published Tuesday, May 7th, 2013

Birth Control

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

203
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

And not everyone writes off the imperatives of maturity, discipline, and self-control for teens and unmarried couples just because they are difficult to practice. What an insult to their humanity. A moral code lacking self-restraint is a recipe for mass boredom, unproductive pursuits, and myopic, self-destructive behavior.

May 7, 2013 at 12:29 a.m.
alprova said...

From yesterday's thread...

degage wrote: "We know Al, some people think no matter if a baby is born alive if you don't want it, kill it."

Be that as it may, I certainly don't support that at all.

"I'm surprised you are all for Gosnell."

Who says I am "for" him? The man is charged with a heinous crime. He has presented a defense in a court of law to those charges. He will either be found guilty or not guilty of those charges.

If he is found not guilty, it will be because the prosecution was not able to prove their case beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I still believe that a man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

"Do you love abortion so much you believe it is all right to kill a baby born alive."

Of course not.

"I think more of you than to believe you really feel that way."

Then rest easy.

"Maybe you really believe they didn't make a case, have you been at the trial so you know for a fact he didn't do those things or is it that Fox is the one that reported it, and the other stations haven't said anything until yesterday."

My point is that too many of you have convicted the man based on the accusations he is charged with. I'm not on the jury and neither are any of you.

Once the jury decides his fate, based on the evidence supplied to them, THEN I will have an opinion of the man, and not before.

Whatever the case is, it was not a slam-dunk certainty that the man is guilty of what he is accused of doing or deliberations would not be taking so long to arrive at a verdict.

May 7, 2013 at 12:33 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

So, alprova, if the jury convicts Gosnell and asks for the death penalty, will that be your opinion? If not, were you really waiting for the jury?

And what about O.J. Simpson? A criminal jury found him not guilty of murdering his wife, and a civil jury found that he had indeed killed her. (The civil jury was correct.) Your opinion, o jury of one? (Comedian Mark Russell on the John Hinkley verdict: "This just in: all 12 jurors in the John Hinckley case have just pleaded insanity.")

While we're ignoring the cartoon, I'm for juries, for a chance to be judged not just by the establishment but by my peers, but two problems to fix. (1) The problem of relevant evidence being suppressed, which amounts to telling lies to juries. [Were the policemen who went to O.J.'s house really just making a courtesy call to tell him his wife was dead, or did they suspect he'd killed her? Yet couldn't they, these days, have gotten a search warrant from a night judge via phone and fax?] If worthwhile evidence was dubiously obtained, this should not deny justice to the victims of a crime, and does not deny it to the actually guilty person convicted on such evidence, who may have a right to a lesser sentence or even some compensation. An innocent person more likely deserves compensation--e.g. for damages from a search that found nothing--and people who plant evidence or lie (or fail to reveal major evidence?) while seeking a conviction should be punished as if they themselves had committed the crime of which they accuse another. Al Sharpton and Tawana Brawley should be treated as rapists.

(2) A defendant should have free speech to tell the jury anything he wants, and the prosecution to rebut. Did Bernard Goetz get the chance to tell his jury New York gun controls were unconstitutional and he obviously needed his illegal gun against four men with sharpened screwdrivers? Will people this fall be allowed to ask juries to let them go on the grounds that O'Romneycare is unconstitutional, for the Constitution does not let Congress make laws about health/health care/health insurance, and that forcing healthy people to pay sick people to be sick is stupid policy? (Make the jury listen for an hour, then ask if they want more. A man who starts reading the whole Encyclopedia Britannica to the jury deserves what's coming to him.)

May 7, 2013 at 1:35 a.m.
alprova said...

WWWTW wrote: "And not everyone writes off the imperatives of maturity, discipline, and self-control for teens and unmarried couples just because they are difficult to practice. What an insult to their humanity."

With all due respect, while it may be "imperative" that maturity, self-discipline, self-control rule the day before teens and unmarried couples decide to give in to their God given, natural desires, realism has a way of controverting such platitudes on a daily basis for far too many people.

You admit in your post that such values are "hard to practice," and indeed they are if one is immature, undisciplined, and without self-control, which describes just about everyone who has reached the pinnacle of puberty, a point at which most young people become sexually aware and thus, are ready to rumble.

Short of locking up your kids in a room with bars on the windows, or fitting them with chastity belts, which I'm rather confident are both marginally or literally illegal, depending on where one lives, chances are rather high that if they have the opportunity, they will likely give in to what feels natural to do.

Thankfully, most teens and young adults are aware of how babies are conceived and they take caution to use birth control. Some are quite careless and decide to forgo using point of contact methods of birth control, either due to religious prohibitions or due to a lack of funds to pay prohibitive birth control, but there is one fundamental truth that will not be denied.

Tedious fumbling in the back seats of cars, at the nearest lake with a little greenery to hide themselves from view, in bedrooms when parents are absent, or in the motels or hotels scattered across the land, are going to provide enough privacy to provide welcome privacy to indulge in what comes natural.

Any widespread expectation that abstinence will be practiced by younger generations is highly unrealistic and archaic in its inception.

Sexual desire is an absolute facet of humanity. Humanity also dictates that everyone is capable of and will most likely make numerous mistakes in judgment throughout our entire lives.

We all were 15 years of age. Research shows that although about 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most have sex in their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, 70% of both males and females have left abstinence in the rear view mirror.

(cont.)

May 7, 2013 at 1:39 a.m.
alprova said...

(cont.)

I cannot think of very many things that will hamper the future of any teen than for them to become pregnant. At the same time, I can think of nothing more fearful to a teen than to have to go to their parents with such a revelation that they have had sex and now they are pregnant or have fathered a child.

It happens. It has always happened on occasion, and it will happen in the future. No matter how hard you attempt to educate your children to the consequences of pre-marital sex, chances are, they will proceed with it anyway at some point in their lives.

So now that we know that abstinence is unrealistic, what are the options left? Of course, some will decide that all embryos are delivered. Some will opt for an abortion.

But what if there was a way to prevent a pregnancy before conception takes place?

The morning after pill is a perfect solution to interrupt the chance of conception taking place, if and when it is possible that all those magical sperm are on their way to penetrating just one little ova.

Everyone should be on board with this one. It's an answer to a long-time problem and debate that will never be settled, unless one is Catholic.

Oh...well. Maybe the new Pope will come around to a seeing a certain amount of reality as well.

May 7, 2013 at 1:40 a.m.
Anklejive said...

Absolutely spot-on, alprova! Thank you.

May 7, 2013 at 1:50 a.m.
alprova said...

AndrewLohr wrote: "So, alprova, if the jury convicts Gosnell and asks for the death penalty, will that be your opinion?"

If the man is guilty as charged, he will have been convicted of an evil act befitting a sentence that includes the ending of his own life.

"If not, were you really waiting for the jury?"

Why is it so hard for some people to refrain from judging someone BEFORE they are found guilty of a crime?

Do you remember Tonya Craft? She was the local elementary school teacher charged with committing some rather evil acts. She was acquitted of all charges. I knew the woman personally and never once believe those charges for one second.

We live in a society that stopped having ridiculous show-trials for "witches" centuries ago, but hysterical, equally inquisitorial, equally unjust, and equally preposterous show-trials are making a come-back.

"And what about O.J. Simpson? A criminal jury found him not guilty of murdering his wife, and a civil jury found that he had indeed killed her. (The civil jury was correct.)"

Only he and God know the truth for certain. I tend to side with that assumption, but I absolutely do not KNOW whether or not he did it.

Neither does anyone else who was not there on that fateful day.

May 7, 2013 at 2:01 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Back to the cartoon, even though not everyone makes ignoring cartoons as easy as artist Bennett does. (His wife, I gather, is a capable artiste.) Asay and Henry Payne and even Bruce Plante draw better and use better logic in their cartoons, to name just three.

Any Bible reader knows abstinence has its difficulties, and fornication its attractions. The trouble with the morning-after pill is not just that its use is a human choice to kill babies, bad enough as that is.

The trouble with the morning-after pill is the afternoon before. Sex can be so much fun that the impulse for it easily gets out of hand. (Or not. After one rape in the Bible, the rapist wanted to marry his victim. Her brothers killed him anyway. After another rape, the rapist "hated her exceedingly, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her." One of her brothers had him killed too.) So why give the sex impulse a license which we deny to such impulses as to murder Mr Bennett or to steal his car? Surely it needs control; surely Mr Bennett has had to steer himself in the direction of abstinence a time or two.

So remember that if someone who wants sex with you does not want to first make arrangements to take care of you and receive your care as long as you both shall live, s/he is offering you less than you are worth, and asking less than you have to give. Be a promise, not a biology experiment.

And, yeah, remember that fornication is sin, forgiveable if sinners repent like any other sin, but something God sees and dislikes: He made Adam a wife, not a floozie.

And remember your parents gave you a chance: you owe a baby a chance. "Dan Quayle was right:" babies inside marriage tend to do better than those that used to called, as a technical term, "bastards." A shaky chance is better than none--Jesus and Beethoven would've been prime abortion-after candidates--so if someone wants the chance to risk making babies with you, make them take precautions first: get married.

(And marriage is more than a sex license for two. Before you get married, glance through the book "Date or Soul Mate?" with your love interest and see if you're heading for trouble you'd want to avoid. Better stay out of the canoe if Niagara Falls is half a mile downstream; better to break up as friends who draw a line than as enemies who used to be friends but now have things to fight over.)

Love in Christ Jesus, from Andrew

May 7, 2013 at 2:07 a.m.
dfreezy said...

All of you take a huge, positive step forward for the causes you believe in whenever you comment on a Clay Bennett cartoon. Just imagine how horrible the world would be if you all weren't on here every day voicing your valid, well researched opinions and making a significant impact on other people's lives. I admire each and every single person in these comment threads. My life wouldn't be the same without you.

May 7, 2013 at 2:10 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

A man from Operation Rescue found himself in jail with some other men who were bragging about their sex lives. Yeah, he said, I'm sure any of you can keep a lady happy for 15 minutes. Have any of you done it for 14 years?

May 7, 2013 at 3:08 a.m.
alprova said...

AndrewLohr wrote: "Back to the cartoon, even though not everyone makes ignoring cartoons as easy as artist Bennett does."

Yet you make an appearance just about every time a new one is posted. You've quite effectively dis-proven your own claim.

"Any Bible reader knows abstinence has its difficulties, and fornication its attractions."

If you take the Bible completely out of the equation, what then is there left to base your points upon? Are you even capable of making a logical point without a Biblical reference?

"The trouble with the morning-after pill is not just that its use is a human choice to kill babies, bad enough as that is."

Ah, but the morning-after pill prevents the very notion of a baby being an issue to discuss.

"The trouble with the morning-after pill is the afternoon before. Sex can be so much fun that the impulse for it easily gets out of hand."

A little reminder is in order here. Sex is natural and God gave us each that desire. Why I'll even bet he invented puberty too.

"remember that if someone who wants sex with you does not want to first make arrangements to take care of you and receive your care as long as you both shall live, s/he is offering you less than you are worth, and asking less than you have to give."

It must really fry your mind to consider that it is just as natural for a woman to seek a little stress relief, and not necessarily to be seeking a man to "take care of her."

"And, yeah, remember that fornication is sin, forgiveable if sinners repent like any other sin, but something God sees and dislikes: He made Adam a wife, not a floozie."

I must have missed any reference to a wedding in Genesis between Adam and Eve. Seems to me that they just skipped the wedding and went straight into cohabitation.

