About Us

Name: HvySlpr
Email: VINCE.X.GALLUCCI@QUESTDIAGNOSTICS.COM Biography
Name:
Email: Kelsey.bartsch@yahoo.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

Racists Will Reign and Votes Will Be Stolen

Posted by HvySlpr on Sunday, November 02, 2008 1:10:49 AM
     With only a few days before the election I was stupid enough to open an e-mail from a co-worker with a blog from Actor/Screenwriter Larry David attached. I usually ignore ignoramus remarks from the Hollywood elite, but so close to an election, it really got under my skin.

   David eluded that Obama could only lose the election if it was stolen from him (by cheating actually) or because of racism. This I cannot let slide.

   To say that Obama can only lose by either of these reasons is beyond insulting, completely ridiculous, and almost ignorable, if I didn’t whole-heartedly believe he was serious in his assessment.

   There are a litany of reasons, most of which I will point out, for voting against Barack Hussein Obama, neither his middle name nor his race among them. 

   For instance, his comment, on the Senate floor, where he said that our troops were air-raiding villages and killing innocent civilians in Iraq may have a negative effect on getting 100% percent of the vote from service members and veterans.

   Racism must be involved in an Obama defeat, right? 

   Of course!  People couldn’t possibly vote against Obama because of his constant race baiting or his wife’s obvious disdain for her country’s race-relations. People couldn’t possibly vote against Obama because of his unbelievable stance against the partial-birth abortion ban while a member of the Illinois Senate, a fact that will definitely resonate with the Catholic community and is tantamount to supporting infanticide (a word too many people are cowardly avoiding). People couldn’t possibly vote against Obama on grounds of his complete lack of executive experience, whether in the public or private sector, and his relative lack of experience in the Legislative branch.

   With friends like William Aires, Rev. Wright, and acquaintances like Rashid Khalidi (a “Palestinian scholar”), it would be ridiculous to assume that some people would find that Barack Obama’s complete lack of character judgment might be a problem when picking cabinet members. (By the way, I think “lack of judgment” is a generous phrase considering I believe Obama had full knowledge of how these people think and what they say and believe, despite what he tells us). Questions about Barack Obama's feelings about Black Liberation Theology, a belief at least fostered by Rev. Wright (his proclaimed spiritual mentor), may have a few people disturbed enough to vote against him.

   Obama received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in two years than John McCain accrued in more than twenty, so bailing out those two companies may be seen as a conflict of interests; a fact that will not escape voters on Tuesday. In an interesting coincidence, Obama voted for the huge bailout of Wall Street, members of which are big contributors to his campaign. 

   I don’t’ think its too extreme to assume that a multitude of people will vote against Obama because of his complete lack of understanding of economic issues either, among which is his constant assertion that the trouble in the financial markets is due to de-regulation! Ridiculous. To be sure, Obama’s economic policies deserve a blog all of their own. He repeatedly talks about the redistribution of wealth, psuedo-nationalized healthcare, and increases in spending, all while saying that he will give tax cuts to “95% of Americans.” For those of us who know that 40% of the country pays zero effective Federal Tax, it is hard for Obama to argue that his economic plan isn’t a huge expansion of the Welfare State. Larry David may find out on Tuesday that Socialism isn’t as rampant in America as it is in the Democratic Party and Hollywood.

   Lastly, could it be at least possible that some voters find it a bit extreme that Barack Obama was considered the most liberal member of the United States Senate in 2007?

   Because I believe the plethora of reasons above are enough to make my point that there are many reasons why Obama could lose the election, I don’t feel it at all necessary to mentioned the many, many reasons people have to vote for somebody else, whether it be The Republican Party’s John McCain, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, or even the Constitution Party’s candidate. 

   Unfortunately, I think liberals like David are doing what liberals having been doing for years: assert that their candidates and ideas will lose, not because their simply wrong, but because of the corrupt, racist, sexist, homo-phobic, bigoted, redneck, un-educated, religious, and regressive United States electorate. Duh!

   If Barack Obama loses this election it will be because his arguments just weren’t good enough…like it or not.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Clear the Aisle!

Posted by HvySlpr on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 12:44:09 AM
   When talking to friends and co-workers I am pleased to find that I am not the only one happy about the miserable failure of the proposed bailout on Monday, with estimated costs of $700 billion. I say miserable because a large majority of Republicans (over 60%) and a larger than expected minority of Democrats (over 30%) voted the bill down. What I am disappointed in, however, is some of the buzzwords being used when explaining what should be done.
   I hear many people say that Democrats and Republicans need to “compromise” and “reach across the aisle” to “fix” this problem. Democrats and Republicans both agree that something needs to be done. In an election year, full of self-aggrandizing and class-warfare, this is not a surprise. Fortunately, this is where the two Parties’ agreement ends. The Devil truly is in the details.
   The left and right can both agree that there is turmoil, but philosophically, when it come to economics and the Federal Government’s role in the U.S. market, the two parties could not be on more opposite ends of the spectrum. At the very least, Conservative philosophy and Liberal philosophy cannot.   While conservative philosophy believes that more government equals less freedom, liberal philosophy believes that the role of the Federal Government does and should have direct influence in private market affairs. The liberal philosophy believes in heavy regulation, whether the market is up or down, and heavy taxation on the rich and successful to fund government programs for the poor (i.e. redistribution of wealth). A similar philosophy was popularized in a book around the time of the American Civil War: Karl Marx called it Manifesto of the Communist Party. Slowly that philosophy became progressivism in the beginning of the twentieth century, fascism in Italy, and finally…modern day liberalism.
   Simply put, conservative philosophy says that the market should self-dictate, self-regulate, and self-discipline in order to truly succeed. A belief that favoritism by the Government can negatively affect the market is at the center of that philosophy (laissez-faire for you economists). I tend to believe that favoritism (e.g., tariffs, subsidies and progressive taxation) is actually un-Constitutional.
   Congress cannot possibly come to an agreement with this kind of philosophical divide. I am reminded of a quote from a wise man:
 
