy Anonymous at 7:14 who at least quotes someone who has better thoughts and more mental agility than he has.

At 10:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it no surprise that the next big the Dems are pushing for is giving the vote to illegals?

At 5:15 AM, Blogger Beach Bum said...

...Chief Justice John Roberts. He has been eying his place in history lately...

I have my doubts about that statement. To me he has seemed just a little more literate version of Justice Thomas.

The question I have is that if electoral college rigging scheme is very put in place what would we liberal/progressive do if our Democratic nominee has several million more popular votes than the republican nominee who has been awarded the election?

At 5:58 AM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...

To Beach Bum at 5:15 AM,

You asked, what would we liberals do if our candidate won the national popular vote and through trickery the conservatives appropriated the election?

My answer is that I hope we would do the same as we did in 2000, suck it up and work harder in future elections to right the wrong.

BTW, the Republicans pulled the same trick in 2004 in Ohio that Katherine Harris as Secretary of State in Florida pulled in 2000. By 2008 and 2012 we caught up with the voter suppression tricks even though many people waited hours to vote.

Now in retrospect are you conservatives convinced that stealing the election in 2000 was good for you and the country?

Had that 2000 election not been stolen we might have been doing something about global warming and paying down the national debt instead of fighting two unfunded wars and using all the surplus Social Security Trust Fund. Does anyone remember the talk about a Social Security Trust Fund. Instead we got Cheney's magic solution - "Deficits don't matter, Reagan proved that."

At 11:11 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Election rigging, voter registration restrictions, limiting hours and access to polls, cutting early voting, voter roll purging, corporate "personhood", money is "free speech", gerrymandering, torture, warrantless surveillance etc.

Their Bill of Rights ends at the Second Amendment. (BTW,there was civilian firearm ownership in the Third Reich.)

The truth is clear to anyone with even a partially open mind. The pseudo-fascists of the radical Right are the domestic enemies of democracy. They want to suppress the interests and will of the majority of Americans.

At 11:34 AM, Anonymous James said...

Ron, did you notice that there was only some minor attempts at election fraud in 2008. It looked like the Repubs were just doing it Not to look suspicious! I found it very strange at the time.

The Dems have been very complacent since 2000, they let the media consolidate into just 5 conservative leaning corporations,and the accept massive redistricting all over the country. They let ESS&E control 90% of the voting machines and they cave in immediately on any issue the Repubs frown on such as Acorn.
There were two Liberal senators unwilling to sign the Patriot Act, after getting an tracks mailed to them they promptly signed it. Was that just a coincidence?

At 11:52 AM, Anonymous James said...

Lomez, it is great to have a literate Conservative posting here and not using the Anon handle. Stick around ,I want to hear what you have to say.

At 3:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck Morre said

I believe you claiming the GOP is supporting voter fraud is like the kettle calling the lid black.
My advise, sir, is to not throw stones while living in a glass house. Or better still, draw the curtains when you undress.

At 4:00 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"The organized criminal enterprise also known as the 'Republican party'..."

1. Is the subject proposal by the Republicans illegal?

2. If the Republicans are looking to apportion electoral votes according to Congressional districts and that is criminal, then does it follow that the way we have Congressional districts set up should be looked into?

Oh well, might as well answer my own questions...

1. No, not illegal. Actually very legal and part of the political process. Democrats thrive when metropolitan areas choose, Republicans do better when rural areas aren't disenfranchised as they arguably are today. The Democrats want the power skewed towards metropolitan areas - so if that it threatened, they cry "foul".

2. Maybe. This will always be a battleground per the answer to #1. If it were as the Republicans wanted it and the Dems were getting hammered, they'd be working to change it, too. They are two sides of the same coin. Both beholden to big money, both spend too much, both just desperately want to keep their jobs.

At 4:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is what true Progressives, defenders of our Democracy, and lovers of freedom should be upset about.