Thank you for opening the door to clear the air about the issue of marriage and what the Bible says about it.

Many Christians use the Bible to support their "family values." They talk about "biblical family values" as if the Bible had a clear message on marriage and sexuality.

There's no such thing as "biblical family values" because the Bible does not speak to the topic clearly or consistently.

Marriage is a custom. It is NOT demanded by God.

Uh oh...did I type that out loud?

May 7, 2013 at 3:30 a.m.

Oblabla's way: Have all the sex you want as young as you want. Kill the unborn no matter how far along, and even if they're being born the option should still be there to kill them. Smoke all the pot you want (it was good for him it's good enough for everyone else). Play lots of golf and take lots vacations even though we regular folks can't. Prop up gay basketball players as heroes and make sure everyone else has to eat their vegetables while he can eat all the crap he wants. If you don't eat your vegetables he'll sick his wife on you.

May 7, 2013 at 5:58 a.m.
EaTn said...

2 Timothy 3 (NIV)

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—

May 7, 2013 at 6:56 a.m.
dao1980 said...

Zab, your narrow, angry, and infantile world-view may be the cause of all that bleeding out of your fisterix... just a wild guess.

May 7, 2013 at 7:10 a.m.
fairmon said...

The age of legal use will become the age of being OK to be sexually active although that is not the intent.

May 7, 2013 at 7:20 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Fairmon,

So you're implying the previous age for sexual activity being "OK" was 17? Who knew that teens sex lives were so dependent on the age limit to acquire Plan B?

Can any serious person possibly believe that?

May 7, 2013 at 7:25 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

DO YOU REALLY WANT A BIBLE QUOTE-OFF?

The Bible is a spiritual smorgasbord. Everyone picks what they like and ignores the rest. There are about 300 different Christian faiths in America and each offer a version geared to attract a big audience.

Do you believe in reincarnation? Do you believe your relatives are waiting for you right now in heaven? Do you believe in ghosts? Do you ever work on the Sabbath?

Leave the Bible out of it. If you think the morning after pill is evil, what do you think of birth control? What about contraception?

LMAO at everyone who believes they know God's will.

May 7, 2013 at 7:28 a.m.
joneses said...

We have to break through the private idea that kids belong to their parents. We have to recognize the collective idea that kids belong to the community. Melissa Harris-Perry, A television host and liberal political commentator.

When an opponent says I will not come over to your side. I calmly say, your child belongs to us already. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants now stand in this new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community. Adolph Hitler 11/6/1933

This new Reich will give it’s youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth it’s own education and it’s own upbringing. Adolph Hitler 5/1/1937


May 7, 2013 at 7:37 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I have to say this is one of the first of Clay's cartoons that had me cleaning coffee off my keyboard (thanks TFP).

Of course the first thing that came to mind was the announcement yesterday that Pfizer will be making Viagra available over the internet. They say it is to help men avoid poor quality fakes, but we all know the real reason. Of course, it screams double standard on two levels.

May 7, 2013 at 7:57 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Does anyone else notice that the same WingNuts touting less government restriction and control are the same people arguing against the government loosening its control over the age limit to buy Plan B?

WingNuts love government when they want to push their "moral" agenda on everyone else. They love government oversight when it's their "moral" agend being legislated.

What happened to "less government"? What happened to the "free market"?

May 7, 2013 at 7:58 a.m.
alprova said...

zableedofisterix wrote: "Oblabla's way: Have all the sex you want as young as you want."

Here we go again. It's all Obama's fault that our youth have sex.

"Kill the unborn no matter how far along, and even if they're being born the option should still be there to kill them."

But of course. Obama is right there every time a woman seeks an abortion. Where does he find the time?

"Smoke all the pot you want (it was good for him it's good enough for everyone else)."

The fight to legalize marijuana has been ongoing for decades. Although it has been many years since I have smoked any, I'm all for it, with the same restrictions that apply to the consumption of alcohol.

"Play lots of golf and take lots vacations even though we regular folks can't."

The President is entitled to rest and relaxation just like anyone else is. If you can't afford a vacation, go out and write some books and make a few million for yourself.

"Prop up gay basketball players as heroes and make sure everyone else has to eat their vegetables while he can eat all the crap he wants."

If I were as lean as he was, and could eat what I wanted, I'd go for it too. I'm sure that he eats lots of veggies most of the time.

"If you don't eat your vegetables he'll sick his wife on you."

I'm not sure what "sicking" Mrs Obama entails, and I'm not sure I want that one clarified, so I'll leave that where it lays.

May 7, 2013 at 8:23 a.m.
joneses said...

Has anyone ever noticed that the hate filled communist left wing extremist loons are against responsible government, morality, no deficits, no debt, small government. This is what these hate filled communist left wing extremist loons are against when they do not agree with the Tea Party stance. I cannot figure out why they do not promote their true agenda rather than continuously attack the Tea Party. Why are they scared to promote their true agenda and just say they want to continue out of control spending, complete government control of all our lives, more government, huge deficits and no morality? Say that versus attacking what the Tea Party stands for. These hate filled communist left wing extremist loons must be scared to death they might expose their true agenda.

May 7, 2013 at 8:34 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I thought the T party was all about fiscal responsibility in government. You mean they are for sexual freedom too? Or just for men? Straight men, that is.

May 7, 2013 at 8:36 a.m.
conservative said...

All hours of the day and all hours of the night.

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Mathew 11:28-30

May 7, 2013 at 8:44 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Can any WingNut/TeaBaggers explain why they are opposed to abortion AND emergency contraception?

Plan B is NOT an abortion pill. Plan B works pre-fertilization. The drug itself is ineffective after about 96 hours post-coitus. Contrary to popular belief, fertilization does not typically occur immediately after ejaculation. The ova must be released from the ovary to meet the sperm in the Fallopian tubes. However, there is a seemingly short window of time where that process takes place (about 3-4 days depending on the individual and the potency of the sperm). Thus, just because a woman had sex doesn't mean she will get pregnant and just because a woman took Plan B doesn't mean she would have gotten pregnant otherwise.

May 7, 2013 at 8:48 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Curious: do you think men buying Viagra must have a permission slip from their wife? Do you think single men are denied because they are single? Seems to me that single men have no business having sex. And women should know in advance (maybe a 48 hour waiting period is needed?) that their husbands are seeking Viagra and be able to say no. Seems fair to me.

Of course, sex is for procreation only, so any man married to a menopausal woman shouldn't get Viagra. Oh, and for moral reasons I don't want my insurance company paying for it.

May 7, 2013 at 8:50 a.m.
Maximus said...

Alprova, I can think of nothing more fearful than for you to be in close proximity to any teenager. Your long and very detailed explanations of why it is perfectly alright for a 15 year old to have sex is revolting. Like I called it early on you are a pervert and I would not let my children, yes they are children in my opinion up to age 18, be in your sick presence. Your "it's natural" pitch comes from your amoral, secular humanist, 60's counter culture life philosophy of "if it feels good do it". You have the right to live your life in any way you wish but thankfully most American's choose to live their life and raise their children differently. By the way, in Tennessee, if you touch a 15 year old sexually in any way you will go to jail so Alprova try to hold back from doing "what comes naturally" with a modicum of self control. Finally, even taking the time to type a post defending Kermit Gosnell's right to a trial "proves" that you are a demented fringe weirdo with serious issues.

May 7, 2013 at 8:56 a.m.
Leaf said...

I think we're getting to the root of the problem here. It's that conservatives just aren't sexy. That's why they are so grumpy. Lack of lovin'. They'd be in favor of the morning-after pill if they thought there was a chance they'd need it.

May 7, 2013 at 8:57 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Leaf,

"They'd be in favor of the morning-after pill if they thought there was a chance they'd need it."

A very astute observation.

May 7, 2013 at 8:58 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Sorry, Maxie hon, to counter your perverted notion of dirty old men impregnating teens, most teens get pregnant having sex with other teens. Of course a grown man having sex with a 15 year old is rape; your fixation on this is revealing. As far as you "counter-culture" accusation, 95% of the generations who were adults 1940s-2000 said they had sex outside of marriage. Either that is a lot of teen sex (when I was a teen a lot of my friends were sexually active) or a lot of cheating on one's spouse.

May 7, 2013 at 8:58 a.m.
degage said...

Using the morning after pill in case of rape is one thing but using it as a contraceptive for casual sex is another. This pill is a very high dose of hormone and excessive use could be harmful. The birth control pill is a low dose and used responsibly has been proved safe for most women but I doubt the FDA knows the long term effect will have on excessive use of the high dose.

The men on here advocate the use for women. It isn't their bodies it is going into. They have no idea how it will affect these women. Some women have side effects from the low dose of birth control so when a 15 year old uses this for casual sex it could prove dangerous. Better use a condom than the pill for casual sex, they can help keep STDs down.

So all you young men go buy some condoms and protect you girl.

May 7, 2013 at 8:59 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Ikeithlu,

Rape is all those people talk about. Maximus and JonRoss talk about rape almost everyday here.

May 7, 2013 at 8:59 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Degage, the science says otherwise. That it is limited to 15 and up is because Obama and others are squeamish about it. It is actually safe for all ages. I do agree with the condom issue because of STDs.

The fixation of fertilization being the start of life (by some groups) will result in some real issues. A large number of conceptions result in miscarriage, and for a large % of those the women never knew they had conceived. Also, the IUD, a very effective form of birth control, (I used one for years with no side effects) would be banned as it does not prevent fertilization.

May 7, 2013 at 9:02 a.m.
moon4kat said...

Ikeithlu, especially excellent post at 8:50. Thanks.

May 7, 2013 at 9:09 a.m.
alprova said...

Ikeithlu wrote: "I have to say this is one of the first of Clay's cartoons that had me cleaning coffee off my keyboard (thanks TFP)."

I chuckled at first glance too.

I can't wait to get to the office to see what the reaction is of my Republican friends when they see it in the printed edition of the paper.

"Of course the first thing that came to mind was the announcement yesterday that Pfizer will be making Viagra available over the internet. They say it is to help men avoid poor quality fakes, but we all know the real reason. Of course, it screams double standard on two levels."

Hypocrisy is far more likely in most cases. Every one of us were teenagers. Chances are that most of us had sex while we were teens and most likely before we were married.

I did, at the age of 17, before I was out of high school. It was not my idea either. She seduced me one fine Saturday morning while her mom was at work. We were married shortly after graduation. We never once used birth control. It was only a miracle that she never conceived until after we were married.

I lost my first wife and child a year and half later, as I have related in the past and went on to remarry and have two lovely daughters who are now married and have children of their own.

I never prohibited my daughters to enter into relationships, nor attempted to shame them into not having sex. I told them that when they felt they were ready, to come to myself or their mother for money they might need to purchase sufficient birth control, no questions asked.

The wife told me some time ago that when the girls were 16, she hooked them up with the pill. Both married their high school sweethearts and seem to be very happy.

Shaming kids or shoving religion down their throats never works and it never has. My kids attended church by invitation each and every time and were never forced to go when they reached the age of 12. To this day, they both are active in the church and are raising their kids much like I did.

My strategy was very simple; I had open and honest discussions with them both, no subject was ever off limits, and there was never so much as one uncomfortable moment in our household.

May 7, 2013 at 9:11 a.m.
Easy123 said...

degage,

"but using it as a contraceptive for casual sex is another."