“Walk on road, hmm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later get squish just like grape.” - Mr. Miyagi (Karate Kid)
     
   Whether you voted for a Republican or Democrat, you voted for him or her for a reason. I am not going to vote for a Republican so that he can act like a Democrat, and the reverse is also true. Why would I want him or her to “reach across the aisle” when the other side of the aisle is wrong?…like it or not.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Time to Regulate Regulation

Posted by HvySlpr on Thursday, September 18, 2008 1:41:08 AM
  Anyone who doesn’t know about the turmoil in the financial markets is dead. That’s what I came up with. To not know that something is going on in the market must mean that you can no longer receive outside stimulus.
   Now, since I know you are alive: while you have heard that the financial markets are experiencing quite a shock, what you might not have heard is that much of the blame can be placed on the government, and it’s constant tampering with the market, per usual. It seems that many will have you believe that deregulation, greed, and George W. Bush are entirely culpable.

   There is plenty of blame to go around. I will say, unequivocally, that people who took out loans they knew they couldn’t afford are partly to blame, as are the banks and lending institutions that actually loaned out the money, as are the institutions that subsequently purchased those mortgages. However, the lowering of interest rates to unsustainable levels, leading to a fall in the dollar and a housing bubble, the constant push from the government to lower lending standards in order to grant loans to sub-prime markets(The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977), and the implicit bail-out for those institutions that fail, had an undeniably larger effect.

   To say, as Barack Obama has, that deregulation is the culprit in the financial market meltdown speaks to his ignorance of economics. In other words, Obama thinks that the federal government isn’t involved enough in the financial markets.

   If you start with the Department of the Treasury website you will find a litany of organizations, governing bodies, and statutes that currently regulate all aspects of the financial markets, such as:

      Department of the Treasury
 
      Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)

      Federal Reserve Board

      Security and Exchange Commission (SEC)

      Bureau of Public Debt

      Community Development Financial Institution Fund (CDFI)

      Financial Management Service (FMS)

      The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)

                  -Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

                  -Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)

                  -National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)

        -The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)

        -Office of Thrift Supervision

      Statues and Regulations including:

                  -Sale of Treasury Securities

                  -Auction Regulations

                  -Collateral Eligibility and Valuation Regulations

                  -Government Securities Act Regulations

                  -Redemption Operations Regulations

                  -Treasury Direct Regulations

                  -Savings Bond Regulations

-And a long list of self-regulating organizations (many commissioned by the government).

   During a speech made on financial-market overhaul “Obama [called] for extending commercial banking regulations to investment banks, hedge funds, and mortgage brokers. He called for a commission that would monitor threats to the financial system.” All this according to the September 16th edition of the Wall Street Journal,

   It seems glaringly obvious to me that the government should step away from private business, including financial institutions, and let the market decide a host of things that are currently under heavy regulations. When you let the market decide who should receive a loan, and at what rate, you can take the government’s responsibility out of the equation, let failures fail and winners win, and take the taxpayer off the hook…like it or not.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The View From Stupid

Posted by HvySlpr on Saturday, September 13, 2008 12:34:26 AM
  I begrudgingly watched, on YouTube, the interview(?) of John McCain on The View, that aired Sept. 12. Before you ask…yes it was painful.

  Not painful for John McCain apparently. Quite the contrary, Senator McCain looked poised, calm, friendly, confident, spry, and was obviously in his element. He was funny and personable and did not let the fact that he was being debated, not interviewed, by four women who couldn’t disagree more with his policies and have, I believe, a genuine dislike for the man, fluster him.

  Barbawa Wawa started with a descent question, but of course didn’t let John McCain answer. Truthfully, would you? It is obvious that the Senator from Arizona is more than comfortable in this type of forum (one major reason Obama has refused to debate him in a town hall-type atmosphere) and made Wawa look rude, ignorant, and combative. As a matter of fact, at one point the former journalist basically called Senator McCain a liar.

  When discussing the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, John McCain implied that he would appoint “Strict Constitutionalists.”

                     “Should I be worried about being a slave…?” asked Whoopi Goldberg.

  I’m sorry, what? Hmm? Did I hear that right? A slave? Really, did she just ask that?

  Yes, Whoopi is afraid that if John McCain appoints “strict Constitutionalists” to the Supreme Court, that she may be forced into slavery. Yeah, that makes sense. The pessimism of the left has surprised even me in this instance.

  No, no softball questions for the Senator, and rightfully so. However John did very well in answering those questions honestly (leading up to this, Hasselbeck asked for his opinion on Roe v. Wade) and did not worry about a negative audience reaction and surely did not soften his views based on the views of the room. That, my friends, is called integrity (Obama, look it up).

  I have to admit, that was enough for me. I couldn’t watch anymore, but I would like to express my thoughts on Whoopi’s outlandish statement. 

  At NO point was slavery constitutional. Frederick Douglass, a former slave turned abolitionist, wrote in, I believe all three of his autobiographies, that the Constitution itself called for the end of slavery. When a man who, firsthand, suffered the injustices and ungodly acts of slavery can come to that conclusion, it is utterly deplorable to see a free, rich, and celebrated black woman, over 100 years later, make a statement to the contrary.

