Saturday, May 10, 2008

An Illustration

This from
is a fine illustration of the difference between right and left. It also gives a fair look at the lib thought process. Like ER, the author prefers to remain anonymous for career reasons, and that's too bad. But it doesn't diminish the soundness of his perspective.


Les said...


Dude, you're not really this obtuse. Do you not realize if you substituted a few words in those bullet points, you'd be illustrating the mentality of those responsible for the Iraq war agenda? Except, of course, for the last one - God knows these blind mice would NEVER consider a newer, better plan.

blamin said...


Dude, do you not realize that you’re asking us to make a pretty big leap of faith?

You’re asking us to:

A) Believe the Bush Administration is too stupid to even have considered all the excellent “alternatives” you’ve presented the last several years.


B) Believe the Bush Admin is an evil self-interested organization only out to line their and their crony’s pockets.

But ya see there could be another scenario. Maybe, Bush has considered all the reasonable alternatives, and is doing what he actually believes is in the best (with hiccups along the way – as is the normal course of war) interest of the country.

Oh sure, you can label me a “blind sheep” – no less – if that will help you in your “assuredness of opinion” but come on man, what has convinced you that our president is either incompetent or in it only for self enrichment?

I ask you to admit and remember that there are many things to which, we the public, are not privy.

It seems to me that it all comes down to a matter of trust. You simply don’t trust Bush. Myself? I don’t trust anybody that wields that kind of power… But sooner or later, one has to make a choice, if you’re even going to pretend you have a voice.

You either believe militant Muslim extremism is a danger to this country and the world (see Europe); or you believe it’s just a created boogey man, in order to scare people into voting.

If you happen to be one of the few lucid left leaning individuals that believe militant Muslim extremism is a danger, and you believe that Bush has royally “screwed it up” please enlighten me as to how one of the Dem candidates will do a better job.

Sorry for the rant – We had a family reunion today, ate lots of ham and chicken, got 5 ringers in a row, hit 2 doubles, and 1 triple, and blocked back 3 spikes at the volley ball net. We all (67 of us) talked about the usual – politics, the price of gas and what not. Plenty to piss everybody off – What was the final conclusion? When the shit hits the fan trust you and your own before anything else.

Les said...

Blamin, sometimes I think you're reading somebody else's comments and then responding to me as if I'd written them, because some of your responses have so remarkably little to do with what I say. Do me favor - go click on the American Thinker link Art provided, and instead of reading the bullet point section as critical of some sort of liberal social program, read it as a criticism of the Iraq war agenda from the perspective of someone like me who disagrees with said agenda. Then come back and rethink your misdirected diatribe.

And enough with the thin skin act already. If Art can use words like "stupid", "idiotic", "wackjobs", "crackpots", "buffoons", and even "unAmerican" to express HIS opinion of elements that don't match his worldview, then I have every right to return the favor. Get over yourself. Tit for tat, my man. This is the big boys' table. Grow a pair.

Mark said...

One of many reasons I don't smoke anymore is because of all the new rules made that prevented people from exercising their right to kill themselves through smoking.

I couldn't smoke in airports, and then, airplanes. I couldn't smoke at my desk on the job. I had to go outside. I couldn't smoke on the entire grounds of one company I worked for. However, there were ways around those smoking bans, not all of them "by the rules".

So, the rules they made to stop me from smoking did have a direct effect on my decision to stop smoking. It wasn't because I believed smoking to be unhealthy, it was because it had become so damned inconvenient.

In the end the main reason I quit smoking was to see if I could.

Vinny said...

Apparently by "it also gives a fair look at the lib thought process," you mean "it comports perfectly with my conservative biases and preconceptions."

Marshall Art said...


I re-read the piece and see no corellation. The Bush situation was based on realities seen by many, including the previous administration and most other Dems who now speak against it. Having had real world examples of the capabilities of the enemy, erring on the side of kicking ass is still the safest bet.

Thus, it would be a stretch to input Bush related replacements and make it work as well as any lib generated program. The exact same thing is happening with global warming. It happened with abortion and it happened with gun control. These all fit easily into that template.

I think it would be hard to push most every lib generated program or legislation without going through those steps.

Les said...

"I re-read the piece and see no corellation."