Who in the world would use Plan B as their regular contraceptive? Emergency contraception costs upwards of $40-$60. Birth control costs much less.

"This pill is a very high dose of hormone and excessive use could be harmful."

The dosage is not particularly "high" and it's nearly impossible to overdose on such a drug. The side effects are miniscule.

"The birth control pill is a low dose and used responsibly has been proved safe for most women but I doubt the FDA knows the long term effect will have on excessive use of the high dose."

The drug used in Plan B is not necessarily the same drug as your average birth control.

"The men on here advocate the use for women. It isn't their bodies it is going into."

That's why the men here are advocating their right to use it or not use it.

"They have no idea how it will affect these women."

That information is easily obtainable.

http://women.webmd.com/guide/plan-b

"Some women have side effects from the low dose of birth control so when a 15 year old uses this for casual sex it could prove dangerous."

The FDA says otherwise. You do know there are side effects for every drug, right? It takes about 10 years for the FDA to be developed and approved for prescription. That's including all the time it takes to develop the drug, test it, and get it approved.

"Better use a condom than the pill for casual sex, they can help keep STDs down."

How about both?

"So all you young men go buy some condoms and protect you girl."

How about we just teach our kids to be responsible and conscious of sex instead of making it taboo? Talking about it with them seems to work pretty well along with allowing them to use things like birth control, condoms, etc.

If sex wasn't so taboo in this country, I doubt there would be such a problem with teen pregnancies.

May 7, 2013 at 9:13 a.m.
moon4kat said...

Alprova, sounds like you are a wise and caring Dad. The world needs more like you, instead of narrow-minded control-freaks.

May 7, 2013 at 9:15 a.m.
Easy123 said...

moon4kat,

I second that.

May 7, 2013 at 9:20 a.m.
joneses said...

Wow, all the left wing, hate filled, baby killing communist extremist sure are out in full force this morning. What else would one expect from losers that have nothing better to do than sit on their fat ass all day and evening posting spreading their communist agenda while leaching off those of us who choose to work. You pathetic liberals are a sorry lot as you have nothing better to do than piss and moan all day and night. I am out of here as I want to get back to work. Notice I said "want to get back to work", a phrase that I do not expect you to understand.

May 7, 2013 at 9:24 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Alprova, I was aware of your loss and I am so sorry. Time does not erase that pain.

I was unusual in that I was socially very awkward so my first real experience was in college. My only partner ever is my now spouse of 30+ years. My kids were given all the information, including our expression of our desire that they wait until they were older and in a committed relationship. Daughter was offered birth control, sons got the very clear talk about taking advantage of or pressuring a girl, and being financially and emotionally responsible for any child they conceived for a full 18 years. It was never expressed in religious terms. They all attended a church owned high school, but religion was never forced. All three attend church now (one is clergy) of their own free will. Two are married and have children, the last just out of college. We supervised them as teens, but gave them earned freedoms to be teens and to have some privacy. We didn't keep them shackled in their rooms but we did make them work to experiment with sex. (only fair-as teens WE had to work hard to get any chance at sexual experiences) ;) I learned from working with teens for decades that they need some room to make mistakes and to find out who they are; this idea that you can supervise a teen like 4 year old is preposterous. Every parent I knew that did this suffered the consequences: an out of control, socially handicapped, promiscuous and unhappy person; they were damaged for life.

I have always been sensitive to double standards for genders (does it show?) being a woman in the south but who was not raised by southerners. I went to a male majority college, majored with an all male department, with all male classmates except one, and have experienced gender discrimination many times. I paid for my own birth control out of pocket while I was still in my reproductive years because my insurance company did not cover it.

PS thank you moonkat for your kind words.

May 7, 2013 at 9:29 a.m.
alprova said...

Maxipad wrote: "Alprova, I can think of nothing more fearful than for you to be in close proximity to any teenager."

And of course, you have a track record of finding agreement from the peanut gallery with everything you happen to think.

"Your long and very detailed explanations of why it is perfectly alright for a 15 year old to have sex is revolting."

Your faux outrage is noted for the record.

There is a 13% chance that it will happen, no matter what anyone attempts to do to prohibit it. Ignoring it isn't going to solve a thing.

"Like I called it early on you are a pervert and I would not let my children, yes they are children in my opinion up to age 18, be in your sick presence."

I seriously doubt that you have had opportunity to sire any children.

"Your "it's natural" pitch comes from your amoral, secular humanist, 60's counter culture life philosophy of "if it feels good do it"."

Like it or not, God made sex a simple pleasure that almost everyone of us seeks to indulge. You might be the exception to that rule.

"You have the right to live your life in any way you wish but thankfully most American's choose to live their life and raise their children differently."

I don't think you are in tune at all with what "most Americans" choose to do, under any criteria.

"By the way, in Tennessee, if you touch a 15 year old sexually in any way you will go to jail so Alprova try to hold back from doing "what comes naturally" with a modicum of self control."

That remark deserves not an ounce of acknowledgment.

"Finally, even taking the time to type a post defending Kermit Gosnell's right to a trial "proves" that you are a demented fringe weirdo with serious issues."

What will you say when Karma catches up with you, and you are tried for your crimes?

May 7, 2013 at 9:32 a.m.
Maximus said...

Alprova, I call bullhockey fiction on your sexual life narrative. Of course you perverts especially those in prison love, love to discuss their conquests. No one would want to seduce you. Hmmmm. If true, how did your wife and daughter die? Sounds to me like there were some unusual and uncomfortable moments in your home.

As for 15 year olds, 8th and 9th grade girls taking birth control pills or the morning after pill and I will pose this question to Clay after taking up this topic that I have been commenting on for days,.......I thought big pharma was the evil, profit mongering empire for you liberals. What's up with that now? Big pharma a great American success story $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?

May 7, 2013 at 9:33 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Maximus,

You are truly a miserable, loathsome, hollow-heart, maniacal, depraved piece of rat excrement.

May 7, 2013 at 9:39 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Maximus, 35 years ago white middle class girls were sexually active in the 7th grade. Is that desirable? No. But neither is having 12 year olds get pregnant. Something that some conservatives fail to focus on with Planned Parenthood and other organizations is the issue of sex education. Sex education in my day (40 years ago) was a nuts-and-bolts-this-is-is-the-human-reproduction-system-and-how-it-works type of thing. No mention of being protective of your own feelings or that of another, no mention of what happens when you have a baby when you are not yet old enough to care for it, no description of forms of birth control (still pretty rough at that time, but improving; condoms, like alcohol and drugs, were easily available because I lived outside the US) and no recognition on the part of public schools that mis-information spread by peers had FAR more sway than the facts presented by teachers (what do OLD people know about this stuff anyway?) I laugh when I remember some of the things I heard from my peers when I was in junior high about sex and pregnancy. It was a wonder we survived. Parents were in most cases too uncomfortable to talk about it, and in hindsight I realize that most teachers were too.

May 7, 2013 at 9:44 a.m.
alprova said...

Maxipad wrote: "Alprova, I call bullhockey fiction on your sexual life narrative."

And I'm supposed to be bothered...why?

"Of course you perverts especially those in prison love, love to discuss their conquests."

I wouldn't have the first clue what goes on in a prison, which brings up the obvious question as to how it is that you do?

"No one would want to seduce you."

I'm sorry. You took that as an invitation. You misunderstood.

"Hmmmm. If true, how did your wife and daughter die?"

It was a Son and they died in a car crash 38 years ago.

"Sounds to me like there were some unusual and uncomfortable moments in your home."

I'd be very careful, David.

May 7, 2013 at 9:48 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

If true, how did your wife and daughter die? Sounds to me like there were some unusual and uncomfortable moments in your home.

This alone should get you banned, more than anything else you have posted on this forum.

May 7, 2013 at 9:50 a.m.
degage said...

Ike, even Dr. Grimes the one that presented MAP to the FDA said excessive use of the high dose can cause chaos to the womens cycle so we trust a 15 year old to know how often to use this? For rape by all means use it but for casual sex use something else or go on the low dose birth control.

Men also have a responsibility to the women and they should step up and act responsible. As I said before the man doesn't have to put this in his body.

May 7, 2013 at 9:52 a.m.
dimestore said...

Maximus calling someone else a liar, haha!

(Never change)

May 7, 2013 at 9:54 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

It is not designed to use "excessively" degage, and is not dispensed in high enough amounts to cause harm. No one is suggesting selling this stuff by the "value pack".

May 7, 2013 at 9:54 a.m.
Easy123 said...

degage,

"even Dr. Grimes the one that presented MAP to the FDA said excessive use of the high dose can cause chaos to the womens cycle so we trust a 15 year old to know how often to use this?"

Considering its cost, I'd say we can expect 15 year olds to use it as intended. How much money do 15 year olds have to shell out on Plan B? Parents might get a little suspicious when their child have several $60 charges at CVS Pharmacy on their debit/credit cards, don't you think?

"For rape by all means use it but for casual sex use something else or go on the low dose birth control."

Or use it as emergency contraception like it is intended.

"Men also have a responsibility to the women and they should step up and act responsible. As I said before the man doesn't have to put this in his body."

You're the one telling people not to use it. YOU don't have to put it in your body either.

May 7, 2013 at 9:58 a.m.
degage said...

I am aware it is not designated to use excessively, try to tell that to some of these women and a 15 year old. being able to buy over the counter is the problem, they can go to multiple drug outlets and no one is keeping track.

May 7, 2013 at 10 a.m.
Easy123 said...

degage,

"I am aware it is not designated to use excessively, try to tell that to some of these women and a 15 year old."

Tell me all the stories of women stocking up on $40-$60 Plan B.

"being able to buy over the counter is the problem, they can go to multiple drug outlets and no one is keeping track."

Can you possibly be serious? Why would any woman want to spend an excessive amount of money to stockpile Plan B to take every time they have sex when they can get monthly birth control for $15/month or even less? Explain your logic or how you've come to the conclusion that emergency contraception is a drug that will be abused.

May 7, 2013 at 10:03 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

The FDA approved it for all ages, calling it safe and easy enough to use. This was over ruled by Sebelius, but not for scientific reasons, purely because of the discomfort she and other politicans on both sides of the aisle had about it. Their concerns are NOT supported by the science. Medical professionals agree that overdose is not dangerous and will most likely result in nausea and vomiting; the treatment for excessive dosage is just support of symptoms. The one-step version helps reduce the likelihood that a girl may take both pills at the same time, and even so this may not produce symptoms at all. The drug is expensive, more expensive than birth control pills.

The FDA has looked into all the possibilities here. You are not the first person who brought these concerns up. If it weren't for the irrational squeamishness (by irrational I don't mean crazy, just not supported by evidence) of Obama, Sebelius and others, it would be made available without age restrictions.

May 7, 2013 at 10:09 a.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Absatence only education....no birth control pill coverage...no plan B.... so when that doesn't work......no abortion....now that there are more mouths to feed..... cut medicare....cut headstart...reduce food stamps..... Is this a platform I am supposed to vote for?

May 7, 2013 at 10:10 a.m.
degage said...

I just checked, you can get it from $10.00 to 50.00 depending on where you go.

So Easy, why don't you say something about your own responsibility in keeping the women in your life safe, instead you keep pandering to the use of pills.

May 7, 2013 at 10:11 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

degage, once again, the drug is safe.

Let me explain something: (here I am channeling my science teacher) Science does not make value judgments. All science does is collect evidence and organize it. WE must make value judgments on how science findings are used. The science has demonstrated without doubt that this is a safe drug, and the risk of abuse is very very low. (You can't eliminate risk entirely on anything).