"Have you heard much about President Obama’s $787,000,000,000 economic “stimulus” (now estimated to cost $831,000,000,000) lately? In its last report, published in 2011, the president’s own Council of Economic Advisors released an estimate showing that, for every $317,000 in “stimulus” spending that had by then gone out the door, only one job had been created or saved. Even in Washington, that’s not considered good bang for the buck.

Moreover, that was the fifth consecutive “stimulus” report that showed this number getting progressively worse.

Alas, that was the last report we’ve seen. Never mind that Section 1513 of the “stimulus” legislation, which Obama spearheaded and signed into law, requires the executive branch to submit a new report every three months."

Do I hear crickets from progressives?

At 8:55 PM, Anonymous James said...

No name = silence

At 11:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck Morre

The most important thing about a post is not its content, but the posters name?

"I have a dream, of a day, when the content of a post will be more important to liberals, than the posters name!"


At 2:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck Morre said
Regarding use of anonymous to post,
in the words of our current Secretary of State, "What difference does it make?"

At 4:06 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous, in the words of our current Secretary of State, what did she say after that?

At 4:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck Morre

"It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again”

SOOO, having the posters name is going to do what, "figure out what happened and do every thing we can to prevent it (them from posting something liberals don't agree with)from ever happening again?

At 5:30 PM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...

Response to James at 11:34 AM:

In 2008 the ROW (rich, old, white) guys could not imagine the country would elect an African-American and after 2000 and 2004 felt confident that they would win, even with a geriatric candidate and an intellectually-challenged VP candidate (outed by Tina Fey).
But in 2008 the Obama campaign outhustled the ROW guys with a massive Democratic turnout. What a wake up! After that election Corporations became people. Super PACs proliferated. ALEC provided guidelines for voter suppression of minorities by states. How could they lose with a ROW guy as the POTUS candidate and a Tea Party guy as the VP candidate? Answer, by again being outhustled by Organizing for America, and by the stubborn people in Florida who waited in line hours after the polls closed to cast their votes. Even if Obama lost Ohio he would still have won by his late night surprise victory in Florida.

There are a number of wild comments by Anonymous, but I do not respond to Anonymous comments.

At 11:13 AM, Blogger edwin_ said...

oh the hypocricity!
After bobbiJ's speech he signed a bill to have creationism taught in school.

Also, bobbie is an anchor babie . His mother came to the US when she was pergnant on a visa that is similar to the H1b visa that allows non-Americans to come to the USA and take american jobs

At 3:29 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

edwin_, are you saying bobbiJ's is not an American citizen?

At 3:58 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Edwin, there are more Indians in India working "American jobs" than there are in the US.

And, interestingly, Jindal is far more qualified, via his resume, to be president than the 2008 version of Obama was...

And, Edwin, I'm shocked that you would be so hostile to Muslims as to attack creationism - religious bigotry is ugly...

At 4:39 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

I may be incorrect, but doens't the term "anchor babie" not only include a misspelled word, but are code words that racists use?
edwin_ I am surprised at you.

At 5:35 PM, Blogger edwin_ said...

Harvey, Charlie

I was making the point that the right was demonizing and created the term "anchor Babie" (sic) and bj is one of them per the right's definition. that , sir ,is hypocrisy.

Trying to push teaching creationism in school is not going to make the GOP any smarter. Keep religion in the temple

The H1b visas take American jobs by having foreign workers come to the US. The h1b visa program is corporate welfare at the expense of US workers

At 5:59 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Edvin -

So, you hold to an "ex nihilo" cosmology ?

Not sure if you're aware, but science has nothing substantial to offer you as a basis for that.

At 6:03 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Edwin (see, I can get it right) -

So, maybe the right is mixed up from time to time. Though I don't remember that being a part of any recent Republican platform.

The "left" believes we should be free to destroy innocent human life in the womb, yet goes to lengths to protect guilty murderers from the same fate. And the main argument used is "you can never be sure..." - yet they are 100% sure that the unborn aren't humans worthy of protection.