  Now, whether the Constitution was strictly followed (as it pertains to slavery) for another eighty-nine years is obvious, but the point is this: we now have a sound bite that explicates how liberals feel about our founding documents. Conservatives have long espoused the view that liberals have a disdain for the Constitution (why else would they want to butcher it with rulings such as Roe v. Wade?) but have always been told that these fears were unfounded and based on scare-tactics and lies.

  To say that a return to constitutionalism is a return to slavery is mind-boggling and I hope that people on the left will have the courage to distance themselves, not just from the statement, but also from the idea that our country institutionalized slavery with our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. “That all men are created equal” is a statement of pure beauty, intellect, courage, and boldness that the world hadn’t, and has not since, seen…like it or not.

Tags: The View  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Book Review Time - Murray

Posted by HvySlpr on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:11:31 AM
The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Environmentalist Don't Want You to Know About-- Because They Helped Cause Them 
Ian Murray
 
   While this book is interesting both in its premise and anecdotes, what is really important is that the author touched on three pillars that describe the environmentalist movement perfectly:

One, environmentalism is a religion.
Two, environmentalism is bad for the environment.
Three, since the fall of communism and its sympathizer’s, environmentalism is the lefts’ newest way of trying to thrust socialism onto the American people
 
   I will not go into the first point, as I have previously written about the subject. Murray gives ample evidence of how environmentalism hurts, not helps, the environment. In fact, it is the premise of his entire book and at the center of each chapter’s theme. From the horrible fire of Yellowstone National Park to the myth of the Cuyahoga River burning do to over industrialization, Murray consistently applies the principle that socialism (read: environmentalism) is not only bad for the environment but that the cure is more, not less, capitalism. When the reader is forced to sit down and think about such things as the Endangered Species Act (I especially like a farmer’s remark when speaking about what landowners are doing to protect themselves from the statute: “Shoot, shovel, and shut-up”) he or she realizes that it is power, and a return to paganism I believe, not a love for the environment that these followers demand.
   Once the reader realizes that environmental policies have contributed to many catastrophes, and is the down-right cause of a host of them, the left’s agenda to vehemently introduce socialism into the American system becomes blatantly obvious.   Why else would a group of people adamant about protecting the environment put politics above results (as in the case of controlled burns and land clearing to lessen the damage of wildfires)? The environmental movement wants control above all else. Control over how much you eat, what you eat, how many children you have, what you drive, when you drive, if you drive, where your sources of energy come from, how much, when, and if you can pollute, and an unbelievable laundry list of other such restrictions.
   Murray explains, comprehensibly and in layman’s terms, just what the environmental movement has done to people in Africa, America, Europe, and the rest of the world. The author does not only deride “the movement” but offers market-based solutions to many of the environmental problems the world faces with a word I can definitely stand behind: stewardship. 
   A thoroughly researched, well thought-out commentary on the hypocrisy of the left and environmentalism as a belief structure…like it or not.
Tags: Ian Murray  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Book Review Time - FairTax

Posted by HvySlpr on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:03:14 AM
Fair Tax: The Truth: Answering the Critics
Neal Bortz and John Linder
   I have to admit that prior to reading this book I was ill-informed on the overwhelming benefits of the FairTax. I was, however, schooled in another tax reform/overhaul plan: the Flat Tax (Steve Forbes). What transpired during the reading of this book (a transformation of sorts) came with an appreciation of the huge amount of research done by, not only the authors, but from the grass-roots movement and everyday supporters of this much-needed reform and a realization that the Flat Tax just isn’t good enough.
   My brother actually turned me on to the FairTax just weeks before I started reading the book and for that I am eternally grateful. I don’t believe that most people who criticize the FairTax have read this book, as it takes on both serious and dubious claims and questions from critics in a comprehensible, fun, and intelligent rebuttal. For those who don’t know what the FairTax is, I believe a short description will be enough to entice you sufficiently, sparking your interest to do some honest research on the subject.
   The Fair Tax calls for an abolition of the Federal Income Tax, the Payroll Tax, estate taxes, corporate taxes, gift taxes, the death tax, the capital gains tax, and the Alternative Minimum Tax, while simultaneously ridding the American people of the burdensome task of completing tax returns to the tune of $192 billion a year (Tax Foundation) and repealing the 16th Amendment. The FairTax is not a new tax, but a revenue-neutral replacement of the currently outdated, unfair, confusing, and extremely long (9 million words) Federal Tax Code, with a simple consumption tax of 23% for all goods and services.
   The authors do a great job of explaining their proposal (HR 25 & S 1025) in simple terms, in a relatively short book, while intellectually countering the opposition. A complete overhaul of the tax code is an idea that people on both sides of the political aisle can stand behind and an undertaking that is worth every ounce of sweat…like it or not.

