GOP: Obama's new regs on 'everything from prairie puddles to power plants'

Investors Business Daily ^ | 10-3-15 | Andrew Malcolm

[afraidfortherepublic]

Sen. John Barrasso gives the Republican Party's Weekly Remarks

Hi. I’m Dr. John Barrasso, United States Senator for Wyoming.

Let me tell you a story about a family in my home state. Andy Johnson is 32, he works as a welder. He and his wife Katie have four kids and they live out in the country. They have a few cows and some horses. (Scroll down for video of these remarks.)

Two years ago, the Johnsons wanted to build a small pond in their front yard. They got their plan approved by the state, and used the pond to provide water for their animals. They thought it was a beautiful addition to the dry landscape. The pond attracts birds and other animals that make our state a special place to live.

Everything was fine until the Johnsons got a visit from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Even though the state of Wyoming had approved the pond, the federal government had not.

The Johnsons now face fines of more than $37,000 every day, until they remove the pond.

This is what’s happened to government in America. It’s gotten so aggressive, so inflexible, and so unyielding — and seemingly for so little purpose.

And it’s going to get worse. The Obama administration is seizing new authority to control what it calls Waters of the United States.

This includes things like irrigation ditches, isolated ponds — even low points in the landscape where water might collect after a heavy rain. The consequences of this new federal authority will be severe.

In the final 15 months of the Obama administration, Washington bureaucrats are working overtime to finalize new rules on everything from prairie puddles to power plants.

[Bob434]

[[I was a state chairman of College Republicans and Young Republicans back when they were seriously conservative]]

That must have been awhile ago- seeing how left the republican party has become as of late-

[[Get to know Nathanbedford better and you will find that you are probably going to like and respect him]]

Well I’m sorry, but the Jackson deal and the liberal overpopulation ideology are two pretty major turn offs-

I will however apologize for the heated way in which I presented my arguments- it wasn’t right- but I stand by the principles I and others brought up to defend the debunking of the overpopulation myth- and the statement that folks who are for population control are anti-life- Not to the extent of abortion proponents (but it remains to be seen how Nathan feels about thignsl ike the morning after pill, )

[[If everyone who is factually wrong about something is therefore a liberal, some of my views would qualify me as a liberal or Rino]]

I disagree- it depends on what you are factually wrong about- and things like population control, abortion, gay m arriage etc, income redistribution, socialism etc are all biggies- (Not saying Nathan believes them all- just making my point about what issues make one a rino or not)

[nathanbedford]

I suppose I should be flattered that I am the subject of debate between fellow conservatives especially since they spelled my name right. For the record, I appreciate Black Elk's support and find my brand of conservatism to be closely aligned with his.

I cannot in good conscious claim innocence for igniting this kerfuffle, as I said in my initial post (post #11), those who raise the issue of overpopulation can anticipate being accused of "Malthusian error." Meaning that I was aware that I would be accused of saying that there were insufficient resources for the population. That is not my argument, has not been my argument, and that is why I noted that the argument about the negative impact of overpopulation on liberty should nevertheless be made even though we would be accused of "Malthusian error."

One additional point about my first post (#11): it talks about "burgeoning" population and the fact that the population has more than doubled in my lifetime. We are talking about progression not about a static number. When my father was born in 1911 there were about 70 million Americans. When I was born in World War II there were about 140 million Americans. The population doubled in my father's lifetime. When my grandson was born around 2000, the population was 300 million. The population more than doubled in my lifetime. Today, the population is over 315 million and growing. In fact, it is growing so fast with out-of-control immigration that we really do not know the number of immigrants or the total number of people.

So we are talking not about a static number but a growing number , indeed, we are talking about a population that doubles nearly every generation. We are not talking about feeding these people, that is a different argument, we are speaking about the impact of a doubling population (that is a geometric growth table!) on liberty.

I ask you, Bob, (1) if is an anti-conservative position to quote an indisputable fact, i.e., the rate of population growth to be doubling in every lifetime? (2) Is it is an anti-conservative action to raise the issue of threats to our liberty. That is not presume that you agree with the threat, you obviously do not believe that generational doubling of our population threatens liberty, but I ask whether merely discussing a potential threat to our liberty such as exponential population growth is somehow to betray oneself as, in your language, a "Rino."?

I cannot believe that you will argue that either (1) or (2) somehow exposes one as being anti-conservative.

Let me skip down the thread, Bob, to your post #54 which I take is part of the cause of our misunderstanding. You quote a portion of my previous post #47 as follows:

[[Yes I am advocating birth control both as a measure of population control]]

What I meant to say was that I advocate birth control as a measure of voluntary population control and I might add I would strenuously oppose mandatory birth control as a method of population control. This is not an after-the-fact correction because the rest of that reply #52 which you do not quote says the following:

I support birth control in principle but not as a matter to be legislated for or against.