Now that's mixed up, my brother...

At 6:48 PM, Anonymous James said...

Harley, I can respect and understand your position on abortion even though I feel it is an inevitable and possibly a necessary evil. Abortion has and will exist as long as there are humans.
I am more offended by the murder of the born than the unborn. An example is the 100s of thousands of children killed in Iraq for no reason. And then the use of depleted uranium is killing and deforming 1000s of infants in Iraq. So much so that doctors are pleading with women not to get pregnant.

If a total ban on all abortions were the law of the land, how many single issue Conservatives would still be compelled to vote for Republicans?

At 7:07 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

I am for limiting access and strict control of ALL and ANY weapon that can kill humans.

I feel that the registration, back ground check and mental health review of any person who wants to purchase, rent or use the weapons of abortion must be the law of the land. Just like guns, we must control access to these weapons which alone over the past 40 years have violently killed over 55 million humans in American.

Oh, I know there will be those insane blood thirsty followers of NARL that will contend that doing this will not end abortions, but instead will only make them more dangerous and not as safe. Just like the insane blood thirsty members of the NRA who claim that when guns are outlawed on the outlaws will have guns. That removing guns from America will not end gun violence.

Look, why should a gun owner need a gun with a 30 round clip? They don't need that many bullets to go dear hunting! There is only one reason for clips that size, and that's to kill humans with. Just like there is no other used for the weapons of abortions, but to kill humans. As a civilized nation we must remove both from our society. We must do something to stop this murder of our most innocent and defenseless of all Americans, the children!

The writers of our Bill of Rights never could have dreamed of the murders that would be committed when they wrote the 2nd Amendment over the next 200 plus years. Just like the courts and judges and liberals who legalized abortion could never have dreamed of 55 million dead babes in 40 years.


At 7:30 PM, Blogger edwin_ said...

Harley A, Chuck
(got it correct this time)

On abortion, the women should have the right to decide what is best for them. I don't think NARAL is 'blood thirsty' they are just fighting for rights.

Restrictions on abortion is just a impediment to the poor women. a well to do woman can travel to where she won't be harassed by old religious republican men.

At 7:57 PM, Anonymous James said...

" old religious republican men", that's funny! There are very few Christians in politics, especially on the Republican side. If all politicians were true Christians, we would be Living the Land of Milk and Honey.

At 8:43 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

"On abortion, the women should have the right to decide what is best for them. I don't think NARAL is 'blood thirsty' they are just fighting for rights" Good thing the human in the women's womb doesn't have a say, right?

Aaaah read the 2nd amendment and explain how what you have just said about the right to abort is different. The gun rights the NRA wants to keep, how many humans in the USA do they kill in a year? And the weapons of the abortion "provider", how many humans do they kill in a year?

The truth edwin_ is you really don't care about human life in the womb or out. It's just a matter of convenience for you. Plus, and lets get real, aborted humans cant vote and they cant donation to a candidate, but their mothers can. Maybe the term mother is a stretch for even your imagination. So lets call them the NARAL term, women are the host for what every it is in their womb. (maybe a zebra?) Pretty sure they are humans since if they were allowed to live, they wouldn't be cows.

Really edwin_ what's the difference in killing a human when they are 6 years old out of the womb or 5 months old still in the womb? Either way its just a human. Either way they die. Either way it is violent. Either way it was the choice of someone more powerful than the murdered human. Right?

So I guess my suggestion on how to save millions of humans a year with the registration and banning of weapons that kill humans is not a good one?


At 9:33 PM, Anonymous James said...

Chuck Morre, you are a nitwit. Why are you using a bastardized version of Charles Moore name?

At 10:09 PM, Blogger edwin_ said...

Chuck Morre,

I'm talking about the hypocrisies:

1. The clinic protesters are old republican religious men . the really nutty ones are trying to limit birth control
2. I guess it is OK for Rick Santorum’s wife to have an abortion while he is trying to prevent other women from having a similar procedure

At 8:19 AM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...