If you oppose Plan B being available to all ages, you will need to use a value judgment here. The science simply does not support your argument. Value judgments are perfectly valid, and can only be countered by other value judgments.

May 7, 2013 at 10:16 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Bring it on, JR. I challenge you to find ONE anti Christian item I have posted here. If you are not a liar and a coward, you'll pony up.

I'm beginning to think your mother dropped you on your head when you were an infant.

BTW, that is an anti-JonRoss statement. Not an anti-Christian statement. If you are a Christian then I am a first draft pick for the NBA.

May 7, 2013 at 10:22 a.m.
dao1980 said...

JR's off his goat if he thinks anybody cares what amount of educated logic hurts his silly inbred feelings.

May 7, 2013 at 10:29 a.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

When I think about social issues such as gay marrage plan B abortion I keep comming back to the same question when trying to form an opinion. From where do I get the authority to decide? Because if I have the authority then that makes me superior. Well I am just a man. I do not have the authority to decide how others live so that is the starting point to forming my opinion. Abortion.... I don't have a uterus so I won't have one. Gay Marrage.... I won't get one but if you want one go for it. It doesn't effect me...... Plan B......condoms break it might come in handy.... But the last thing I will do Is stand up and demonize any other human for the choices they and they alone will have to live with. Karma has a way of teaching us humility and often times it has a way of shaking one's personal world view along the way. So tread lightly MAXIMUS

May 7, 2013 at 10:29 a.m.
Leaf said...

DJHBrainerd, well put 10:10. Succinct and pithy.

May 7, 2013 at 10:30 a.m.
degage said...

Jon, where in this posting have you seen Ike launching into an anti Christian tirade? She, in other post, expresses her views but I don't consider them tirades. We are all allowed freedom of speech. This is America last time I checked.

May 7, 2013 at 10:31 a.m.
MTJohn said...

JonRoss said...You lefty obastards...

JonRoss - is this how you set an example of Christian charity and tolerance?

May 7, 2013 at 10:35 a.m.
Leaf said...

I'm highly prejudiced against JonRoss. I tend to discriminate against him and think that he should be segregated. I don't think he should be allowed to marry or vote. Does that make me a bigot?

May 7, 2013 at 10:37 a.m.
Easy123 said...

degage,

"I just checked, you can get it from $10.00 to 50.00 depending on where you go."

Walmart, CVS, and Walgreens all sell it at over $35.

"So Easy, why don't you say something about your own responsibility in keeping the women in your life safe,"

I did. See:

"How about we just teach our kids to be responsible and conscious of sex instead of making it taboo? Talking about it with them seems to work pretty well along with allowing them to use things like birth control, condoms, etc."

May 7, 2013 at 9:13 a.m.

"instead you keep pandering to the use of pills"

I haven't pandered anything. Plan B is safe and effective as an emergency contraceptive. Women and even 15 year old girls should be able to use it. That's my argument. Contraception and birth control methods work. They prevent abortions, aid in women's health issues, and prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Why are you demonizing a safe, effective form of emergency contraception?

May 7, 2013 at 10:39 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Whatsa matter, JR? Couldn't find anything to support your claim?

May 7, 2013 at 10:43 a.m.
dao1980 said...

Haha, JR you illiterate slackjaw fool. I most certainly did not say that "This is America last time I checked" as you have heehaawed and asserted.

(Though I do agree whole heatedly with degage in that respect)

May 7, 2013 at 10:44 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Do me next easy, do me next.

Oh, my. Leaves me speechless..

May 7, 2013 at 10:47 a.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"Not being in agreement with the natural laws as professed in the Church of Progressives / Obamism does not make one a bigot."

Correct, being a bigot makes YOU, JonRoss, a bigot.

You make statements about Progressives controlling children when this Plan B age limit change is the exact opposite. It's taking the law/government out of the equation and putting all of the responsibility in the hands of the parent and the 15 year old.

What you're advocating is government oversight on drugs that are completely safe and effective for females ages 15 and up with minimal side effects, but you want those drugs outlawed or forced to be prescribed in order for those individuals to obtain such contraception. That isn't "small government".

You are an ignorant fool. Truly an illogical moron.

May 7, 2013 at 10:50 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

You lefties can't stand to have the perfectness of Progressivism questioned

Where did anyone here claim that Progressivism or anything else is "perfect"?

By the way, you still haven't ponied up evidence for your previous claim here. I guess I will have to think you lied. The editors of the TFP will too. (assuming they pay any attention at all)

May 7, 2013 at 10:55 a.m.
May said...

I believe birth control should be a readily available option to prevent unwanted pregnancies; same with condoms, spermicide, etc. This is just something that should be obvious because no matter how much you expect people to be responsible, it's ultimately their decision.

However there is a serious problem with the younger generation and the idea that sex is just an itch waiting to be scratched. Responsibility begins at conception. Abortion for when someone is raped or the child threatens the mother's life is understandable, but when the person in question is just irresponsible it should not be an option. The media is partially to blame. The younger generation should be better taught and informed about meaningful relationships in order to avoid bad decisions.

May 7, 2013 at 10:56 a.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "I am warning you IKE, I will call the TFP today if you launch into yet another vicious anti-Christian tirade. We are sick of it."

Given the press you have received from the TFP over the years, I'm sure the LAST phone call you would make would be to anyone on East 11th Street.

And pardon me, but I wasn't aware that you were a Christian to start with.

May 7, 2013 at 10:58 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

May, in a perfect world I would agree. But I would rather we do everything we can to keep children from being born into bad circumstances. We pay a heavy price for children born to mothers that don't want them or can't care for them. This isn't even taking into account the suffering of the children themselves. I don't like abortion so I'll do anything I can to reduce the number of them. Moralizing about young people's irresponsibility (which of course is not new in this generation) is not solving the problem.

May 7, 2013 at 10:59 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

You live in a strange existence, JR.

May 7, 2013 at 11:06 a.m.
dao1980 said...

Hey JR, here's a tip.

When you buffalo through public (or forums) whilst making aggressive, strange, and incomplete thoughts at people, you may find that a variety of comedically rude or boisterous individuals will happily accept the opportunity to point and laugh at you.

(speaking of nonsense.. I may have made up a word in there somewhere)

May 7, 2013 at 11:08 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

And no, Progressives do not have morals. Morals are rooted in long traditions of solving the misery of the human condition. Progressive are not interested in that, just doing what feels good at any given time.

That's hilarious, or it would be if it wasn't so completely wrong.

May 7, 2013 at 11:13 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Screw honesty, in the world according to JR and his faux outrage. Any lie is justified if it advances the conservative cause?

May 7, 2013 at 11:15 a.m.
May said...

re: Ikeithlu

I agree. We should do everything in our power to keep children from being born into bad situations by making contraception more readily available. I just don't believe it's right for a life to be taken because of someone's irresponsibility. Things like rape and life-threatening situations are extreme cases which it should be taken into account. And although teaching the younger generation about moral decisions won't eliminate the problem, it is one of the many things that can be done to help even the slightest. There are more steps that can be taken, but that's up for debate.

re: JonRoss

I'm not sure how much Obama advocates abortion and for what situations. I don't support abortion except for extreme cases as I've said. But his decision to open up the door for more contraceptives would help reduce abortions and foster children, and I believe that's a good decision for everyone.

May 7, 2013 at 11:19 a.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "And no, Progressives do not have morals."

Pffffttttt!!

"Morals are rooted in long traditions of solving the misery of the human condition."

Morals certainly hasn't helped you solve the misery of your human condition.

"Progressive are not interested in that, just doing what feels good at any given time."

You might be on to something. Since we seem to be more informed and amicable than those of you who are practicing abstinence, there must be a link between sex and sensibility.

May 7, 2013 at 11:20 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Easy123 asks: ”Does anyone else notice that the same WingNuts touting less government restriction and control are the same people arguing against the government loosening its control over the age limit to buy Plan B?”

Yes, yes, Easy123. . . Indeed, I have noticed this.

And have you also noticed that many of the politicians and religious folks leading this crazed Wingnut frenzy don’t practice abstinent policies themselves?

I think the world would be a much better place, if these politicians and religious leaders would just practice the policies of abstinence they preach:

Abstain from greed and corruption

Abstain from judging and playing God

Abstain from starting wars and conflicts

Abstain from cruelty and vindictiveness

Abstain from abuse and exploitation

Abstain from cover-ups of any of the above

May 7, 2013 at 11:22 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Doggoneit, alprova. This is the second time I've had to clean my keyboard today.

May 7, 2013 at 11:22 a.m.
Easy123 said...

JonMoron,

"Really ? You have got to be kidding. This is the most incoherent piece of blather here today."

Yes, your words ARE incoherent blather.

"Plan B takes control out of the hands of the parents and vulnerable underage girls and puts control in the hands of rapists."

Is that your sick fantasy? Because it's completely conjured up from your own mind. It's telling when the first thing that pops into your head when Plan B is mentioned is "rape". Is rape your "Plan B", JonRoss?

"You folks must have an overwhelming desire to have your way with 15 year old girls."

The only one here talking about that is you. Maybe you're giving us some insight into your fragile psyche.

"Fulfilling that desire is defined as statutory rape, and whatever you can do to hide or minimize that act you will do."

I have no doubt that you know from experience.

May 7, 2013 at 11:22 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

A pox on wikipedia and google. The main blow-hards on this forum would be muted without Wiki telling them what to say.

May 7, 2013 at 11:23 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Haha, PT. I never use wiki. Try again. Google is great as a first start, but you still must research the sources carefully.

There is no longer a concept of truth in the country because of our fearless leader. So yes, screw honesty, I am just following the lead of Obama.

Well, there you go. The philosophy of two-wrongs-make-a-right. So much for the claim of taking the high road.

May 7, 2013 at 11:24 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Plain_Jack_Rebus_Dennis,

"he main blow-hards on this forum would be muted without Wiki telling them what to say."

You mean without factual information? The lack of factual information doesn't seem to mute you and your WIngNut brethren.

I always find it interesting the people who try to demonize research and actually taking the time to look things up. WingNutters seem to be the only people that hate factual information and the gathering of it.

May 7, 2013 at 11:26 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

You know, JR, I don't really care if you believe me or not.

May 7, 2013 at 11:27 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

I would think that anything to reduce the possibility of a woman seeking an abortion would be a win/win for everybody. That the teabaggers are in such an uproar over the availability of Plan B shows that they are not really driven so much by compassion for the unborn but merely disgust at the thought of anyone deriving pleasure from sex and then not suffering the consequences for it. They would rather see a woman who engaged in casual sex and got pregnant as a result carry a baby to full term, not because they give a flip about the unborn but because they just want to see that woman/girl pay for her "sins."

Whether they're truly religious or not, they cling to the Christian view-point that sex for pleasure is wrong. Of course, they by no means refrain from engaging in it themselves (look at all the "family values" Republican perverts who have gotten caught with their pants down) and I doubt very seriously that those who have teenagers have any tighter control over the sex lives of their kids than any liberal parents do.

Making Plan B available for 15 yr.-olds is not "sanctioning" sex for them. It's simply recognizing the cold hard fact that teenagers DO HAVE SEX and no amount of moralizing against it is going to change that fact. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, there is no valid argument against making Plan B easily available. You teabaggers and holy rollers are always going to squawk and whine about something, so squawk away. But Plan B is here to stay, whether you like it or not, and that's a good thing.