That's because you disagree with the opposing position, and thus are unwilling to acknowledge the existence of any such correlation. Let me make the necessary substitutions and see if you can at least see what I'm talking about. Here goes:

1.The war supporters anoint themselves as better-informed than the rest of us. They base this largely on the fact that they've seen the data they needed to see in order to be convinced, and who really cares which party they voted for?

2. The self-defined better-informed group comes to an agreement that the rest of us are not as enlightened as they. This is expressed in many ways, usually involving code words such as "liberal", "unpatriotic", or "anti-American". If you hear these words being applied to you or your associates, this is a clear indication that you are not one of the so-called "better-informed".

3. The war supporters begin to develop a sense of disdain for their opposition. This is often expressed in statements like, "It just makes me so mad to see them refusing to agree with us. I wish there were something we could do to make their opinions irrelevant. Oh, wait - we've got the executive branch and a Congress full of pussies. Nevermind. No prob."

4. The war supporters form a two-part plan. Phase one generally involves making their opponents politically impotent through social degradation and assaults on their patriotism. As enthusiasm rises, what was once "political discourse" becomes "obstructionism" and finally metamorphoses into "treason" (thanks a lot, Ann Coulter). When the word "treason" appears, this usually signals the culmination of the plan's propaganda phase, which predictably contains the following elements: coercion, moral superiority, lack of debate and voting, and a succession of biased pundits who testify on its behalf.

5. The second phase of the plan - invasion - is imposed. If the legislative branch reconsiders its previous position and urges restraint, the executive no longer cares, because the legislative branch has already ceded any power it may have had with its foolish, politically-expedient initial vote. Great job, Democrats.

6. The plan begins to fail. This step is usually followed by demands for more resources to "properly support the troops", (see the Surge), and angry accusations at war protesters for their mean spirited, clingy refusal to get on board.

7. The plan fails.

8. The war supporters reiterate their intentions to stick with the plan anyway.

I have no illusions about the fact that editing the article to fit this perspective completely flies against everything you believe about the justifications for AND degree of success found in the Iraq invasion, but do you at the very least recognize the correlation that I noticed when I first looked at your link? The means by which far too many political agendas are advanced, while most often steered toward starkly different ends, are generally variations of the same beast that bows to no one particular partisan master. Politics is politics. You just gotta pick a side on any given issue and play the game as it lies before you.

Marty said...

"what has convinced you that our president is either incompetent or in it only for self enrichment?"

They are all in it for their own self enrichment. But what I'd like to know is what has convinced you that Bush is competent?

Ms.Green said...

Ok - back to the article. I am an ex-smoker, and I don't like people polluting my air space, but these zero-tolerance companies cause as many or more problems than they solve. For instance, in my fair city, the major hospital complex downtown has implemented a no-smoking policy on its grounds. The employees now have to walk several blocks away and instead of congregating in a discreet area inside the hospital compound, they are congregating on the streets and leaving cigarette butts everywhere, clogging up the sidewalks, and messing up the scenery for everybody else. It was much better when they were on the hospital grounds "out back" where there were cigarette disposals and they were out of the public eye.

I hate smoking, but if you want to kill yourself slowly and suffocate, that's your business - as long as I don't have to breathe your smoke. These companies need to rethink these policies.

blamin said...


You attempted to make a correlation between the AT piece and the Iraq war. I simply responded to what I took as your main point, granted I should have known better than to re-argue old points.

And I agree with the truisms in the last paragraph of your 5/11 – 11:05 post – but –

(Oh there had to be a “but”) you forget, the points put forth in the AT article is illustrative of the crap conservatives have had to put up with for decades. We’ve had Rush for the last couple decades and FOX as a force for about a decade, but even with the overwhelming success of those two outlets, we’re still in a minority as far as a fair, airing of our views.

You may feel the AT piece is representative of what anti-Iraq-war views have had to endure; the fact remains there’s just as good of an argument “for” as “against” the war.

Now, if we want to get into the history and results of countless other left leaning plans/laws/bureaucratic pronouncements I don’t believe the pro/con columns will be so evenly balanced. If you disagree, I present the “war on poverty” as exhibit #1.

BTW, do you raise cherries?

Doc said...