That is exactly what I'm talking about.

All worked up over the death of less than a thousand a year by firearms, blind to the million a year murder by abortion.

You made my point, thanks.

At 8:45 AM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

For James, aka the most smartest poster on this here blog.

Thanks for the kind words IE name calling, you my made day. Tell me why you don't post using your last name?

edwin_ If you have ever been to or seen videos of the the right to Life march on DC (this year crowd reported to be over 400,000) or for that matter, any pro life meeting, you would be surprised by the large number of women in attendance. Like, they out number the men (young and old, poor and rich, etc) 2 to 1.
Tip of the hat to you for your honesty, abortion is a form of birth control. A very sick form. Thank you.

Rick Santorum's wife having an abortion. Please check this link to Salon:

In closing, I believe this best describes the liberal position or at least their mind set.

Liberalism is a house of cards built on a foundation of feelings. Thinking, especially independent thinking, is not encouraged. Every argument, no matter what the issue, always boils down to feelings.

“I understand that there is a second amendment, but I just feel that nobody needs an assault rifle.”

“I understand that marriage was originally between a man and a woman, but I just feel like it’s only fair that gays can get married too.”

At 9:29 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Edwin -

I'm going to force you to make a coherent argument - and maybe you can - but so far you haven't. "Choice" is no argument. "Choice" is a reality associated with ANY act of volition that a human being makes. Laws are put in place to restrict our choices. This mantra of the abortion movement is pure nonsense. And, as with most post-modern wrong-think, it places empahsis on the subjective rather than focus on the objective.

The issue isn't about a woman's "choice". It is about whether what she is choosing to do is right or wrong. If I universally apply your premise, then nothing I choose to do is wrong. If your argument is right, there is no basis for ANY law.

And, still no good answer as to your understanding of a "Creator-less" cosmology - please enlighten me and Mr. Jindal...

James -

I share your concern for all human life across the globe, but since Roe v. Wade, we have legally killed about 1.5X the population of Iraq. That's not a "necessary evil" - that is evil upon evil. And, the babies are only half of the victim. I am as concerned for the women - many of whom suffer physical and emotional damage from it.

At 11:16 AM, Blogger edwin_ said...

Harley A.

I wasn't trying to comenton on "Creator-less" vs. "Creator' cosmology
I was just saying that "Creationism' should not be taught in school . Unless maybe in mythology.

When I went to school we were forced to pray in school & I found it to be humiliating.

At 11:23 AM, Blogger edwin_ said...

Harley A.

my views on "Creator-less" cosmology

I believe in evolution. To me Atom Ant & superman make a little more sense than the "Creator"

At 12:17 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Edwin -

Okay, well, evolution would be your explanation of how a highly ordered system of matter has arived from a highly disordered system - spontaneous order from chaos vis-a-vis the magic of time and "chance". Not to mention how metaphysical concepts like love, reason, morality have arrived from a purely material system. Also, there is no single coherent Theory of Evolution. There are many theories based upon a widely accepted a priori premise. But, good luck with that, and keep "believing".

But, it still doesn't answer how the matter got here in the first place. Do you believe that something came into being out of nothing and with no outside cause?

And I agree with you, being forced to pray is wrong. I would never force a person to pray.

At 7:51 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

Ok edwin_ your right. Maybe I was wrong when I called NARAL members "insane blood thirsty". I'm sorry for my error in using a too broad of a paint brush.

However, based on this bit of news from one of their latest emails, I think I can safely say they have at the very least, an extremely poor sense of right and wrong, life and death and maybe common decency

The pro-abortion group NARAL has just launched a bizarre new video that places abortion on the same moral plane as getting a haircut, picking a sweater, going for a jog or chewing gum—all, apparently, things that a woman can “choose to do with her body,” just like abortion.