May 7, 2013 at 11:59 a.m.
Maximus said...

For anyone that believes the selling of the Plan B drug over the counter to 15 year olds is only about birth control then you are very nieve to the seXular humanist radical progressive agenda to include the GLBTQ organizations, NAMBLA, the ACLU and a large segment of the Democrat party. Although I definitely do not agree with the FDA approval I would suggest investing in the pharma companies making the drug because I always get paid $$$$$!

May 7, 2013 at noon
lkeithlu said...

Although I definitely do not agree with the FDA approval

Since you are not an FDA scientist, your opinion here doesn't matter.

The rest of your post is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve a response.

May 7, 2013 at 12:05 p.m.
limric said...

I knew Clay’s biting sarcasm today would inevitably bring out the most radical as well as the loudest (“I know you are, but what am I”) type of simple-minded hypocrites.

To hear the rabid conservative’s tell it; they think that teenage girls (maybe only those with parents that aren’t vested Tea Party members) are out on the front lawn on all fours, blue plaid Catholic school skirts pulled up over their waists, fluttering long fake eyelashes at passing boys to come hither. Gaahhhd damn!!

It is an undeniable fact that even the most vociferous science denying anti-sex, anti-prevention, anti-abortion, anti-humanists WILL, without exception, make a beeline to the drug store to purchase the ‘Plan B morning after pill’ for their own teenage daughter. Or, if ‘Plan B’ is not a viable option WILL, without exception, pay a visit to a local women’s clinic. Whether innocent Susie got drunk at a party, or was riding an equally innocent Johnny while you were at a Joneses BBQ swilling beers, or gang raped by thugs from the hood. It makes no difference.

There are NO exceptions

While I find the above scenarios uncomfortable, what I find despicable is that any and all raging against the onslaught of liberals ruining family values are in reality less concerned about their teenage daughters as they are about being exposed for what they truly are…

Dissembling frauds!

And in case you don’t know it, your daughters can see right through you. They’re smarter than you think.

May 7, 2013 at 12:15 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

The solution is to turn all parenting over to the government. Relieves parents of responsibility and empowers government more.

May 7, 2013 at 12:15 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Plain_Jack_Dennis,

Wouldn't this change take the parenting out of the hands of the government? The government is lowering the age limit, thus, putting the responsibility on the parents and the child. The government is taking away the restrictions.

May 7, 2013 at 12:23 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Is this not what the TeaParty wants? Less Gov restrictions? Make up your minds, y'all.

This was your complaint when Bloomberg imposed his silly size restrictions on soft drinks. Using your original logic, you should be pissed that Obama and Sebelius insisted that it have a 15 year age restriction. The FDA said it is safe for any age that may be sexually active.

May 7, 2013 at 12:25 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Dick Harpootlian on a roll. Now says "All I’m suggesting is she (Gov. Haley) needs to go back to being an accountant in a dress store rather than being this fraud of a governor that we have.” sounds like a war on women to me

May 7, 2013 at 12:29 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Interesting, PT. You are called out on your lies and your response? Change the subject.

May 7, 2013 at 12:31 p.m.

Great Cartoon, Clay.

This reminds me of George carlin "Why is it, that people who are against abortion, are people you dont wanna f.ck in the first place?"

RNC conventions are the best example for such horror cabinets...

May 7, 2013 at 12:36 p.m.
joneses said...

Why is liberalism based on deception? What is the purpose of liberalism?

Liberalism is nothing more, nothing less, than a return of the power to rule, from the people, to the elite few. It is a philosophy that assumes that the common man is not smart enough to govern himself, therefore, the enlightened few must save the masses from themselves. Liberalism also assumes that God does not exist, that the rule of law means nothing, that rights are determined by man not by God and that the means justifies the end. In short, liberalism is a man made philosophy that is motivated by the desire to assume greater power and control.

So, if we understand what liberalism is and what it’s aims are, then it starts to make sense that liberalism is supported by falsehoods. If the common man knows the truth he is not going to be willing to allow liberals to tax and spend and assume more and more power over him in an attempt to save him from so called man-made global warming, for example.

Look at all the money that has been spent and the power that has been assumed by government in the name of protecting our planet from man-made global warming. We have regulated and over-regulated recovery of cheap sources of energy and replaced them with expensive and inefficient green energy wind-farms and solar energy. The government has also subsidized expensive electric vehicles because of the lies associated with the bogus theory of man-made global warming.

May 7, 2013 at 12:44 p.m.
joneses said...

And look at the cost in freedoms and money that Obamacare will be if it is fully instituted? Obamacare solves nothing. It makes health-care less accessible, more expensive and less profitable for health-care providers all the while it adds layers of bureaucracy upon the people and upon the health-care system as a whole. It will cost us more and drive down the quality of care all the while we lose power and control over our personal health-care decisions, notwithstanding all the rhetoric to the contrary from Obama and friends. How do liberals sell this to us? They don’t tell us the truth or fairly debate the fact, instead they sell us a pack of lies. They tell us Obamacare is going to be better for us and less expensive and that we will be able to keep our doctors and our current insurance program. Lies, lies, lies. They lie to us in order to take power and freedom away from us. Why? Because that is what liberals do. The means justifies the end.

What evidence is there that capitalism, freedom in the marketplace, has failed us? Capitalism over that past 200 plus years has taken our nation and the world from the horse and buggy days to the days of comfort and wealth. We have gone from outdoor toilets, poor health-care practices, manual labor, coal oil and whale oil lamps, slow communications and transportation to almost universal access to health care, automobiles, computers, televisions, cell phones, indoor plumbing, electricity, access to a wide variety of inexpensive food, clothing and consumer products… and the list could go on forever. None of those advances happened because the government was regulating the market, they all happened because someone was motivated to make a profit.

It is only as government has regulated and restricted the market, at all levels, that our economy has gone in the tank, jobs have been lost and our inner cities have fallen into decay and now the libs are blaming the free-market for the economic collapse we are in.

The profit motive has elevated the quality of life for all of us. It has provided us with less expensive goods and services, better jobs, better working conditions and greater freedoms, yet liberals would have us believe that big business is evil and that the rich must “pay their fair share” of taxes even though they are already paying way more than their share. Lies, lies lies and more lies, and yet many people-way too many people- believe those lies.

The next time you hear anyone tell you that government is the answer, that there is no longer any debate about the science, that you must pay more taxes or that government can not cut spending, question their motives. They are not looking out for you, they are trying to grab more power.

Wake up America, liberalism has never been that answer, it has always been the problem. It still is. Liberalism is based on falsehood.

May 7, 2013 at 12:44 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joneses,

You pathetic mouth-breather are a sorry sack of mouse dung as you have nothing better to do than piss and moan all day and night.

May 7, 2013 at 12:47 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

joneses, I commend you for making a calm, measured post here. I don't agree with most of it, but at least it is calm, thoughtful and clear.

May 7, 2013 at 12:48 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"The time for rational debate and collegiality is now over."

LMFAO!

May 7, 2013 at 12:49 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Ikeithlu,

"I commend you for making a calm, measured post here."

Everything joneses posted was copied and pasted. None of the words he posted are original thoughts or his own words. Pure plagiarism. Notice he didn't add any citations or give credit to the original author. Don't be fooled by joneses.

http://drclarkjensen.com/why-do-liberals-lie/

May 7, 2013 at 12:53 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

well,well. seems like my commendation isn't earned. That's a pretty big copy and paste to put here without correct citation. Not very honest, joneses.

May 7, 2013 at 12:54 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Cadillac, the largest foreign automaker in China, said it won regulatory approval to build a Cadillac factory to boost sales of luxury vehicles in the world’s biggest automobile market. The National Development and Reform Commission has signed off on the plant, which will be located in Shanghai’s Jinqiao zone, with construction beginning in June, Dayna Hart. good thing Romney wasn't elected...we would lose jobs to the Chinese.

May 7, 2013 at 12:57 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Another change in topic for PT. This is like the Gish Gallop.

May 7, 2013 at 1:02 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Plain_Jack_Rebus_Dennis,

"good thing Romney wasn't elected...we would lose jobs to the Chinese."

No Cadillac jobs were lost to the Chinese. They didn't close a US factory to build one in China. Building a factory in China is a good idea considering the cost it would take to make it here and ship them to China would be outrageous. Cadillac is doing the same thing in China that VW did in the Chattanooga.

Illogical, misguided arguments are your forte. And, as expected, JonRoss is your biggest supporter.

May 7, 2013 at 1:25 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Gore Is Romney-Rich With $200 Million After Bush Defeat!MT funny ,MSNBC OK with Gore Romney rich. not with Romney being rich. strange? Not really

May 7, 2013 at 1:27 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Gish Galloping again. Not very honest, but understandable if you don't want to take time to support what you say. A sure sign that YOU know you are lying.

May 7, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Plain_Jack_Rebus_Dennis,

"MSNBC OK with Gore Romney rich. not with Romney being rich."

Falsehood.

May 7, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"Romney is a religious person, Gore is not."

Al Gore is a devout Baptist from what I've read.

"That is why MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the left loons here hate Romney and worship Gore."

I don't think anyone here or on those networks hate Mitt Romney or worship Al Gore. Al Gore hasn't been relevant in 10 years. And, since your initial claim is false, you're just full of sh!t as usual.

"Have you EVER seen MSNBC, NPR, CNN or any other regime outlets criticize Gore ?"

Is that all news is about? Criticizing people? LMFAO! That's the Fox News coming out in you! Since you made the claim, the onus is on your to prove that those networks haven't criticized Al Gore.

Otherwise, it's all hogwash. And no, I'm not talking about your mother in a bathtub.

May 7, 2013 at 1:33 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

When I was reading what joneses wrote, my first thought was that he had copied/pasted it. Thanks for pointing that out, Easy. I know that he doesn't have it in him to think for himself to that extent. Not that there was much truth to what the author of that article said, but at least he expressed himself with a degree of clarity. Unlike joneses, who's always frothing at the mouth and spewing forth mindless babble.

May 7, 2013 at 1:41 p.m.
Stewwie said...

[Is this not what the TeaParty wants? Less Gov restrictions? Make up your minds, y'all.]

Ike, I don't think anyone in their right mind is against at least some form of government restrictions. (Well, maybe except for Drew Johnson, but that's another story.) As a Christian conservative, I see no problem with crafting laws that reflect Biblical principles and/or the Christian worldview so long as they are not unconstitutional.

[This was your complaint when Bloomberg imposed his silly size restrictions on soft drinks.]

It was silly because I'm not sure it will be effective. But I commend him for at least trying to do something about the ever-growing problem of obesity and diabetes. Hey, another option could be to simply ban the sale of all sodas. But I don't think that's the right solution.

[Using your original logic, you should be pissed that Obama and Sebelius insisted that it have a 15 year age restriction. The FDA said it is safe for any age that may be sexually active.]

Just because the FDA says it's safe to use doesn't mean that it's right to allow anyone and everyone to use it. There's a bigger picture to consider. We have a drinking and smoking age, but there's no push to get those changed. Why not? As stated above, you can be a conservative and still be in favor of government restrictions. I think that the beef a lot of conservatives have is with the federal government passing laws that it has no business passing. There are some things that are best left up to the states.

May 7, 2013 at 1:49 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie,

"As a Christian conservative, I see no problem with crafting laws that reflect Biblical principles and/or the Christian worldview so long as they are not unconstitutional."