The article notes: "As a conservative I don't see it as my job, much less my right, to make other people do things that are "in their best interest"."
The two tenets espoused by our anonymous writer:
# have no idea what someone else's "best interest" is;
# Other people's "best interest", by definition, is none of my business.

I will assume that this person will be for the legalization of marijuana, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and anything else definable as a debatable concern for one's best interest.

This article does nothing more than to explain several tools or strategies used by any socio-political group to meet its goals.

This is the problem of the right and left ideologues: no pragmatism. We live in a democracy, and there are going to be idiosyncrasies and disagreements. Democracies have the right to legislate, and that includes moral issues. The constituents have a duty to respect the laws, and work within the system to change the laws- through the legislature or judiciary, if that works.
All laws are an infringement on liberty.
Just as I try to encourage less judicial de facto law, by presenting argument; so, too, should this author describe why he thinks people should be allowed to smoke, or why specific methods should or should not be legal, and encourage others to agree--rather than whining about the fact that he's losing the argument and calling it an infringement on liberty.

Dan Trabue said...

"As a conservative I don't see it as my job, much less my right, to make other people do things that are "in their best interest"."

Could it be that we could care less about the smoker's "best interest" and instead just want said smoker to be responsible? Can I come to your house and dump toxins in your living room?

Smoke all you want. Just don't inflict your choice upon me.

And, by the way, be sure to get plenty of insurance so that you're not a burden to the state as you smoke yourself to death. Again, I'm just asking for personal responsibility.

That used to be a conservative tenet.

Les said...

"BTW, do you raise cherries?"


Marshall Art said...

First off, I, too, use to smoke. Tobacco cigarettes, I mean. This June will make four years without. (I don't know why, but my endurance is lower than ever. Could be the additional pounds from quitting.) All who enjoy that fresh tobacco taste should find another habit. Recently on the radio, I heard something I haven't heard since the "2nd hand smoke" nonsense became all the rage. And it was on what I think was a radio show dedicated to, at least partially, cigars, so take it for what it's worth. But the statement to which I allude says that one would have to sit in a smoke filled room non-stop for 4000 hours (maybe it's really 2000, but still a lot) to equal smoking one cigarette. In short, I believe the whole 2nd hand smoke crisis is a load of crap, and I always have. I know for many, the mere smell of burning tobacco offends, but for many others, it pleases. As a kid I loved the smell of someone lighting up, and I enjoyed hanging out with my Polish uncles when they pulled out the stogies and filled the room with that wonderful aroma. But I hate stale ashtrays and did when I smoked.

But here's the deal: this thread, and the article upon which it is based, is not about smoking. It's about the liberal mindset.


How big a mallet did you use to drive those square pegs into those round holes? Point by point:

1. The war supporters of the Bush admin did have info and intel (such as it was) the rest of us didn't have. What the rest of us had is incident after incident of terrorist attacks on American interests, as well as continued struggles of our ally, Israel with other Islamic scumbags. This type of info was there for all to see, including the anti-war deluded. But they just wanted to continue the with the same policies that ultimately resulted in 3000 fellow Americans dying a horrible death.

2. With few exceptions, the application of these labels was accurately pasted to those who thought we had it coming, thought it just fine to announce to the world our surveilance strategies, as well as to all the dire warnings that never materialized regarding the initial invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq. It is these sorry individuals that whined about name calling when they were merely "dissenting", when in fact in most cases they were merely crapping on Bush at every opportunity.

3. Never, ever heard any statements anything like this. But disdain for the types I mentioned in point 2 is appropriate.

4. This one's pretty funny. The left is generally socially degrading all by themselves. Whining about Bush's or Rummy's plan is only whining until real alternatives are offered. I know you hate that, but that's too bad. That's the way it's been. And when a Harry Reid says the war is lost, when the New York Times continually gives away intel gathering plans, I'd say "treason" isn't too harsh a word. It's at the very least seditious.

5. A legislative branch that OKs military action and then reconsiders after the invasion begins should be ignored and replaced at the earliest electoral opportunity.

6. I don't recall any military leaders mention "failure" just because liberals with short attention spans, don't like the fact that it was harder than expected ( as I've mentioned many, many times, this is the case in all wars ). Yet, the idiot from Texas, the bonehead who is too stupid to be president, has always maintained that this will be a long struggle. War protesters, that is, those who actually publicly march and screech into megaphones, are idiots and pathetic types (see Cindy Sheehan) who are clueless and often truly anti-American. They are to be ignored. Real discussio is always welcomed.