I think the meaning of that sentence is perfectly clear, (1) I do not countenance birth control as a subject fit for the state to impose. Equally, (2) I do not think that birth control is a measure which the state should deny. However, (3) I do not think the federal court system, contrary to the unfortunate ruling of Griswold vs. Connecticut which set the predicate for Roe vs. Wade, has the constitutional right to declare state laws prohibiting contribution to be unconstitutional, as unwise as I believe the Connecticut law was. As a matter of historical truth, Connecticut itself did not believe the law was wise and had long ceased enforcing it before the sham case of Griswold vs. Connecticut was concocted and litigated.

I think those three principles are clear and should be understood to be clear. I ask the fair-minded reader of this thread to find a single source of Rino-ism in these three principles.

Let me go out of order to address another poster as well as you, Bob, on another issue.

darrellmaurina, you alluded to me in a post without pinging me and, worse, you disparaged me,

"But it certainly does seem that someone who takes a founder of the Klan for his online avatar may have more problems than an unfortunate avatar."

As to the substance of that remark, I invite you to review my homepage and respond. When you disparage someone without alerting him, thus potentially depriving him of the opportunity to defend himself, you are behaving in an unfair fashion. The unfairness is not just directed at me but at the whole of Free Republic because it degrades our forum and would turn it into nothing more than a a cheap exchange for gossip mongering. It deprives the readers of the other point of view. I like to think we are better than that. I would not have seen your post because I have had eye surgery on Monday and should not be reading now but I cannot let such a miscarriage stand uncorrected. I have, after all, only my reputation on this forum with which to present myself.

In inviting you to review my homepage I invite you you also to review my vanity Ruthie "Remidies" is Preganant! A different view of Gonzolas v. Carhart which I cited above but which evidently has been ignored by my critics of this thread. I repeat the citation because I believe that no one can read this vanity and conclude that I am pro-abortion yet that calumny persists. Will you correct it?

A word to wagglebee: in your post (#70) a you asserted among other things that

"Nobody is suggesting" installing 9 billion people in one state. Actually Bob has done that at least twice on this thread and defended the position. Please see:

27 “Densely populated”? Do you realize you can fit the whole WORLD’S population in just one state? Texas? This country is NOT ‘densely populated”

35 “Densely populated”? Do you realize you can fit the whole WORLD’S population in just one state? Texas? This country is NOT ‘densely populated”

In response to you and to Bob I cite:

Let's Put Everybody into Texas and particularly the following quotation:

Some like to assert that everybody on Earth could be fit into the State of Texas, using logic as follows. The area of Texas is about 262,000 mi2. Dividing this figure by the current human population of 7 billion leaves each person with less than 100 square meters, a small plot the size of a big room about 10 m x 10 m. Sounds plausible enough, right? Without going into the fact that almost half the State is desert, notice we have not allowed for any roads, shopping malls, schools, hospitals, football stadiums, prisons, sewage plants, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, golf courses, parks, and what else? How much land does it take to support a human being?

The numbers are even more scary if we consider the population of the world:

If all the habitable land on Earth were equally distributed among all human beings present on Earth, this is the per capita share of good land per person. Again, however, we have not allowed for any nice amenities such as roads, schools, hospitals, shopping malls, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, parks, golf courses, etc. Even so, could you live on 2.3 acres?

Efforts have been made to estimate the amount of land needed to sustain an average individual human (link). A person living the lifestyle of an average American requires almost 24 acres, ten times the world per capita share.

Perhaps you can argue with the numbers, perhaps you can argue with the source but the argument is there and to accept that argument is not prima facie evidence of lack of conservative virtue. Mindless parroting of a contrary argument is equally not evidence of conservative bona fides.

The point of my arguments concerning burgeoning population as a non static exponential growth pattern is not so much its Malthusian components, although if we continue this rate of increase they will inevitably come into play, rather it is the effect on liberty. It is in this context that I used as an illustrative example the attempts in New York City to outlaw 16 ounce soda cups and suggested that had not, and would not, be done in a sparsely populated area of the country such as the Dakotas. It should not be necessary to say that the point attempted to be made was not the scarcity of soda pop which is absurd but the absence of liberty in a densely populated area such as New York City, which is very real. It should not be necessary to chase down every absurd reaction on this thread but events have clearly made it unavoidable if one is to rebut what must be regarded as deliberate distortion.

To state my proposition clearly: there is an inverse relationship between liberty and population density.