P.S. I would love to debate this subject if anyone has any doubts, concerns, apprehensions, thinks the FairTax is wrong, or has been lied to about what the FairTax means.
To learn more about the FairTax, start here.
Buy the book here. (Only $4 on Amazon)
Tags: FairTax  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HvySlpr and J Do Battle Over Abortion - Part 7/7

Posted by HvySlpr on Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:12:40 PM
A synopsis liberal thought:
“Personally, I am pro-choice.  It is the woman’s/couple’s decision.”
“The man does have a say, sometimes."
**
“[A] plot to destroy a race of people or impede on civil liberties should become everyone’s problem.”
“As citizens of the world, we should all do something to protect the civil liberties of people.”
“Until they start lining up women and forcing them to have abortions, [abortion] is not a social issue.”
“Slavery was a social issue, abortion is a personal issue.”
**
“I believe [the abortion debate] is like being for/against an economic policy or drug policy.”
“Abortion is not an economic policy, but of personal choice.”
**
“I have no say over the choice someone makes for themselves, whether I agree or not.”
“I totally am 100% against abortion as a method of birth control.”
“Getting preggo and having abortion after abortion is wrong.”
**
“I believe [life] is arbitrary.”
“[A]ny and all life is valuable.”
“I will say, [abortion] may be the taking of an innocent life.”
“I will concede to the definition of life.”
**
“[The baby] is not apart of [a woman’s] body at birth, when the cord is cut.”
“In a way, children are property.”
**
“Isn’t this all relative?
“[R]ight and wrong is different for everyone.”
**
“The state/feds would have to take some responsibility [for unwanted children] if abortions were made illegal.”
**
Liberalism is a mental disorder…like it or not.
END OF PART 7, and article.
 
P.S.
I am exited to read the comments and am appreciative of the responses to these seven articles, both form those who agree and disagree with my points, especially those new to my blog.  It is my hope that my arguments have struck a cord with people and that perhaps, at best, I have changed someone's mind about abortion through logic and reasoning.
 
P.S.S
J, as I have referred to him in my articles, is a long-time friend.  I have a great deal of respect for him and consider him to be a genuinely good person.  I also have great respect for his mother (a person I hope to share with all of you via a blog entry, shortly), a walking inspiration and perfect example of what hard work, dedication, self-sacrifice, and faith can accomplish in this wonderful country.  However, I happen to think his stance on abortion is completely misguided.  We have not let this agreement interfere with our friendship in the slightest and my hope is that I did not make him look stupid, merely ill-informed and, quite simply...wrong.  I encourage you to argue the pro-life position in a well-thought-out, rational manner, as I hope I have, as our wonderful country allows us.
 
Thank you,
HvySlpr
Tags: part 7  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HvySlpr and J Do Battle Over Abortion Part 6/7

Posted by HvySlpr on Friday, August 01, 2008 4:55:23 PM
H: One of the possible consequences of having sex is pregnancy, planned or otherwise.  If this risk is too great, do not indulge in the act.  It really is that simple. Children under "legal age" are punished all the time;  they go to jail, get detention, etc.  Parents do hold responsibility, but not sole responsibility.
 "..who then is responsible for unwanted children?"
This is going to sound crazy:  the parents.  They don't like it, so sad, stop having sex with people you don't know. Making abortion legal did not stop unwanted children from being born.  If the state is deemed responsible, like in communist states (they work real well - no poverty - especially in children), every time someone has a kid they would have otherwise aborted, doesn't the state have a financial obligation to limit procreation?  Maybe they should sterilize people too.  This all sounds vaguely familiar.  Oh yeah…the Nazis did that.  The difference; the Nazis killed far fewer people.
J: You made me laugh! But my point is, you want the child born, so why don't you care for the child? Since you have such input on what the women should do with her body and care so much for the life of an unborn child, why not have some input in rearing the child, supporting the child, feeding and caring for the child, donate some child support, pick him and go to the playground, change the diapers. [HvySlpr], you're not going to budge on this one and neither am I. Can we agree to move on?
H: Never, loser.  Again, abortion is not an economic policy debate.  It is a matter of life and death.  The abolitionist, women’s suffrage, and civil rights movement combined.
You can use this same argument for taking care of our wives:
"I haven't killed my wife, but only because it's illegal!  So why doesn't the government, who is obviously stepping all over my freedom of choice, take care of her from now on?!"
You want a nanny state?  Good luck.  Learn from history, it is unsustainable.  The more power you give the government the less you have.  We need them for national defense, rule of law, and to uphold contracts, period.
Say “Uncle.”
J: NEVER! I want you to say “freedom of choice,” and “women's rights.” Abortion is not an economic policy, but of personal choice. It is not fun, happy time. But we live with the choice we make, good or bad.  You just keep defending unborn children, and I'll support women's rights.  THE END!
END MAY 12, 2008
 
BEGIN MAY 13, 2008
 
H: You do have freedom of choice, unless it affects someone else's freedom(s), i.e. the right to life.  “Women's rights?”  Rights, under the law and God, are not gender specific.  I refuse to grant women any more or any fewer rights, based solely on gender.  That's called sexism, and I don't subscribe to it. I will concede that you cannot take away someone's free will and freedom to choose if you concede these irrefutable facts, delaying the inevitable tongue lashing you deserve:
1.  Your freedom to choose is protected as long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights.
2.  The freedom of choice is not without consequence, legal, moral, or otherwise.
3.  Life can begin nowhere else but conception, legally and scientifically, as we now define life and conception.
LIFE:
 
Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:
  1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
  2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
  3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
  4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
  5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
  6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
  7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
CONCEPTION:
 