7. Shall I just call you "Harry Reid Jr"? If the plan failed, all the troops would've been home by now. Our military doesn't bail because of difficulties. Thank God for that.

8. Because the cause is just and noble.

But here's the punch line---This strained attempt to equate the war with the types of lib missions described in the linked piece is false on a singular salient point: What we fight in Iraq and Afghanistan is a real threat as evidenced by the years of attacks on us and our allies. In the case of the smoking restrictions, and so many other lib causes, the crisis is imagined, created, invented and doesn't even exist in the poorly appointed skulls of the idiots who advance them.

I mean, really, we don't need to restrict smoking at outdoor events!!! What the hell is THAT all about?! I can see having employees not congregate in front of the workplace where customers and visitors enter. But completely off the grounds??? Idiocy!!!

And we see this in almost every liberal cause. The War on Poverty, school lunches, universal health care, homosexual marriage, and the current crap of the day, man made global warming. Each of the above, and there are others, have several elements, if not all of them, listed in the article. But none are the crisis the left paints them as being.

And Vinny, this is not mere perception on the part of the right. It's so blatantly obvious. And where I think Doc goes wrong is in the same place, that it is done in exactly the same way by both sides. It's not. The liberal of today is without a true sense of direction, all his notions of the way it should be having been soundly proven unworkable, and so they create crises in front of which they can position themselves as leaders and saviors. Sorry, the right just doesn't work that way.

Marshall Art said...


Your talk of personal responsibility is laughable. Smokers are hurting themselves. Are they demanding government help to get their lungs clean? If so, say no. You want the government to protect a woman's demand to whack her kid because she wanted sex without consequence. You are not consistent when you speak of personal responsibility.

Marshall Art said...


"But what I'd like to know is what has convinced you that Bush is competent?"

Three things jump to mind:

-No attacks on American soil since 9/11.
-A solid economy even with Katrina, 9/11 and a war. Even the last couple of months being down, the economy is not technically in recession, only a slow down which will come to a complete stop with the election of either Hill or Barry.
-Aside from Harriet Meyers, excellent judges and justices nominated.

These three alone are huge.

Marshall Art said...


For more evidence of George's competency, reread the post of April 22.

Dan Trabue said...

Your talk of personal responsibility is laughable.

Then here's the thing, Marshall: You think I'm not an advocate of personal responsibility because of your perception of where I am on a few issues. I think YOU'RE not an advocate of personal OR societal responsibility based on my perception of some of your positions.

For my part, I think putting the responsibility for medical decisions - including abortions - in the hands of the families (and taking it out of Big Gov't's hands, where you want to place it) is exactly an advocacy of personal responsibility. It is that individual and family's responsibility to decide how to deal with medical questions.

I think to say that smokers can smoke where they please regardless of the folk around them is exactly an abdication of personal responsibility.

Again, I ask: If we can smoke where we want to, can we also shit where we want to shit, dump toxins where we want to dump toxins, etc? Including your yard? Because if that's your position, I'll be glad to oblige.

Or would you prefer we advocate some personal responsibility?

Don't make me laugh.

Marty said...

"No attacks on American soil since 9/11"....

As far as I'm concerned 9/11 is the biggest blunder aside from the invasion of Iraq to prove Bush's incompentence. I think the evidence now shows that 9/11 could have been prevented. It wasn't. Why it wasn't is something I will wonder about for a very long time.

.."the economy is not technically in recession, only a slow down"..

Many influential economists including Warren Buffet disagree with you I think. Many say we are in a recession and it is going to get worse and last a long time.

.."which will come to a complete stop with the election of either Hill or Barry."

Well lets hope the recession does come to a complete stop with the election of either a Hillary or a Barry.

However, my son, who owns his own Investor Relations firm, tells me the president has nothing to do with the economy. He advised me a while back to pull my retirement out of my stock fund and into a bond fund. I'm glad I did what he advised. He saved me from loosing a chunk of hard earned money. He hasn't yet advised me to put my money back into the stock market.

Marshall Art said...