All this by way of introduction to their new “Choice Out Loud” campaign—or as they style it, “experience”—featuring various slogans about “choice” linked to professional photographs of models. It’s all very odd.

On further review, they are insane and blond thirsty. Chewing gum is as simple a choice as killing the human in your womb?

At 9:20 PM, Blogger edwin_ said...

Harley A,

"Do you believe that something came into being out of nothing and with no outside cause? "

I don't think about it much but anything is possible.We just will never know. It is even possible that god planted dinosaur bones & fossils on our 6k year old planet as a prank {got that from a Simpson episode} Possible, but who created god? an higher god? . Maybe lightning mutated a molecule that formed an amoeba. Maybe a spaceship planted the first humans
I don’t know but 99% Of scientist believe in evolution . I heard on the radio today that 60-70% of the US population believe that the earth is 6k years old. I think this is what christians believe and the nuts that fox “news” bring out. Fox and the republicians do this with climate change as well so joe six-pack will think “ ….if the scientist are unsure , how am I supposed to figure this out?”
Hey Chuck, I think George Carlin said something like if you don’t like abortion stay away from the clinics

At 9:56 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...


Thanks for the advise, that will be my plan.
Mom used to tell me I would be known by my friends and the places I hung out. Needless to say hanging out where humans are murdered is not what I want to be associated with.

At 11:15 PM, Anonymous James said...

If there were no abortions for the last 50 years, our population would have increased by 150 million. Who would of built all those orphanages for millions of unwanted kids?

Who would pay for all the social services for the deformed, handicapped, and IQ challenged children that would of been born?

There would be a huge price to pay to have every pregnancy that ever occurred to result in another person being born here. Not to count the rest of the world. That's why I said it is a necessary evil.

At 8:14 AM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

"Who would pay for all the social services for the deformed, handicapped, and IQ challenged children that would of been born?"..James

Thanks James for being honest. It's all about you.

At 8:53 AM, Anonymous James said...

Considering that I am a Liberal, and we are in favor of social services, your statement is the dishonest one.

The Republicans reason for being is to cut social services and enrich the wealthy.

In 2011 the Republicans introduced 650 bills to curtail abortion nation wide. They also introduced a huge number of bills to cut programs and services to prenatal care, infants, women and children.

You have gotten duped in to supporting politicians who only care about power and reelection. You can thank Carl Rove for that.

At 10:07 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

James -

Our abortion policy may be the single largest factor in the ultimate insolvency of social security - and very possibly the demise of the US as a major world power. I'm sure you've heard about the worker gap we're soon to be facing.

Also, please don't get into a utilitarian eugenic mindset - that's a dangerous direction to head (and I wouldn't accuse you of that). The logic can lead (and has led) to unthinkable policies. Having said that, getting rid of abortion would mean more of a social burden, likely - I don't deny that.

On a related note, I can recommend the film "Demographic Winter". Makes a compelling argument.

At 2:14 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

"The Republicans reason for being is to cut social services and enrich the wealthy."

James, you really must find another play book to read from.

Has it ever occurred to you that the majority of those aborted humans if allowed to live, would be paying taxes now?

Have you ever read some of the laws Nazi Germany passed to deal with the "deformed, handicapped, and IQ challenged children"?

How is your position any different than the Nazis?

At 4:38 PM, Blogger edwin_ said...

Chuck Morre said...

"...that the majority of those aborted humans if allowed to live, would be paying taxes now?"

I disagree. I have a relative that belongs to a christian church that encourages families to become foster parents and get welfare $ .

ALL of the kids and infants she brings home are from very disfunctional families . Some are battered, crack babys, and/or severly mentally challenged .

As abortion laws are made to keep poor women from having abortions, the walefare rolls will increase. I'm no sociologist, just my thoughts

At 6:18 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

edwin_ really? Rather anecdotal proof at best.
So how many of the 55 million murdered humans would have been put into foster homes and their foster parents been encouraged to collect welfare? 50 million, 20 million? You cant answer that question. So your assumption is all of them? And based on what, hear say?