Human fertilization is the union of a human egg and sperm, usually occurring in the ampulla of the fallopian tube. It is also the initiation of prenatal development.  Fertilization constitutes the penetration of the oocyte which the sperm performs, fusion of the sperm and oocyte, succeeded by fusion of their genetic material.
We have reached a point where my logic is infallible and irrefutable.  Any denial of the above conditions directly contradicts your previous statements.  Nothing further may be said by you except the following: 
"[HvySlpr], lord of debate and all that is political, I concede the three above points, realize the fallibility and illogical nature of my arguments and humbly request your pardon.  Teach me the way."
To which I will respond:
"[J], you have always been a friend an confidant.  Liberalism, a disease from which you suffer, has crept into the inner-most portions of your brain and has obviously affected your thought process.  Of course, you are forgiven, but now, as penance for your sins (liberalism, doubt, and illogical arguments), spread the word of this and other conservative principles.  I do this as a friend, and as a political physician, prescribing conservatism, the only known cure from the aliment by which you suffer (liberalism).  Tell no close friends of this epiphany, as the opposition to such thoughts reign supreme, without mercy, in the towns, churches, work-places, and neighborhoods we inhabit.  You are amongst enemies in Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois, but you are not without friends.  Take heed and God speed in your quest.
J: Ha! I'm glad you've had this conversation in your head. I will concede to the definition of life, but will always hold to choice and free will, with its consequences. Great debate! Let's do it again sometime.
Tags: Part 6  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HvySlpr and J Do Battle Over Abortion - Part 5/7

Posted by HvySlpr on Sunday, July 27, 2008 2:47:45 AM
H: Should there be any laws?  Your logic says "no," unequivocally.  A law is not a legislation of morality, they are rules made because of thousands of years of trial and error.
"That (6 abortions) crosses a threshold for me.” That is completely illogical based on your past arguments.  Your logic dictates zero fallacy, moral or legal, with abortion.
"But my truth would be she is letting nature take its course."  I love this argument.  Do you ever take pain killers?  Go to the doctor?  Does [your wife] plan on taking an epidural when she goes into labor one day?  Will you tell your mother or father not to get an angioplasty or stints or a by-pass if they need it, hopefully much later in life, if at all?  Are you PLAYING GOD [J]!!  God granted us inquisitive minds to solve our everyday problems.  This (medical advances leading to longer lives) is a gift, not an abomination. 
"This is a reality for some people. Can you change that?"   If it wasn't for people trying to change that reality (disgusting racism), you would be pickin' cotton in the south, or worse.  You couldn't have been married.  {Your Wife} would have been used like cattle for breeding.  Your children, if you were allowed to have any, would be ripped away from you at birth, possibly sold to the highest bidder.  Slavery was and is a disgusting practice.  The long, bloody battle to end slavery in the U.S. was largely fought by white northerners with zero slaves, and no ties to slavery.  I am glad that the people arguing against their cause with moral relativity, and arguments about how slavery did not directly affect them, failed.

Why should I police a site?

What does it matter?

Who does it hurt to just let it go?

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent; I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent; I wasn’t a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (January 14, 1892 – March 6, 1984)

J: This is true [Gods grant of inquisitive minds], but my point you missed here is in each of these situations we make a choice to use these technologies or not. [My wife] does not have to have an epidural if she does not want, my parents do not have to have by-pass or angioplasty, etc., if they do not want to. These a re not mandated. We choose if we want these things or not. In the instance of racism and slavery; I think this is separate. Slavery was a social issue, abortion is a personal issue, as I see it. Yes, as citizens of the world aw all should do something to protect the civil liberties of people. And in these instances, abortion would fall into the civil liberty category. In my defense, I am standing up for the civil liberties of women and couple’s to make their own decisions about this topic. Ultimately, it’s about choices, good or bad, right or wrong.

H: Rights come from God, and/or are enumerated in the Constitution.  Where is there a right to an abortion?  Either you think it was granted by the Constitution or granted by God.  If God, what church do you attend?  If the Constitution, wherein?
"...a choice to use these technologies or not."  Yes, but they are not playing God when they, personally, decide to use them, or breaking any laws either way.  When it comes to abortion, or euthanasia, the person making the choice is not ultimately the one affected by it.  My point was to illustrate the hypocrisy and fallacy of the "playing God" or "letting nature take it's course" argument.  By your logic, slavery shouldn't have been outlawed.  It was based on personal choice.  The choice of the slave-holders to hold people captive, physically forcing them to work, and the choice of the slave not to fight back.  Why get the government involved?  If people used you line of logic you would be a slave.  Abortion is more of a social issue for those smart enough to realize life begins at conception.  Slaves could have fought back but chose, largely, the consequences of not fighting back.  Unborn babies cannot.  Your constant reference to "choices," their moral infallibility, and the non-shalantness that you talk about them baffles me.  I am all for personal choice, if it has no effect on others' freedoms, but unlawful choices can, do, and should be punished.

J: The person making the choice is directly affected.  If I chose euthanasia, my very existence is affected. If a woman chooses abortion, she is directly affected, but also these early stages of life.  By my logic slavery would be outlawed because force or threat of force was used to exploit a race of people.  In the abortion scenario, force or threat of force is not used.  Until they start lining up women and forcing them to have abortions, it is not a social issue.  As for rights, Roevs. Wade says abortion is legal but may be restricted by the states to varying degrees. And according to Webster, rights are a legal guarantee. Since it is legal, though to an extent, women do have the right.  Moreover, because a right it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist. You know this. The Constitution does not detail every little thing. In my mind an abortion is not the same as criminal acts. By your logic, I take, that you should also play a sizeable part in the upbringing and caring of children whom would have other wise been aborted. Is this true?