Personal responsibility does not include killing the consequence of the poor decision. This is an abdication of responsibility, just as it would be for a smoker who insists others, i.e. the government, pay for medical care resulting from damage from smoking. Personal responsibility demands that if you cannot afford, or do not wish to care for a child, then abstaining from sexual intercourse is the only true measure of one's level of personal responsibility. Everything else is a crap shoot. But should someone want to take such chances in order to experience a moment's spasm, any pregnancy that results requires the responsible person to, at the very least, bring it to term and put it up for adoption. In this case, should the government get the spine required, they would NOT be interfering in personal choices, anymore than they are when they restrict you from murdering your next-shack neighbor. There is no such thing as murder as a personal affair and this truism should, nay, MUST include the unborn. And to thwart the usual weak rebuttal, the life of the mother is always a different story.

As to the smoking issue, inhaling smoke and exhaling it into the open air is not even remotely close to you crapping in your neighbor's lawn, or dumping toxins on someone else's property. The government demanding that any business owner not allow smoking in their own private business is also unAmerican and unConstitutional. The patrons will decide by continuing or withdrawing their patronage and as far as employees, the installation of good ventilation systems will take care of the BS 2nd hand smoke whining.

So you're NOT an advocate of personal responsibility at all. You're an advocate of forcing your notions of it upon those who have the right to decide for themselves.

Anonymous said...

It is that individual and family's responsibility to decide how to deal with medical questions. (per Dan)

Is that (medical questions) what you call your two children? Pretty sad and pathetic the day that we choose to call pregnancy and child birth that instead of the blessing that God calls them in His Word.
Taking abortion as a right has taken our Nation downward and needs to be turned around! Mom2

Marshall Art said...

There is no evidence that 9/11 could have been prevented by Bush alone. There were blunders upon blunders in a variety of ways, each of which could have thrown a wrench into the works had someone not dropped the ball. But since this could not have been planned and executed in the very short time that Bush was in office, to lay blame only at his feet in incredibly unjust.

There are specific criteria that define a recession that we have not yet met. Could we slip into one? Sure. Will we? I agree many say, yes, but there are others who say it's not at all a given. All in all, the "many experts say..." argument gets us nowhere. The point is that Bush has dealt with many economy damaging issues and we have weathered them, and his tax cuts did a lot to help. But you got me with the quote. As the liberal Democrats would say, "I mis-spoke." What will end with a Dem win in Nov is the strength of our economy as they will indeed end the cuts that helped us so much, and in addition, enact, or at least seek to enact, legislation that will further burden us.

The economy is cyclical. The market forces are the really true compelling effect on it. Politicians can, however, muck up the works with poor legislation. To tax the crap out of producers takes money out of the market and always causes prices to rise. When a prez backs off and allows the market to work unfettered, we suffer less. Don't bet the farm on Barry or Hillary doing that, especially since they've already promised to f**k things up.

Dan Trabue said...

As to the smoking issue, inhaling smoke and exhaling it into the open air is not even remotely close to you crapping in your neighbor's lawn...

Well, that's fair enough. You're right there. If I crap on your lawn, that's not going to hurt anyone. Whereas smokers foisting their pollution off on others can be deadly.

Sorry, not buying it. You are an advocate of OTHER people being what you consider responsible (and being forced to follow YOUR idea of responsible by Big Gov't) while your pet irresponsibilities, you want to advocate to let slide.

You're a hypocrite, brother. You want a MUCH larger gov't than I do, a MUCH more intrusive gov't and have advocated for much less personal responsibility than I have.

Demonstrably so.

Dan Trabue said...

mom2 smarmed:

Is that (medical questions) what you call your two children?

Yes, I and my family are the ones who will make decisions about OUR family and keep your BIG gov't hands off my children.

Marty said...

"But since this could not have been planned and executed in the very short time that Bush was in office, to lay blame only at his feet in incredibly unjust."

Fair enough....I think. I'm still pondering that one.

"But you got me with the quote."


Regarding those infamous tax cuts that are supposed to be so gosh darn helpful - I've not seen much relief coming my way from them. And should I be so lucky as to get my $300 check...well... that little whopper of a check will go straight into my savings account. Why spend it? As we say here in Texas - "it ain't enough to sing Dixie over."