I will give you some first person experience on the issue of being a foster parent.
We were foster parents for 3 years. We were approved to be foster parents by our state. We were paid $35 dollars a week during the time we had the child. Didn't know the state would pay us, didn't do it for the money, and it wasn't near enough anyway.
We had 3 children of our own. I was the sole source of our income. I never heard of getting welfare money or food stamps while we were fostering a baby. Some of our babes were crack addicted, some were premature, others were without any problems. Two thirds were non white babes. My wife and I are white, as are the children born to us. You getting the picture now?

None of the babes we cared for were with us for more than 3 months. There were family's waiting in line to adopt the sick, the healthy, the white, the non white, the mixed race babes.

None of those humans committed a crime. None of those humans had stood before a jury of their peers. None of those babes had legal representation. Yet all of them could have executed because of legalized abortion for their simple crime of just being.

PETA and the species they campaign for get more approval from the "pro choice" crowd than humans in the womb. Think of that, more worry over a dog.

Hitler would have approved of your pro choice position. Remember that next time someone calls a non liberal or non progressive a Nazi or Fascist. Remember that.

At 7:30 PM, Anonymous James said...

Harley, Just to clarify a few things, when I am talking about Republicans I mean the politicians, not Conservatives in general. And while I believe a woman should have the right to have an abortion, especially in the case of rape, incest and severe medical issues, I am not Pro-abortion.
The irony of this whole issue is while Republicans are strongly anti-abortion the are also strongly against funding any program to help newborns or even Headstart for that matter.

At 11:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like al Qaeda didnt get the President Obama' message that he had removed them as a threat to us

A jihadist website posted a new threat by al Qaeda this week that promises to conduct “shocking” attacks on the United States and the West.

The posting appeared on the Ansar al Mujahidin network Sunday and carried the headline, “Map of al Qaeda and its future strikes.”

The message, in Arabic, asks: “Where will the next strike by al Qaeda be?” A translation was obtained by Inside the Ring.

“The answer for it, in short: The coming strikes by al Qaeda, with God’s Might, will be in the heart of the land of nonbelief, America, and in France, Denmark, other countries in Europe, in the countries that helped and are helping France, and in other places that shall be named by al Qaeda at other times,” the threat states.

At 9:08 AM, Anonymous James said...

Chuck, that is quite a leap to say I am a Nazi because I do not think the Republicans would ever pay for disabled children. I guess in your world if you are not a Conservative you are a Nazi.

Your posting style here makes me skeptical of your selfless portrait. The $35.00 a week for foster care seems made up. Here is a real reimbursement rate for foster care.

California, which has 75,000 foster children -- more than any other state -- ranks in the lower half of states in paying families to care for them. But when adjusted for the cost of living, California's ranking drops even further.

The analysis found that the state's $425-a-month reimbursement rate to care for a 2-year-old was 61% too low -- or $260 a month too little -- to meet the costs of food, clothing, shelter and other basic needs prescribed by federal guidelines. The $597 a month paid to care for a 16-year-old child was 44% too low, the study said.

At 3:23 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

James, for the record, I have never lived in CA. So doubt all you like. I never expected to be given funds to off set the cost to care for a foster child. I did it because I believed that since I am pro life, then I needed to do more that protest abortion. I believed I needed to walk the walk, not just talk it. There was a need, so I filled it, out of my belief that human life, both inside and out side the womb is precious.

"Who would pay for all the social services for the deformed, handicapped, and IQ challenged children that would of been born?"..James
Those are your words James, not mine. Compare yours to the those the Nazis gave for removing the "non desirable" from their population. Chilling.

And the reason "you don't think the Republicans would pay for DISABLED children" is based on what? I included the word think not only because you used it but to also challenge your practice of assuming you know how a group of people would act. Can you provide quotes from Republicans to support your view?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home