H: Euthanasia is not suicide.  It is one taking another's life, usually proclaimed as compassion.  If it is on yourself, it isn't euthanasia.
Force or threat of force is used against the baby.
Roe v. Wade?  Seriously, you went to Roe v. Wade?
Courts do not grant rights.  It was a faulty ruling based on political pressure, not law.  The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of freedom from illegal search and seizure was used by activist liberal judges.  Apparently they felt that the mothers' right to property superseded the babies' right to life.  The same type of activist judges ruled in favor of Jim Crowe laws.  A person as property is not new but has always been anti-Constitutional in the U.S. and has always been abhorrent.
There are adoption agencies that exist purely to stop, or limit, abortion.  Like I said before, except in the cases of rape and Immaculate Conception, pregnancy is 100% preventable. 
The law says "buckle your seat-belt."  If the seat belt causes you injury in an accident you can't sue the state of Illinois.  Why would the state be responsible for your child simply because killing it was illegal.  You can't go to the government and tell them that because you haven't killed [your wife], when you could have if it wasn't illegal, that they have to pay for all of her birthday gifts from now on.
“J:Euthanasia is not suicide.  It is one taking another's life, usually proclaimed as compassion.  If it is on yourself, it isn't euthanasia.” Got that, maybe didn't articulate my idea well. I meant have someone kill me.
“Pregnancy is only 100% preventable if abstinence is used.”  Must we deprive ourselves of our sexuality and sexual identities to avoid this issue?  In a way, a child(ren) is/are property in the sense that until "legal age" you as a parent are responsible for the actions of your child.  Watch the judge shows, anytime a child is involved the parent pays the consequences in instances of liability. 
"Why would the state be responsible for your child simply because killing it was illegal."  Why wouldn't it? You proposed the state/feds make abortion criminal, who then is responsible for unwanted children? The state/feds would have to take some responsibility if abortions were made illegal. Right? Or is the child supposed to do for him or herself from birth?
END OF PART 5
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HvySlpr and J Do Battle Over Abortion part 4/7

Posted by HvySlpr on Sunday, July 27, 2008 2:38:02 AM
H: Err on the side of life then. And don’t say “What is life?” If you agree that abortion may be the taking of an innocent life, there is a moral imperative to stop it. Free will is given to us, but you wouldn’t say that murderers or rapists or thieves are merely exercising their free will and shouldn’t be punished for it. We cannot stop free will, but we can punish the misuse of it. When speaking of Christianity, it is important to note that judgment and punishment are two different things.  We do not have the power to judge, ultimately, but the power to punish is something we do have. Doing things that harm yourself and nobody else (some drugs taken correctly and safely) is a correct exercise of free will. When you harm someone else while doing it, you have infringed on another’s right to safety and self preservation. 

“Do you propose any woman that has had an abortion be punished?” Yes, if it can be proven and she is given her Fifth Amendment rights.   Intent and motive must be proven, like all deaths leading to a homicide investigation.

J: Isn’t this all relative? We share differing views on this topic. You may view it as criminal or immoral, I view it as a personal choice. That is what life is…choice. We live with the decisions we make and face the consequences of our actions. But I am not in a position to make choices for others. At what point is a fertilized egg not apart of a women’s body? I think it is not apart of her body at birth and the cord is cut. We live according to our perceptions, for the most part. If someone believes in something, it is. So, you believing it is immoral, it is. And I believing it is a personal choice, it is. Can we both be wrong and right? Yes, based on each perspective. As before, abortion as a form of birth control is wrong…practice safe sex. Approximately between 1-18% of pregnancies occur when birth control is properly used, depending on the method of birth control. I assume that you would say it does not matter, even if a child is unwanted and proper birth control is used and used properly. In the end, it comes down to choices, and we live with the choices we make and the consequences. Put yourself in this type of situation: and abortion is done, against your will, but this is not the will of your partner, so it is done anyway. How do you handle it? Is it your duty to control your partner in this manner? This is what sound like a form of control. Forget about abortion for a minute and let’s just say all women must have babies, even if they don’t desire to, because it’s wrong not to have children. What then?
END MAY 9, 2008
 
BEGIN MAY 12, 2008

H: When life becomes relative anything is possible:  You like having sex with kids?  Its all relative.  You like to rob people?  Property is all relative.  You like to rape women?  "No" is such a relative term.  You don't believe Jesus was crucified?  It's okay; you’re still a Christian, relatively speaking. There are no beliefs.  There is no right and wrong.  There is no evil and there is no good.  No God, no Devil.  When moral relativity reigns supreme everything can be explained away, including all bad behaviors.

You can be wrong.  As can I.  If I am proven wrong, oh well.  If you are proven wrong it will be at the defense of women who kill children to make their lives easier.  You are a fool's fool. If there is nothing wrong with abortion, how can you disagree with those who use it as birth control?  It is their choice, their money, and her body.
"At what point is a fertilized egg not apart of a women's body?  I think it is not apart of her body at birth and the cord is cut." 

So at nine months, at a live birth, a baby can be killed, as long as the cord hasn't been cut? Can the whole body be out of the womb, or just part of it?  What about a c-section?  If the baby is born premature can it be aborted after the cord is cut?  Chances are it will have a machine keeping it alive anyway, like my brother.  That's not really "alive," right?  If you close your eyes and never actually see the baby, you could probably kill it the next day.  It's your choice.  Matter of fact, if you have a girl, but really wanted a boy, just send her, or it, sorry, down the river. Or abort her early, like they have been doing in India.  Girls have cooties anyway. I'm going to encourage black women to abort, to take care of the welfare problem and crime problem in the black community.  I'll talk to Jews, non-Catholics, Muslims, midgets, any every one without blonde hair and blue eyes, to do the same. Oh well, it's just a "product of conception," a "mass of cells," or even a parasite when you think about it.  It's all relative.