"Crafting laws that reflect Biblical principles and/or the Christian worldview" IS unconstitutional. It's called the First Amendment. Look it up.

"Just because the FDA says it's safe to use doesn't mean that it's right to allow anyone and everyone to use it."

That's not the case in this situation. The previous age limit of 17 was lowered to 15 and females are the only people that benefit from Plan B. That isn't anyone and everyone.

"We have a drinking and smoking age, but there's no push to get those changed."

The legal drinking age changed in 1984. That law is enforced differently in different states. Same goes for the smoking/tobacco age limit. Different states have different rules.

"As stated above, you can be a conservative and still be in favor of government restrictions."

Only when they fit your agenda, right?

"I think that the beef a lot of conservatives have is with the federal government passing laws that it has no business passing."

Then why the fuss over Plan B?

"There are some things that are best left up to the states."

Nearly all things are.

May 7, 2013 at 1:54 p.m.
Stewwie said...

[Romney is a religious person, Gore is not. That is why MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the left loons here hate Romney and worship Gore.]

JR, Romney is criticized because he's a Republican. Al Gore is lauded because he's a Democrat. Period. The liberal media also ignores the hypocrisy of Gore's non-green travelling excursions to advocate all things green. But as Easy said, Gore hasn't been relevant for a while anyway (thank goodness).

May 7, 2013 at 1:55 p.m.
Stewwie said...

[That's not the case in this situation. The previous age limit of 17 was lowered to 15 and females are the only people that benefit from Plan B. That isn't anyone and everyone.]

Fine, but my statement was to dismiss Ike's logic.

[The legal drinking age changed in 1984. That law is enforced differently in different states. Same goes for the smoking/tobacco age limit. Different states have different rules.]

Fine with that too. I was making the point that I'm okay with certain government restrictions.

[Only when they fit your agenda, right?]

What's wrong with that? Whether they admit it or not, everyone has an "agenda".

[Then why the fuss over Plan B?]

I was thinking of things like "let's pass it then read it" Obamacare.

[Nearly all things are.]

Good.

May 7, 2013 at 2:06 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"The liberal media also ignores the hypocrisy of Gore's non-green travelling excursions to advocate all things green." - Stewwie

Any person of influence or celebrity is still traveling by plane, even those who are "green" advocates. Whether you like Gore or not, he's a high-profile person with a message that he and many others believe is important to convey to the public. I am sure that he is fully aware of his carbon footprint but we are still living in an age when automobile travel is a necessity for practically everyone, and even air travel is a necessity for many, depending on their occupations. Gore has a lot of money, yes, and he travels a lot by plane, but that doesn't necessarily make him a hypocrite as an advocate for green/renewable energy. He is doing his best to spread the message about the urgency of ushering in an era of clean energy when we will no longer have to leave a dirty, toxic footprint caused by fossil fuels.

May 7, 2013 at 2:17 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie,

"Fine, but my statement was to dismiss Ike's logic."

It's a strawman argument.

"Fine with that too. I was making the point that I'm okay with certain government restrictions."

By asking why there was no push to lower the drinking and smoking age?

"What's wrong with that? Whether they admit it or not, everyone has an "agenda"."

It's hypocrisy. You can't cry for small government, less restrictions, etc. and then try to use government overreach. Are you a conservative or not? You can't have it both ways.

"I was thinking of things like "let's pass it then read it" Obamacare."

Obamacare is constitutional and well within the limits of what the Federal Government is allowed to do.

"Good."

Were you unaware of that fact?

May 7, 2013 at 2:35 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

One more thing about Gore and his "hypocrisy"....even if you want to believe that Gore is a flaming hypocrite (or even if he really IS a flaming hypocrite), that doesn't negate the importance or the urgency of weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels. Too many global warming deniers try to make the case that if a flaw is found in the messenger, the message itself must be flawed. But facts are facts and truth is truth. And they are not willing to face that "inconvenient truth."

May 7, 2013 at 2:47 p.m.
Stewwie said...

["Crafting laws that reflect Biblical principles and/or the Christian worldview" IS unconstitutional. It's called the First Amendment. Look it up.]

The 1st Amendment limits Congress's power in crafting certain laws. It says nothing about the states. Plus, it says nothing about passing general laws that reflect a Biblical worldview. For example, the Bible says murder and stealing are wrong. Do our country's laws against murder and stealing "establish a religion"? Didn't think so.

[It's a strawman argument.]

False.

[By asking why there was no push to lower the drinking and smoking age?]

Ike reasoned that a "conservative" would want to reduce government restrictions, not support them. I was making the point that if that were true, then conservatives would be pushing to reduce the restrictions on things like the drinking and smoking ages. But you don't see that happening. My point was that you can be a conservative and support certain government restrictions.

[It's hypocrisy. You can't cry for small government, less restrictions, etc. and then try to use government overreach. Are you a conservative or not? You can't have it both ways.]

There's no hypocrisy. Small government doesn't mean no government. The federal government can and should make laws, but there are boundaries. States and local municipalities can and should make laws but they also have boundaries. That said, I can support whatever law I want.

[Obamacare is constitutional and well within the limits of what the Federal Government is allowed to do.]

Obamacare was controversially determined to be constitutional with a 5-4 Supreme Court vote that included a surprising "yes" from the conservative John Roberts. But I side with the 4 members of the Court who agreed that the law is unconstitutional.

[Were you unaware of that fact?]

No.

[He is doing his best to spread the message about the urgency of ushering in an era of clean energy when we will no longer have to leave a dirty, toxic footprint caused by fossil fuels.]

Rick, Gore could do it better. How about conference calling and/or Skyping in order to save on jet fuel? How about driving cross-country in an electric vehicle to get to his speaking engagements? These aren't unrealistic options.

May 7, 2013 at 3:12 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Americans trust Clint Eastwood more than President Barack Obama. That’s right, the iconic actor ranked No. 13 on Reader’s Digest “100 Most Trusted People in America” poll, released Tuesday. Fifty-six percent of Americans trust Eastwood, compared with the 45 percent who trust Obama. Obama ranked No. 65 on the list. no surprise here

May 7, 2013 at 3:12 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

JR, it boggles my mind how you righties automatically assume that we libs are somehow enamored of the old USSR, Cuba, or communist China. You are so blind, deaf, and dumb as to what we really believe in or stand for, it's impossible to argue logically with you. I don't know of any liberal who wants anything even remotely resembling an all socialist/communist government where people relinquish their individuality for some nebulous common good. Just because we believe in a pro-active central government, a regulated free market, and social/economic justice for ALL as opposed to just the few at the top, that doesn't make us communists or enemies of the free market. You fling the words socialist and communist and Marxist around all the time but you don't have the slightest clue what those word really mean. You just like the way they roll off your tongue, I guess. They're something easy to hate without really thinking about what you're hating.

May 7, 2013 at 3:25 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Stewwie, maybe Gore could do a lot of things differently, but it's not up to me to decide what changes he should make. There are many things that we as individuals can do to enact change while we are still caught up in a system that necessitates the use of fossil fuels, but it is the system itself that eventually will need to be changed, so that we can still enjoy our 21st century comforts without leaving behind a toxic footprint.

May 7, 2013 at 3:40 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Plain Truth, 46% of Americans believe in an 8000 year old earth. 40% believe in ghosts, 60% in ESP, 30% in astrology, 70% in magnetic therapy, and 30% in UFOs. Your point?

May 7, 2013 at 3:54 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Stewwie, my point to degage is that you cannot use safety as a reason to allow Plan B for girls. The drug is safe. If you have a problem with it being available, don't try to argue based on fallacies. We can argue all day on the wisdom of giving girls as young as 15 access, and we'd both be right.

My issue with conservatives claiming to be for less government oversight, and who complain about Mrs. Obama's efforts to encourage healthy eating or the government making sure that everyone has access to health care, but have no problem with government interfering with women's health and privacy (not men's apparently) and things like alcohol. It's a double standard. It's kind of like the cuts: Cut spending, but not in MY district. Cut this military program, but not the one that provides jobs in my home state.

May 7, 2013 at 3:59 p.m.
alprova said...

Rickaroo wrote to JonRoss: "You fling the words socialist and communist and Marxist around all the time but you don't have the slightest clue what those word really mean. You just like the way they roll off your tongue, I guess."

You're absolutely right. Those who sling those words around know nothing at all to the meaning of them.

Reading the above conjured an image of JR pecking away at his keyboard with his tongue.

His posts make complete sense, now that I understand how it is that he types his thoughts.

If you think what he writes in here is funny, his writings of war that he wrote to a Mayor and the Police Department would have you laughing for a week. They are all online by the way.

May 7, 2013 at 4:32 p.m.
alprova said...

Ikeithlu wrote: "Alprova, I was aware of your loss and I am so sorry. Time does not erase that pain."

Thank you. You're too kind.

Most of the regulars, like yourself, are aware of it. I wouldn't have brought it up, but she was my first and we were both teens when we married, so it kinda fit into today's topic.

The anniversary of their deaths is nearing in a few weeks and as we have done every year, I will make my way to their graves for a visit. You are so right; The pain never goes away. I miss them both as much today as I did on the day that I lost them.

May 7, 2013 at 4:50 p.m.
Maximus said...

Get A Job!

May 7, 2013 at 5:21 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"What happens when the gay gene is discoverd and the mother believes it would be inconvenient to have a gay baby. Do you agree that killing the gay baby is perfectly fine, no questioned asked and no advice given, like you want for all other abortions?" - JR

Good lord, man, the debate on if/when a woman should be allowed to have an abortion now is heated enough as it is and you're projecting into the future, worrying about hypotheticals?? Get real. Oh, I forgot....you're JR. Reality is not your strong suit.

May 7, 2013 at 5:25 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

Umm Stewwie,

You might want to rethink your conflation of the plan B pill with smoking and drinking as quoted below.

”Just because the FDA says it's safe to use doesn't mean that it's right to allow anyone and everyone to use it. There's a bigger picture to consider. We have a drinking and smoking age, but there's no push to get those changed. Why not?”

A) It’s a false equivalency; Ie. comparing apples to oranges.

B) Smoking & aren’t safe.

ARE THEY!


Maximus, GET AN EDUCATION! OH, how Naïveof me; I was under the false impression you had one. HA - you fooled everyone.

May 7, 2013 at 5:26 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

What if alien genes are found in the JonRoss chromosome swamp?

WHAT THEN?

Make JR cross the bridge of death. If he cannot answer one of the 5 - no 3 questions without saying 'Obastard' he shall be cast into the gorge of eternal peril.

May 7, 2013 at 5:37 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

JR...I believe that, at least in the first trimester, it's strictly up to the woman carrying the baby and it's none of my business why she might choose to have an abortion. It's still between her and her doctor and her conscience. Period. Even in the second and third trimesters, the issue becomes more clouded, with other factors figuring in, but it still is none of my business. Or yours for that matter. You and all the phony "pro-life" hypocrites need to butt out entirely. There is no time during a woman's pregnancy that it is any concern of yours...unless of course you happened to be the father, or it was your teen daughter maybe who happened to be pregnant. But then, we all know how responsible about sex you pro-lifers are, never indulging in fornication or sex for pure pleasure and keeping such a tight rein on your abstinent, well behaved teenage kids, so an accidental pregnancy would never happen with you or with one of your daughters, would it?