Dan Trabue said...

It makes me wonder if y'all are intentionally obtuse or just ignorant of your own hypocrisies.

Les said...

Art, I want you to tailor your point-by-point summary to fit ME - a guy I would hope you acknowledge as, at the very least, rational and logical in his opposition to your point of view over these last five years or so - and then tell me if you don't recognize the absurdity of your response. I didn't have to use a mallet to find a correlation here - it was more like a hot knife going through butter. Scratch that - going through milk.

Aw, snap! It's analogy central up in here, Blamin!

Marshall Art said...


Not sure I follow you. I thought I did answer you directly while also others on the side. At least that was my intent. But I maintain that your points don't fit due to the fact that the terrorism threat is real, and the various liberal causes are invented. That was my main point there and the reason why you failed in making the connection. Perhaps it was merely your choice of example. But all in all, I don't see that the right engages in the same "fake" causes, such as GW. And this was the point of the linked piece, not so much smoking.

blamin said...


”Yes, I and my family are the ones who will make decisions about OUR family and keep your BIG gov't hands off my children.”

You got that from Mom2’s comment? How?

In case you’re confused, she was arguing for the government to stop butchers from putting their hands on your children at their most vulnerable.

Nowhere, no how, are anti-abortion believers advocating the gov’t putting their hands on anyone’s children.

dan, I believe your whole charge, or most of it, of conservatives “hypocritically” advocating for big gov’t is based on the abortion issue. The fundamental difference is what’s considered life. Just because a conservative doesn’t in essence consider aborting an unborn (or newborn in some circumstances) child equivalent to trimming a toenail from your gnarly big toe, doesn’t necessarily mean we advocate for bigger gov’t.

Even the most libertarian of my conservative leaning friends believe one of governments legitimate functions is the defense of it’s people’s.

Marshall Art said...


The thing we must remember regarding tax cuts, is that if one is at a low income level, one isn't paying much in income taxes anyway. So to expect a windfall would not be logical. In addition, to complain about how the next higher income bracket does better with a given tax cut is also illogical since that higher income level is paying more in taxes, even if the percentage is the same. I'm not a high income earner myself. But I'm not looking to get rich because of a tax cut. To me, as well as to most on the right, I understand how it benefits me in terms of having a stronger economy because of the cuts, that is, not overburdening those who are the biggest producers. The benefit to me personally might only be peripheral, or it might not be tangible at all in the here and now. But low taxes helps to maintain a stronger economy which means opportunities are more plentiful should I choose to seek them out. More to the point, the righteousness of not having the government dig into my, or anyone else's pockets, leaving us with less with which to work, is reason enough for me. As to the practical aspect of tax cuts, they've always resulted in more revenue to the federal coffers. So to reverse the cuts, as both Hill and Barry insist they will do, will choke businesses, reduce revenues and deny them the capital to fund their stupid programs. What'll they do then? Raise taxes again and increase the harm they've already done.

Marty said...

It seems to me that a better way to add revenue to the federal coffers and help the economy would be a living wage. That might help to reduce welfare as well, don'tcha think?

Marshall Art said...


No hypocrisy here whatsoever. I'm totally consistent with my position on personal responsibility, smaller government, etc. You simply have trouble reading and understanding.

First, there would be harm if you crapped in my yard. Great harm. In fact, you could save yourself the effort and just insist that I kick your ass, because if you dropped trou in MY yard, where my wife and daughter might be witness to your political statement, that is indeed the harm that would result.

But if I were to light up in YOUR yard, there would be absolutely no harm done to anyone but my own lungs, BECAUSE IT'S OUT-FREAKIN'-SIDE!!! Pay attention. Unless you insist on standing exactly downwind of my exhaling, and basically in my face, you would not even smell it. Thus, smoking outside a business, as opposed to completely off the property, is incredibly non-threatening to bystanders. What's done with the butts is a completely different matter called "littering".

Right now, as we speak, insurance companies maintain different rates for smokers. The sticks themselves are taxed up the wazzoo. The dangers one inflicts upon one's self for engaging in the habit are beyond debate. To pretend you care about the welfare of smokers is true hypocrisy if efforts to ban the growing, harvesting and manufacturing of tobacco products are not part of your platform. If it's legal, there should be far fewer restrictions on it's use, and there is a market for both businesses that allow or disallow smoking and the gov should back off. You think it's all well and good that the gov should make the restrictions it has. But you should not live as if there's no way the gov, or more precisely, your beloved liberal kinsmen, won't restrict something in which you enjoy partaking. Like sweets, or meats, or roadkill, or whatever they feel like restricting "for your own good".