J:Exactly! How then do you change people's thinking? How do you make people understand? Can I/we transform this mentality? Possibly, but people will hold to their truths. If one's truth is abortion is a right then it is no matter how much you try to convince them otherwise it is a right.  Like you and I now. No matter what we say to each other, we still have opposing views. I think we all carry moral relativism to some extent, our understanding of life is all based on our perceptions of reality/morality, etc..  This is why I believe it boils down to personal choice. I cannot make one believe my beliefs. We generally act based on our beliefs. Even if one thought abortion was wrong, does that mean it will not be used?

 "If there is nothing wrong with abortion, how can you disagree with those who use it as birth control.  It is their choice, their money, and her body." This is true, it is their choice, but my belief is having consistent abortions (say 6) vs. using birth control methods to prevent pregnancy in the first place. That crosses a threshold for me. But ultimately it is her choice, her life, her body. And I have no say on how she decides to live her life and treat her body. "If the baby is born premature can it be aborted after the cord is cut?  Chances are it will have a machine keeping it alive anyway." If a baby is born premature, it becomes the mother's decision whether to keep the child on "life support."  If she chooses not to, then she is a murderer by your standards.  But my truth would be she is letting nature take its course. 

 "I'm going to encourage black women to abort, to take care of the welfare problem and crime problem in the black community.  I'll talk to Jews, non-Catholics, Muslims, midgets, any every one without blond hair and blue eyes, to do the same." This is a reality for some people. Can you change that? I can only live for me and try to educate my children one day. I do not want to dictate how people should live, behave, interact. As an educator, it is not my job to conform minds to my or any one belief or beliefs. It is our job to develop young minds to think for themselves, and make decisions based on what they believe is right.  And "right" and "wrong" is different for everyone.
END OF PART 4
Tags: part 4/7  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Law-breakers Concerned Law-abiders May Now Shoot Back

Posted by HvySlpr on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 12:09:53 AM
On Thursday June 26, 2008, in a truly landmark decision, the first like it in over seventy years, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Washington D.C.’s effective ban on firearms was in fact unconstitutional. Hallelujah.
I wrote about the pending decision way back when, but wasn’t expecting such a great ruling:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.

You can read the rest here if you are still awake. By the way, “prefatory” is my new favorite word.

With an open and clear-cut example of how liberals want to take away your rights, and In predictable liberal fashion, the Chicago Tribune called for a repeal of the Second Amendment.
No, the Chicago Tribune was not the only bunch of liberals irate with the Supreme court. Add to that list the Washington Post who said “IT IS deeply disappointing, though not surprising, that the Supreme Court [Thursday] struck down the District's gun laws after finding that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.” Damn those Constitutionalists… damn them.
Not to be outdone, The New York Times chimed in: “The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling striking down key parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law.“ Subtle, and unemotional, but I picked up on where they were headed. By the way, someone may want to inform the Times about what happened to the D.C. homicide rate after the “gun control law“ was passed (psst… it didn’t go down).
I also remember reading (from some liberal, useless blog) that The Constitution does not explicitly allow the individual a right to bear arms.  You may ask; “Where exactly is the explicit right to abortion in the Constitution (an old and tired “pro-choice” argument)?” You took the words right out of my mouth. I think I may be rubbing off on you. J
I don’t usually quote comedians but Larry the Cable Guy, of all people, said it eloquently; "Blamin’ a gun for killin’ people is like blamin’ a pencil for misspellin’ a word.”
I will give the Chicago Tribune a pea-sized amount of credit for doing something right: If you hate the Second Amendment, overturn it. Although, by doing so, at least in this context, you are admitting to its guarantee of the individual right to bear arms. Unless you don’t believe in the rights of militias either. Hmmm…you anti-constitutionalists are in a pickle indeed…like it or not.
 
Update: A lawsuit seeking to overturn the Chicago ordinance banning firearms was filed on Thursday by the Illinois State Rifle Association. Interestingly, the people who have been killing others, via gun violence, in Chicago said it really wouldn’t affect their lifestyle, as the law really didn‘t concern murderous lawbreakers in the first place. Go figure.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HvySlpr and J Do Battle Over Abortion Part 3/7

Posted by HvySlpr on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:30:50 PM
BEGIN MAY 8, 2008

H: Being against abortion is not like being against an economic policy or drug policy. It is completely illogical to be against abortion, or to think it is wrong in any way, but not want it outlawed. What makes it wrong [in your eyes]? If you believe it is the ending of life, there is a moral obligation to outlaw it.

J: I believe it is like being for/against and economic policy or drug policy. My issue, personally, is I don’t know if “life” beings at conception. For one, a fertilized egg does not always equal a live birth. [HvySlpr], we are just on opposing sides on this one.

H: An abortion never ends in a live birth.

J: That’s not what I mean. A woman can have a fertilized egg in the uterus, but in some cases the egg is releases thru menstruation and sometimes miscarriage occurs.   In those instances, would the same response [from you] occur?

H: If the woman did that on purpose (i.e. drank alcohol to abort) I would investigate just like any other homicide; motive, murder weapon, intent, etc. Obviously that would be hard to prove, but it would be proven sometimes. Abortion is an intended act. An accident, by definition, could not be abortion. I do think that both cases are tragic, yes.

J: [T]his is why I question the numbers too, because for sometime a miscarriage was reported as abortion, I can’t remember the exact time frame. I know what you are going to say, “the number is still large despite some discrepancies.” Also, think of this scenario in regards to life: a person is on hospitalized and connected to a respirator; they only can “live” on this machine… is that “life.”