The relationship is self-evident. If you live in New York and you like light and air coming into your apartment window your rights to that light and air are in direct conflict with some developer (dare I utter the name Donald Trump?) who wants to build a high-rise building adjacent that will cut off your sunlight. Your liberty to keep your sunlight conflicts with the developer's liberty to build on his land-whose liberty will prevail over the other? These are real problems and one side or the other is inescapably going to lose liberty. When people turn, as they inevitably will, to the government to sort these things out the government will intrude as it has done in this case in Wyoming and impose mindless controls because they are bureaucrats and that is what bureaucrats do. But let's stay in New York, developers are now turning to the government (dare I say Donald Trump again?) and propose the government condemn that apartment with the air and light because they want to build a highly profitable office building on those grounds and you, government, will garner higher tax revenues if you condemn the property and sell it to us. So we have the Kelso decision and we will have countless other judicial and bureaucratic decisions chipping away at liberty as a direct result of the density of population. A rancher in sparsely populated Wyoming can not have a harmless pond because the density in New York City demands the creation of an EPA and liberty is soon lost in of all places in Wyoming.

Note: the point is not whether we can feed the people, the point is whether the people will be nourished in liberty?

In order to avoid the dystopia of overpopulation (at whatever absolute level of number constitutes overpopulation) we need not resort to mandatory birth control or to abortion. Both of those regulations would be tyrannical and should be resisted with all our might. It is equally tyrannical to deny the people the right to birth control, although I believe it should have been constitutionally authorized as a legitimate, if manifestly unwise, power of the state . People should be free to practice birth control if they wish and if they do so in sufficient numbers to curb population growth, I applaud their choice.

I regret any inarticulateness on my part which might have given rise to the choleric reactions on this thread. I have tried and tried to set the record straight.

,

[Smokin' Joe]

To state my proposition clearly: there is an inverse relationship between liberty and population density.

Agreed. The problem comes when those who live in high density areas willingly surrender their liberty, and then expect those of us who live in relatively low density areas to do likewise.

The laws which seem perfectly normal and sane in New York City become arbitrary, capricious, nonsensical, or dangerous in places like Cartwright, North Dakota.

Certainly, there is a subset of laws which are common to virtually any society founded within the boundaries of what we like to call Western Civilization, but beyond that, most laws and regulations are written to placate a population with specific needs or corrupted wants. Those circumstances are usually localized, and the assumption that one size fits all is proven fallacious in practice, both with legislation and clothing.

Yes, the dilution of culture by immigration or just the State Education system leads to a loss of liberty as well, and to significantly subsidize the nonproductive aspects of that whole will lead to its expansion to the detriment of all who produce, and their liberty as well. For the productive will give of the fruits of their labors willingly for a time, and to a point, but the imposition at gunpoint of such contributions is no longer charity but sanctioned theft.

[ek_hornbeck]

In fact, it is growing so fast with out-of-control immigration that we really do not know the number of immigrants or the total number of people.

Moreover, thanks to Third World immigration itself, and the high fertility rates of Third World immigrants and their children, you not only have population growth, you have the a mass proliferation of what is basically a low quality product. America's cultural and cognitive decline is inextricably linked to demographics.

[MaggiesPitchfork]

Utterly fascinating until you discover that CONGRESS has done NOTHING to help this family during the couple of years this has been going on and they have to personally take the EPA to court to get it rescinded. Unbelievable. Congress is pointless and the “lawmakers” in DC are completely castrated.

[darrellmaurina]

Nathan Bedford, my apologies for failing to ping you. You are right; I should have done so. That was a mistake and not intentional on my end.

I have been reading some of your posts when you comment on threads I read. While I read far more than I comment, I know that I can't evaluate a person in detail unless I take the time to read all or most of what they have said on a subject, or at least have said recently.

Wagglebee has a history of “outing” trolls on Free Republic, whether they are liberals, libertarians who violate core conservative views, or others. I think he's better equipped than me to do such things. I have limits on my time and Wagglebee is much more active on Free Republic than I am.

Nathan Bedford, I've read enough of what you've written over the years to know that you're not a troll. I haven't read enough to know what your views are with regard to reducing unwanted population groups.

I trust you will understand that given the attention recently given to Margaret Sanger's speeches to groups of Klan-connected women, anyone in your position will be asked questions which need to be asked.

Just because I disagree with someone on one issue doesn't mean I disagree with them on everything else. I am quite aware than many and probably most neo-Confederates are also political conservatives, and I assume many neo-Confederates today oppose abortion for anyone, including "undesirables." I don't even know if you're a full-blown neo-Confederate; I'm quite aware it's possible to be a supporter of Southern culture while totally objecting to some parts of its history. I mean it when I say I hope you don't agree with Sanger (and the Klan groups which invited her to speak) in selectively discouraging the growth of certain population groups.

However, the fact remains that there are reasons why the Klan was not only anti-black but also anti-Catholic. Roman Catholic teaching on the inherent worth of all people, including minority groups, is incompatible with certain types of political conservatism.