May 7, 2013 at 5:43 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

JR, you said your question was simple and you're right, it really is. I guess I should have given a simpler answer. Well, here it is: just BUTT OUT. ENTIRELY. IT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. IT'S A WOMAN'S DECISION TO MAKE. PERIOD.

May 7, 2013 at 6:01 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

There won't be a "gay gene" found, JR, as they are well on their way to showing that sexual orientation is determined by a variety of factors. However, to use a more definite example, babies could be selected for gender, and in fact, they are in other countries (except most of them just kill female children or leave them in orphanages) Is it wrong? I certainly think so, but if we start delving into women's reasons for terminating and then try to dictate what we think is a good reason, the situation would be far more complicated. There are no "good" abortions. Abortions are tragic. The difference between "banning" abortions (you'll never "ban" them, they'll just be performed by another name or illegally) and working to make them rare is what separates us.

I used not to be so cynical and really believed that all Pro-life advocates cared about babies. But because there is such resistance to preventing unplanned pregnancy in the name of condemning abortion, I now know better. The goal of many is to punish women for having sex. Someone who TRULY wanted to end abortion would be demanding that birth control be pushed, even with financial incentives, and new and better forms of birth control be developed.

May 7, 2013 at 6:44 p.m.
limric said...

HA HA! That’s great anti-Disney vermin.

”Who would cross the bridge of death must answer me these questions three; aerr the conservative side he see.”

“Ask your questions liberal commie. I AM NOT AFRAID!“

”WHAT - is your name?”

“Jonross – of Trailerlot”

”WHAT - is your favorite color?”

WHITE!!

”WHO - lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?”

“Um..OBASTAR ---AUUGGHHH…………………………

LOL!!

May 7, 2013 at 6:51 p.m.
Stewwie said...

[A) It’s a false equivalency; Ie. comparing apples to oranges.

B) Smoking & aren’t safe.

ARE THEY!]

MickeyRat, my comment about safety was not meant to say that smoking and drinking are "safe" like the Plan B pill. My safety comment was in regard to Ike's statement that the Plan B regulation change should be supported simply because of its safety. My response to that is that the safety of the pill alone shouldn't drive the support of its use. There are other factors to consider such as the morality of its use and whether it's okay to let teenagers (a.k.a. children) purchase the product without parental approval.

To me, it's less about how much government restriction there is and more about what is the right law. That's why I threw in the smoking and drinking age laws...you don't see conservatives (or rather libertarians) actively pushing to get those repealed solely for the sake of less government restriction. The reason is that some government restrictions are good and the support of those things is not necessarily un-conservative.

May 7, 2013 at 6:55 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

You just contradicted yourself Stewwie. Smoking and drinking ARE safety and health issues. Plan B is safe. You can argue for restricting access to tobacco and alcohol for minors because of the risks involved (although I am not sure why alcohol has to be 21 when everything else is 18, but that's another conversation) But you cannot restrict Plan B based on safety. You will have to use another argument (societal, social, moral etc) and as I said we could both argue opposite sides and we would both be right. Finally a judgment would have to be made on societal, social or moral grounds, and there is where it gets complicated.

I could argue that it is moral to restrict guns, and you would say that it is not government's job to restrict guns, given the 2nd amendment. I would say that it would benefit society to force people to follow a healthy diet, and you would say that in America we are free to make our own choices, even if those choices are bad for us and cost society. We would both be right in each of these cases.

The problem comes when someone takes an absolutist position on government and regulations. They would find themselves having to give people freedom to do things that they REALLY believe are wrong, destructive and bad for society. But to be consistent, they have to let that go. This is a lesson on moderation. If you are too extreme, right or left, you run up against these scenarios. Humans are complicated, and so is human society.

May 7, 2013 at 7:14 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "Do me next easy, do me next."

Ikeithlu wrote: "Oh, my. Leaves me speechless.."

Wow!!! Who knew he was into such a thing?

May 7, 2013 at 7:16 p.m.
alprova said...

Ikeithlu wrote: "Doggoneit, alprova. This is the second time I've had to clean my keyboard today."

Oops...sorry. He MADE me do it.

May 7, 2013 at 7:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie,

"The 1st Amendment limits Congress's power in crafting certain laws. It says nothing about the states."

That isn't the extent of the First Amendment and it does apply to the states.

"Plus, it says nothing about passing general laws that reflect a Biblical worldview."

Yet, the First Amendment is interpreted to include "general" laws that require some type of Biblical or religious requirements.

"For example, the Bible says murder and stealing are wrong. Do our country's laws against murder and stealing "establish a religion"? Didn't think so."

Contrary to what you may believe, the idea that acts like murder and stealing are bad is not exclusive to Christianity or the Bible. Those are basic moral truths that the majority of religions and non-religious people hold true. Those laws aren't based on "Biblical" laws.

"False."

Yes, it is considering Ikeithlu didn't make the argument that everything that is safe should be legal.

"Ike reasoned that a "conservative" would want to reduce government restrictions, not support them."

They do. Free market, capitalism, fewer restrictions on big business/banks, fewer restrictions from the Federal government, etc.

"I was making the point that if that were true, then conservatives would be pushing to reduce the restrictions on things like the drinking and smoking ages."

Not necessarily. The drinking and smoking ages, as MickeyRat said, are false equivalents and you just happened to find two things that conservatives haven't asked for less government restriction on.

"But you don't see that happening. My point was that you can be a conservative and support certain government restrictions."

Yet, you're the one still touting states rights and less government restriction. Just because conservatives don't push to lower the drinking or smoking age doesn't mean they don't want to rid the country of all other government restrictions, which they do.

"There's no hypocrisy. Small government doesn't mean no government."

That's the hypocrisy. You want small government until YOU want something done BY THE GOVERNMENT.

"The federal government can and should make laws, but there are boundaries. States and local municipalities can and should make laws but they also have boundaries. That said, I can support whatever law I want."

Again, you only support the laws and the government overreach that fits your agenda. You don't want government legislating Obamacare, but you do want government legislating your particular view of morality. It's complete hypocrisy.

May 7, 2013 at 7:27 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Yeah, alprova, I don't always get chucks from this site, but today was a banner day indeed.

May 7, 2013 at 7:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie (continued),

"Obamacare was controversially determined to be constitutional with a 5-4 Supreme Court vote that included a surprising "yes" from the conservative John Roberts."

It makes no difference what the vote was. It was deemed Constitutional. You obviously have no clue how many Supreme Court rulings have gone the way of 5-4. If we didn't allow every ruling that was voted 5-4 then we would have to throw a lot of laws out.

"But I side with the 4 members of the Court who agreed that the law is unconstitutional."

That doesn't make Obamacare any less Constitutional. Having 4 SCOTUS judges on your side doesn't make the law unconstitutional. Thus, your argument is bunk. Democracy rules, remember?

May 7, 2013 at 7:27 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "The time for rational debate and collegiality is now over."

Do you even understand the meaning of the word Collegiality?

Collegiality: the cooperative relationship of colleagues; *

specifically : the participation of bishops in the government of the Roman Catholic Church in collaboration with the pope.

Hey Mr. adult beverage, but not spelled the same...look at your thumb. Gee you're dumb.

May 7, 2013 at 7:31 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie,

"My safety comment was in regard to Ike's statement that the Plan B regulation change should be supported simply because of its safety."

Ikeithlu was saying that there isn't an argument against the safety of the drug, not that everything that is considered "safe" should be supported/legal.

"My response to that is that the safety of the pill alone shouldn't drive the support of its use."

It's a pretty solid factor that would lead someone to support it.

"There are other factors to consider such as the morality of its use and whether it's okay to let teenagers (a.k.a. children) purchase the product without parental approval."

What are the morality issues surrounding Plan B? Why shouldn't a teenager be able to purchase such a product if they have the money and the ability to make such a decision?

"To me, it's less about how much government restriction there is and more about what is the right law."

How do you determine what is a "right law" then? Your or my morality cannot and will not be legislated into law. First Amendment, remember?

"That's why I threw in the smoking and drinking age laws...you don't see conservatives (or rather libertarians) actively pushing to get those repealed solely for the sake of less government restriction. "

Yet, you do see conservatives actively pushing to get every other restriction or government oversight loosened or eliminated. Big business/banks, the "free market", gun laws, background checks, the Patriot Act, etc.

"The reason is that some government restrictions are good and the support of those things is not necessarily un-conservative."

That's the hypocrisy. You tout less government, less restrictions, more state rights, less government money, "private sector", government bad=people good, yet you "conservatives" have no problem using that same government you just demonized to legislate your morality on other people.

Kind of like your opinion on Obamacare. You say it's unconstitutional. It isn't. So you'd rather have your opinion of the law considered above that of the Constitution and the SCOTUS. That's called Fascism. We live in a Democracy. You know, that idea that you WingNuts thump your chest about?

May 7, 2013 at 7:35 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

JonRoss wrote: "The time for rational debate and collegiality is now over."

No rational debate is possible until the right makes it clear to everyone that Palin, Bachmann, Broun, Trump, Akin, Limbaugh, Beck, Barton and the NRA don't speak on their behalf. Good conservative politicians are silenced and swept aside by the loonies.

Of course, then there is Jindal, who said the GOP should stop being the stupid party and then went and gutted science education in LA.

May 7, 2013 at 7:43 p.m.
degage said...

Don't you guys get tired of beating up on each other? Such hate!

May 7, 2013 at 8:28 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Curious what you consider hate, degage, I don't see any hate in my comments. Scorn, maybe, but not hate.

And sarcasm. Making up for not being able to use it for 30 years (classroom teacher) Sure was tempting at times.

May 7, 2013 at 8:39 p.m.
Maximus said...

Rickaroo I have to admit the joke on my spelling was funny. As I've mentioned before, you don't have to spell that well to earn a Vanderbilt business degree. I do know my way around a balance sheet very, very, well. A news note from MSNBC, word is the Castro brothers from Cleveland were strong Obama supporters, on the state payroll as school bus drivers and close friends with Easy, Ike, and Alprova. Now that's fuuuuuuuunny!

I still can't believe you four or five folks Ike, Alprova, Leaf, Rickaroo, Easy and a few others spend your entire day farting around on the TFP site supporting Clay's always left doodles. What a waste of time preaching to each other. Why don't ya'll at least go out and do some social justice stuff like volunteer at the Methadone Clinic or bag groceries at whole foods. Wow! Republican Mark Sanford wins SC congressional seat. Previews of coming attractions. The Democrats are going to get whacked come the mid terms. Barry ain't helpin ya'lls case by any means!

May 7, 2013 at 9:49 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Biden on Susan Rice" “When she speaks…no one wonders whether or not she is speaking for the president,” the vice president said at a gala for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which honored Rice with an award. agree 😡

May 7, 2013 at 9:52 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Oh, Maxie, you're just jealous because you had to work today and I didn't. Na, na, na, na, na.... Funny you don't have anything to say about JonRoss spending HIS day here-why is that I wonder?

May 7, 2013 at 10:02 p.m.
Easy123 said...

It really gives me a lot of joy to read the posts of the psychopath that is Maximusty. Truly a thorn in the side of anyone that claims to support WingNut ideas.

Who knew doing balance sheets and poor spelling/grammar was part of the core curriculum at Vanderbilt business school?! LMFAO!

May 7, 2013 at 10:05 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Memo to Whistleblowers: If you thought Benghazi was tough, wait till the chicago-style thug dems start the trash attack. Buckle up lads.

May 7, 2013 at 10:21 p.m.
alprova said...