END MAY 8, 2008 - BEGIN MAY 9, 2008

H: I don’t know why anyone, especially a professional, would characterize a miscarriage as an abortion. Again, abortion is the purposeful and premeditated act of ending a pregnancy and a miscarriage is an accidental death due to extenuating circumstances beyond her control. Don’t get me started on euthanasia; a purely selfish task done to rid people of guilt and burden. Even so, dying on a respirator (euthanasia) and being killed (abortion) are two totally different things. I would venture to say that 100 years ago, many people were buried alive because of poor technology, and many babies born to term died as well.   I have a horrible feeling that we think technology has past our morality; that when a machine says “your dead,” that’s all we need. To define when life ends and to witness it are two different things, the same goes for the beginning of life. We are relying on what are eyes can “see” instead of what may be there. If it was my call, err on the side of life…always.

J: The question is not about the difference between euthanasia and abortion. But my question is what “life” in beginning and ending stages is. I believe it is arbitrary. If a machine is keeping someone alive, is that truly “life?” I can’t say it is. Just because an egg is fertilized, is that “life?” I can’t say that is either.

H: Err on the side of good judgment and life. [Name] is a paraplegic who can’t chew his own food or go to the bathroom unassisted. Is that “life?” We wouldn’t kill him, would we? When life, or the definition of, becomes arbitrary and meaningless, anything is possible. When life is given a rating on usefulness, we are in trouble. That type of thinking is what started eugenics projects in Hitler’s concentration camps and Stalin’s gulags. The most logical definition says life begins at conception. There is no moral or scientific reason to believe it begins anywhere else. The only arguments for life beginning after conception are purely political, reeking of moral relativity and linguistic semantics. Life ends with zero brain, heart, and lung activity, without the possibility of resuscitation. This is obviously more difficult and arguably changes with technology. Again, when there is a question, err on the side of life. Can you honestly say, using logical arguments not based on political leanings or pressures, that those statements are faulty?

J: Honestly, I can’t say. You’re asking me to give you an answer to questions that I’m not sure I have and absolute answer for. I see your point, but don’t know if I agree. The issue here is; we are having different understandings of what “life” is. I am not arguing about value of life, any and all life is valuable. But what constitutes “life” in the beginning and ending phases? I think in this discussion/context that you and I have subjective views of “life.” Is it wrong that we think differently about these issues? I say no. And I can’t say if there is an objective view of what constitutes “life.” In this instance, it is life. He can’t function in a “Normal” sense, but his vital organs function without outside assistance, so it is life. I’m getting the impression that if a woman does not produce life from a fertilized egg without an abortion or intentional harm it is death or murder. It is also murder when a machine can assist with vital organs and it is not used? Am I correct in assessing that?

H: You don’t have an absolute answer to the afterlife, but you believe in Christ, God, heaven, the crucifixion, etc. You have faith. A man who believes in god, and turns out to be wrong, is a fool. A man who believes in nothing, and turns out to be wrong, is a fool’s fool. Such is the question of where life begins and ends. Better to err of the side of good judgment, is it not? Even if you don’t have as strong an anti-abortion view as I, you can argue that it may be the taking of an innocent life, and therefore should be avoided where possible. [Name] cannot sustain life without his breathing machine or feeding tube. The muscles he needs to breathe, chew, and swallow are largely paralyzed. The machine is keeping him alive. We can see [Name], talk to him, and hear him speak. That is why we haven’t “pulled the plug.” A person who chooses freely not to be hooked up to a machine (DNR) is probably hypocritical at best, stupid at worst, however, they are taking their own life into their own hands. Negligence on the part of others (doctors, nurses, loved ones, etc.) can and does constitute murder or manslaughter in some cases. Death and murder and not synonymous, as kill and murder are not synonymous.

J: You keep using “to err on the side of good judgment.” This is different for each of us. What you believe is good judgment; I may not view as good judgment. For the sake of this on-going debate, I will say “it may be the taking of and innocent life,” but ultimately this decision (abortion) is a personal choice. And the Good Lord did give us free will. Do you propose any woman that has had an abortion be punished? The scary truth is, many women have decided this, some you probably wouldn’t think, but it happens. The fact is, I believe it is the woman’s/couple’s decision to decide and I will not judge them for that decision.

END OF PART 3

Tags: Part 3/7  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HvySlpr and J Do Battle Over Abortion Part 2/7

Posted by HvySlpr on Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:37:32 PM
J. If eugenics is its agenda, who are the model people? It is blacks, whites, Hispanics? To my understanding, PP provides service to whoever walks into their facilities. By what you are suggesting, it seems that if a wealthy, white woman/couple wanted an abortion, she/the couple would be turned away. I know this is not true, [HvySlpr]. In my experience in college, I know a few young white females form a particular background that went through this process. If you think eugenics is the case, wouldn’t PP want these girls and these types of girls to reproduce for a “better society?”

H: Fourteen to eighteen percent of the U.S. population is black. Fifty percent of abortions are given to blacks. Seventy-eight percent of Planned Parenthood’s facilities are in minority neighborhoods. Blacks rightly get upset to see a disproportionate amount of liquor stores and gun shops in their neighborhoods. Why should this be any different? http://www.laadvocate.com/Advocate3.pdf . Their “services” are not specifically marketed towards blacks, that is true, but a disproportionate amount is given to blacks, and one of the founders was an o