And once again, it is no more Big Govt' to protect the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable than it is to protect the lives of anyone else. It is NOT govt intrusion in the least to protect PEOPLE from being butchered. You, Mr. Non-violence, Mr. Peaceful Christian are being the big hypocrite to support abortion for any reason beyond those that threaten the life of the mother, which is then more of a self-defense issue. Yet still, what could be more hypocritical than to speak of turning the other cheek on the street, but violently ripping apart so defenseless a person as one yet born for "medical reasons"!!! Shame on you.

Dan Trabue said...

Nowhere, no how, are anti-abortion believers advocating the gov’t putting their hands on anyone’s children.

But that's the point. You're saying it's Big Brother's role to decide your medical best interests. No thanks.

blamin said...


You say that those arguing in favor of the war in Iraq used the points in Marshall’s link.

Fair enough, but, those arguing against involvement in Iraq also used them.

So what’s the issue? The left has used these tactics to great effect for 4.5 decades with support from the press. You perceive the right as using the same tactic, what once, so it becomes off limits to even debate the tactics?

I never thought you were one of the left-leaning majority/(minions) that supported such tactics, therefore I didn’t take Marshall’s post as pointing directly at you (You’re one of the few, everytime I see the T-shirt “99% of democrats make the other 1% look bad, I think of Les!!!). But, hey that’s just me; I can’t speak for The Art.

blamin said...


You’re a broken record, stuck on the same shtick. I never said any such thing! It’s your refusal to face the actualities of our view, and the stubbornness of your position that has your eyelids glued.

Les said...

"...the terrorism threat is real, and the various liberal causes are invented."

Aha! I think that statement might finally provide the foundation for a breakthrough of sorts! Let's see how it goes, shall we?

You'll get no argument from me that the threat of terrorism is very, very real. That means the second part of your comment is the part that requires further examination. Your contention is that "various liberal causes" are invented. Since you left out which particular causes you're referring to, I'll fill the void with a hot button issue for the sake of argument. Let's use the aforementioned War on Poverty. Critics hated it because they felt - and feel - it was an ill-timed contrivance designed to establish a welfare state of politically dependent voters. Fair enough. But that being said, did it mean poverty did not exist? Were poverty, hunger, unemployment, homelessness, and illiteracy all fabricated threats to our way of life? Of course they weren't, and I think we can agree on that point, correct? If so, then the only point of contention here is the STRATEGY that was promoted to supposedly address those issues. Specifically, the War on Poverty.

That exact same mindset applies to the War on Terror, Art, and it's why the plan outlined in those bullet points can rationally be applied directly to the Iraq invasion. While terrorism and national security threats are certainly no more fabricated than poverty and unemployment, those of us who oppose the Iraq war simply feel the invasion does little to actually defeat terrorism in the long run, which is supposed to be the overall objective in the War on Terror, right?

Our argument is and always has been about the TACTICS and STRATEGY employed in our efforts to defeat terrorist organizations that seek our destruction. Everything else is inconsequential to our shared objective. I have never argued against the use of force simply for the sake of arguing against the use of force, and neither have the millions of people who share my opinion. I'm not talking about hippies and peaceniks here. Ask yourself why so many people who so readily supported the decision to attack the Taliban suddenly put the brakes on when the target shifted to Iraq? Can you really blame such a massive shift on liberal tendencies alone? How would such an accusation explain the enthusiasm and national unity we saw during the Afghanistan mission? It just doesn't add up, and sadly, this debate ultimately devolved into the petty partisan slugfest we see today.

"So what’s the issue?"

Simple. The mindset in question isn't exclusive to the left, which was the point I made in my very first comment in this thread. The end.

"...I think of Les!"

That's the only time I let you imply, however indirectly, that I'm a Democrat. I hate that party shit.

Marshall Art said...


"That's the only time I let you imply, however indirectly, that I'm a Democrat. I hate that party shit."