Maxipad wrote: "As I've mentioned before, you don't have to spell that well to earn a Vanderbilt business degree. I do know my way around a balance sheet very, very, well."

You're sooooo right. In case anyone is interested, here's a photo of the type of sheet that you balance for a living;

http://images.portlandfoodanddrink.com.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/tossing-pizza-Kens.jpg

"A news note from MSNBC, word is the Castro brothers from Cleveland were strong Obama supporters, on the state payroll as school bus drivers and close friends with Easy, Ike, and Alprova."

Here's a photo of Max a few years back, relaxing on a nice sunny day, reading his Bible, because he had uh...a lot of free time on his hands;

http://www.oregon.gov/DOC/OMR/PROGMS/PublishingImages/wfd_educ_ets.jpg

"Why don't ya'll at least go out and do some social justice stuff like volunteer at the Methadone Clinic or bag groceries at whole foods."

For a man who consistently has a gap in posting times of five hours, on average, every single week day, just about the same time each day, you don't have a full time job doing anything.

You certainly don't own or operate a business, much less the several they you claim.

Rest up Pizza boy. I might stop in and order one and introduce myself to you.

You're probably a spitter...in the food of those you consider Obama supporters.

May 7, 2013 at 10:57 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

(CNN) -- Several Yemeni men belonging to al Qaeda took part in the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi last September, according to several sources who have spoken with CNN. One senior U.S. law enforcement official told CNN that "three or four members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," or AQAP, took part in the attack. oh really?

May 7, 2013 at 11:01 p.m.
alprova said...

Maxipad wrote: "Republican Mark Sanford wins SC congressional seat. Previews of coming attractions."

I again notice that you haven't done a minimal amount of research as to why he won.

1.) It's the same Congressional seat he once held.

2.) Colbert was a totally unknown candidate but still won 46% of the vote.

3.) No Democrat has won that district in 30 years.

"The Democrats are going to get whacked come the mid terms."

You sure live in a dream world.

"Barry ain't helpin ya'lls case by any means!"

The President did not make any campaign appearances with Elizabeth Colbert Busch. She nearly won that seat all by her lonesome.

If you ask me, and I know you didn't, it's a sad state of affairs, pun intended, when a Conservative claiming Republican cheerleader celebrates the political win of a former impeached, censured, not to mention divorced Governor, who formerly touted his "family values for years, and because of the shame he brought his wife and four sons, the end result is that he now has all the time he needs to dedicate his time to being a shining knuckle dragging Congressman, because it's all the man has anymore.

Mark Sanford may have won with a last-minute endorsement by a very prominent politically motivated American.

On April 30, 2013, Publisher Larry Flynt endorsed Sanford in SC District 1 seat for Congress saying "His open embrace of his mistress in the name of love, breaking his sacred marriage vows, was an act of bravery that has drawn my support."

May 7, 2013 at 11:28 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Alpo sez...."I again notice that you haven't done a minimal amount of research as to why he won."

Alpo....any word on how the "registered republican" vote went for Sanford?

May 7, 2013 at 11:33 p.m.
alprova said...

pqtriot1 wrote: "Alpo....any word on how the "registered republican" vote went for Sanford?"

Nope. Don't live there.

May 7, 2013 at 11:41 p.m.
Stewwie said...

[That isn't the extent of the First Amendment and it does apply to the states.]

It only applies to the states thanks to the false interpretation by the Supreme Court known as the Establishment Clause. But the actual 1st Amendment does not refer to the states. If it were the intent of the Founding Fathers, they would have put it in there.

[Yet, you're the one still touting states rights and less government restriction. Just because conservatives don't push to lower the drinking or smoking age doesn't mean they don't want to rid the country of all other government restrictions, which they do.]

All? Most, maybe. But you and Ike expect an "all or nothing" approach from conservatives and my point was that that's an unrealistic expectation. You can't expect a conservative to want limited or no government on every issue. Just like I wouldn't expect a liberal to be in favor of "big government" on every issue.

[Again, you only support the laws and the government overreach that fits your agenda.]

So what? You support laws that fit your agenda as well.

[You don't want government legislating Obamacare, but you do want government legislating your particular view of morality. It's complete hypocrisy.]

I'm against Obamacare because it's a horrendous law. I'm also against it because I still believe that it violates the Constitution. Too bad we can't put it up for a national vote. If we could, it would be soundly defeated.

[It makes no difference what the vote was. It was deemed Constitutional.]

True. But the courts have gotten it wrong before. Why John Roberts issued the opinion that he did is beyond me. This should have been a 5-4 vote swinging the other way.

[Having 4 SCOTUS judges on your side doesn't make the law unconstitutional.]

But I can still agree with them, can't I? It's not cut and dry, otherwise the vote would have been 9-0.

[How do you determine what is a "right law" then? Your or my morality cannot and will not be legislated into law. First Amendment, remember?]

But your statement about murder and stealing implies that we CAN legislate morality. I guess it's okay so long as it's not exclusive to one particular religion?

May 7, 2013 at 11:43 p.m.
Stewwie said...

(Cont.)

[You tout less government, less restrictions, more state rights, less government money, "private sector", government bad=people good, yet you "conservatives" have no problem using that same government you just demonized to legislate your morality on other people.]

The government is set up to pass and enforce laws. Morals drive those laws. Nothing bad about that. But my conservative beliefs also assert that government can function well with a reasonable budget funded from low taxes. Regarding the private sector, that's what funds all of the jobs in our country. Don't agree? Where does the government get its money to pay its workers? Corporate and individual taxes from income generated in the private sector.

[So you'd rather have your opinion of the law considered above that of the Constitution and the SCOTUS. That's called Fascism.]

It's ironic that you'd accuse a conservative of being a fascist. The poster child of fascism in this country is our own liberal president.

May 7, 2013 at 11:44 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie,

"It only applies to the states thanks to the false interpretation by the Supreme Court known as the Establishment Clause."

There is false interpretation. The Supreme Court is there to do that very thing: interpret the Constitution. Their say goes and they know a lot more about it than you do.

"But the actual 1st Amendment does not refer to the states. If it were the intent of the Founding Fathers, they would have put it in there."

No, they wouldn't have. In 1791, there were only 13 states and less than 4 million people in the entire country. The Founding Fathers knew our country would change. That's why they left it up to the government to amend the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were very smart. They understood that a 200 year old document couldn't and shouldn't stay the same as time went on.

"All? Most, maybe. But you and Ike expect an "all or nothing" approach from conservatives and my point was that that's an unrealistic expectation."

Nobody said anything about an "all-or-nothing" approach. That's another strawman from you.

"You can't expect a conservative to want limited or no government on every issue."

Again, no one said that. Limited government doesn't mean "limited when I want it to be".

"Just like I wouldn't expect a liberal to be in favor of "big government" on every issue."

You just said conservatives would be for smaller government on "most" issues. You're splitting hairs here.

'So what? You support laws that fit your agenda as well."

No, I don't. I don't want to legislate my morality on anyone. I want the laws and policies to be fair and equal to everyone. You and your ilk are the ones wanting to control peoples lives.

"I'm against Obamacare because it's a horrendous law."

Why is that?

"I'm also against it because I still believe that it violates the Constitution."

It doesn't violate the Constitution. That has been established and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

"Too bad we can't put it up for a national vote. If we could, it would be soundly defeated."

Considering all of the policies except for the individual mandate was highly popular among the majority of people, I can safely say you're wrong.

"True. But the courts have gotten it wrong before. Why John Roberts issued the opinion that he did is beyond me. This should have been a 5-4 vote swinging the other way."

Would've, could've, should've. It wasn't and it won't be a swing vote the other way. This is the real world. Not your "should have" world.

May 8, 2013 at 12:24 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie (continued),

"But I can still agree with them, can't I? It's not cut and dry, otherwise the vote would have been 9-0."

You can agree with them, but that doesn't make Obamacare unconstitutional. It is cut and dry. Majority rules in the SCOTUS. Obamacare was deemed Constitutional. What part of that do you not understand? The vote does not have to be unanimous for it to be Constitutional.

"But your statement about murder and stealing implies that we CAN legislate morality. I guess it's okay so long as it's not exclusive to one particular religion?"

We can legislate moral truths, not religious morality. Morality does not require religion. Many of the Mosaic Laws were highly immoral, but Christians choose to ignore those. Laws are specific to groups of people. Once you start legislating "Christian" laws, you alienate and exclude everyone that doesn't follow that religion. The Constitution is a secular document. Our laws are secular.

"Morals drive those laws."

Not necessarily. Morals drive speeding laws? Laws against owning certain animals within city limits? Moral truths play a role in law making, but most of those "moral" laws were made long ago.

"But my conservative beliefs also assert that government can function well with a reasonable budget funded from low taxes."

Not in 21st century America. There will never be "reasonable" budgets or "low" taxes considering the amount of infrastructure, programs, etc. we have in this country. It just won't work and the entire idea is a pipe dream.

"Regarding the private sector, that's what funds all of the jobs in our country. Don't agree? Where does the government get its money to pay its workers? Corporate and individual taxes from income generated in the private sector."

And? Are you going to make a point here?

"It's ironic that you'd accuse a conservative of being a fascist. The poster child of fascism in this country is our own liberal president."

Flesh that argument out. I dare you.

May 8, 2013 at 12:33 a.m.

lkeithlu said...May, in a perfect world I would agree. But I would rather we do everything we can to keep children from being born into bad circumstances. We pay a heavy price for children born to mothers that don't want them or can't care for them.

And you think children are better cared for now than they were before 1972 and that abortion-on-demand has made the difference? Ask any public school teacher if children are now better parented than then. People are far more likely to wind up with serious relational regrets, long-term problems, and dysfunctions if they approach adolescence and young adulthood with the (false) understanding that their natural urges are uncontrollable. I even know a teenage victim of date-rape who came to occupy a casket one week after being told such nonsense by an agent of the state. Although pre-marital abstinence will never be universally practiced, it does not follow that adolescent urges are uncontrollable or that teenagers shouldn’t be advised of the obvious advantages of exercising self-control. Yours is a fallacious line of reasoning. made no less foolish by its widespread acceptance.

May 8, 2013 at 3:32 p.m.

Great posts, Andrew. They are the sanest of any on this thread and of your CTFP posting career.

May 8, 2013 at 3:34 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

WWWTW: So you think abortion STARTED in 1972?

I even know a teenage victim of date-rape who came to occupy a casket one week after being told such nonsense by an agent of the state.

You are blaming a tragic death on that statement? It sounds instead that the authorities did not take her rape seriously. There is a long gap between acknowledging human desire for sex and enabling rapists. I am appalled that you would even try to place blame in this way.

As far as teen abstinence, I hate to burst your bubble: my generation, our parents' generation and our grandparents' generation all had sex outside of marriage, either as teens or young adults. Studies put it at 95% based on their own admission. Abortion has been used throughout history, and was widespread, particularly for wealthy women, in hospitals nation-wide. What has reduced the number of abortions is birth control. Legal, safe and effective birth control, which was illegal for a long time. Abortion rates are dropping and will continue to drop as long as we persist in educating women (and men) and expand the access to birth control.

Making abortion illegal will only hurt poor women. Rich women will get their abortions by doctors in hospitals, the procedure called something other than abortion.

When we put as much effort into women's health, rape prevention, comprehensive sex education and birth control research and development as we do into curing erectile disfunction I'll listen. Until then, no.

May 8, 2013 at 3:55 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.