The expression works for "liberal" as well. But you're still in the 1%, muh man.

The war on poverty is a case where merely elements of the strategy work, but not necessarily all of the elements. I did waffle in my mind as to whether it fit my point. Of course poverty is real, but the average lib does indeed have a very different idea of who is labeled poor and truly in need of assistance. It is then where we see the lib fantasies emerge and suffer the demonizing the results from our disagreement. Otherwise, I'll concede the point as far as the WOP in concerned.


"But that's the point. You're saying it's Big Brother's role to decide your medical best interests."

No. That's not the point, as you well know. The point is that it's the government's role to protect innocent people from being murdered. There are incredibly few medical reasons that justify abortion, mostly, if not exclusively, surrounding the life of the mother. For future reference, I never include "life of the mother" situations. Now if you'll set that aside as well, since so very few pro-lifers go that far, and we both agree in this instance, then we can debate the merits, or lack thereof, of killing an unborn person under the guise of "medical reasons". When we remove "LOTM" situations, we find that the excuses are remarkably parallel to those of any convicted murderer. When we remove LOTM situations, we find that there are no situations that trump the life of that person yet unborn.

Dan Trabue said...

That's not the point, as you well know. The point is that it's the government's role to protect innocent people from being murdered.

And that IS the point. We have here a borderline issue: Is abortion a medical decision to be decided upon by the family? It is an attack on an innocent to be decided by the state? Is it somewhere in betweeen?

The American people are divided on the issue. Myself, I am opposed to "abortions of convenience," (and if I could wave a wand and make them all go away, I would) but think that if there's a medical reason for an abortion, then it should be legal.

But the line is not always clear which ones are abortions of convenience and which ones are medical decisions. And when it comes down to making the decision, I trust the family more than gov't.

You trust the gov't to make the call more.

That is the point. And it's a difficult one for we, the people.

Mark said...

With all of the advances in Medical science in the last few years, there is never a medical justification for abortion. Never.

The "Life of the mother" exception is nothing but an excuse to kill babies. Nothing more.

Initially, Liberal baby murder advocates threw in an exception for the "health" of the mother, leaving no distinction between mental health and physical health. This was a stealth attempt to legalize all abortions, even last trimester abortions. See, "Health of the mother" can include mental health, which could be broadly interpreted to mean anything, even a slight depression over getting pregnant or remorse that one will not be able to be as promiscuous as desired during pregnancy, etc.

Intelligent thinking Conservative pro-life advocates saw through this ruse and called for a modification of the law to only except "life of the mother". It is still being argued, as far as I know.

BB-Idaho said...

"But here's the deal: this thread, and the article upon which it is based, is not about smoking. It's about the liberal mindset."
..Respectfully disagree: we are talking private sector here, companies and corporations. Bottom line/cost efficiency/profit ratios.
Which of those is liberal? These firms do the metrics; smokers cost
them (statistically, I smoked a pipe my entire career as missed 1 day of work-a lucky exception) When these same companies worry as much about the smoke out their stacks...then you can convince me of their 'liberal mindset'.

Marshall Art said...


Your conviction doesn't alter the facts, the first one being that the link isn't about smoking. Smoking is only the example used to illustrate liberal thought.

Secondly, these companies are complying with local and state statutes. If this was not so, you would have seen them all switch to totally non-smoking long ago.

BB-Idaho said...

"Secondly, these companies are complying with local and state statutes. If this was not so, you would have seen them all switch to totally non-smoking long ago."
Agree. Mine banned smoking in 1986. They stated up front it was a cost savings. It was one of those
'hot' 'Dilbert' management moves, preceded liberal stupidity by years. (the smoking ban came the same year as the 'dress code' which was stricter than a catholic school. Business frightens me more than any liberal scheme..:)
Sure glad I got some pension; they quit that 2 years ago. Gotta admit, though, no 'bleeding hearts' in the free market.....

Marshall Art said...


Yours is an exception to be sure. I'm sure most of the savings was in clean up, as smoking indoors gets on everything. It may have lead to some quitting, which might have helped with insurance and missed time costs (but if they aren't taking care of themselves anyway, quitting smoking won't be enough-I smoked for years and wasn't prone to debilitating colds or flu). Did they also ban smoking outside the building?