I'd like to say that evangelicals and Roman Catholics have always agreed on this issue, but I know that's not true. For a very long time Roman Catholics were fighting mostly on their own against the pro-abortion and eugenics agenda. They saw the risks long before most evangelicals did, and they deserve compliments for waking conservatives up outside their church.

[darrellmaurina]

Wagglebee, this comment by ek_hornbeck merits your attention: “...mass proliferation of what is basically a low quality product. America’s cultural and cognitive decline is inextricably linked to demographics.”

[wagglebee]

Moreover, thanks to Third World immigration itself, and the high fertility rates of Third World immigrants and their children, you not only have population growth, you have the a mass proliferation of what is basically a low quality product.

That sounds an awful lot like the justification that the eugenicists used a century ago.

What EXACTLY should be done with this "low quality product"? Is it just immigrants you blame for this or do you include other ethnic groups?

I'm guessing you are a big fan of "The Bell Curve" and similar nonsense.

America's cultural and cognitive decline is inextricably linked to demographics.

You are right, but not for the reason you think.

Nearly all immigrants fit into one of two categories (and sometimes both):
1. Immigrants who are fleeing an oppressive situation.
or
2. Immigrants who are seeking opportunity WHICH HAS BEEN CREATED BY A NEED IN THE COUNTRY THEY ARE IMMIGRATING TO.

Nearly ALL immigrants (both legal and illegal) in the past half century fall into the second category.

You see, four decades ago America implemented a eugenics-based holocaust which has resulted in over 60 MILLION dead Americans and many of them would be counted in the "low quality product" you speak of.

Nearly all abortuaries are situated in areas that result in the murder of future unskilled labor. So these progressive eugenicists killed off the unskilled labor force, but the NEED for this labor remains.

Stop killing babies and the immigrants won't have a reason to come.

[nathanbedford]

Thank you for your apology the acceptance of which conclusively closes the matter. There are other issues raised in your reply which deserve some thoughts having nothing to do with you personally and should not be regarded by you as a personal criticism.

I have never taken note of Wagglebee or of his posts which is not surprising considering the great number of contributors to Free Republic so I have no way of judging your description of him as having a "history of "outing" trolls on Free Republic." Nor is it surprising because I tend not to look at the names of contributors because I am simply not interested in personalities. There are of course a few who contact me privately or who have made signal contributions which draw attention whose names I recall but Wagglebee is not among them. My conscious experience with Wagglebee is limited to his drive-by criticism of me on this thread. I described his criticism as "drive by" because my response to his intrusion into the discussion has never been acknowledged by him. He has no doubt moved on to find other prey.

I do not mean to lend prominence to Wagglebee, there are others who have behaved the same way on this thread.

Hence apart from a single unpleasant exposure, I have no way of knowing whether your description of Wagglebee is deserved as one who outs "liberals, libertarians who violate core conservative views, or others." As a self-confessed conservative with a "pesky libertarian streak" I suppose I would fall into the category "of others" which you catalog. I have no objection to debating the merits of my position at any time, in fact I do it all the time but I do object to being "outed" by a drive-by vigilante who throws his bombs and moves on.

If you look at my about page and I infer from your remarks that you already have done so, you will find a decade-old description of: "those Posters who evade unpalatable reality by resort to name-calling, ad hominem attacks, zotting, and just plain old-fashioned hardheadedness" who are to be compared unfavorably to Nathan Bedford Forrest who was possessed of "unflinching fortitude to behold, accept, and deal with reality no matter how unpleasant the prospect."

Troll vigilantes do not throw truth bombs, they throw anti-personnel weapons and move on to the next victim. Like all vigilantes they are self-appointed and responsible to no one. They further evade responsibility by de-legitimating their victims who cannot effectively respond on the merits. Invincible in their self righteousness, they think they're performing a great service for Free Republic and for conservatism when they are the mortal enemies of conservative principles. They are cancer which can metastasize and kill everything that conservatism strives for. Troll police are intellectually arrogant because they assume that their fellow conservatives are too stupid to think for themselves and must be protected from dangerous error by censorship.

Of course, in their intellectual vanity they assume that their version of conservatism is the one true faith.

Paradoxically, their inquisition mentality means that at root they do not believe in conservative values, they do not think that conservatism can morally or intellectually prevail against other ideologies so they protect the ideology just as Torquemada protected the faith. They patrol up and down the bandwidth of Free Republic shutting down debate with personal invective, believing all the while that they are strengthening the very philosophy they are wounding.

Conservatism does not need the protection of censors, it is morally and intellectually superior to any other political philosophy. I am not afraid of the debate and I resent those who would protect me from heresy when they are only depriving me of the truth. It is only by testing our political beliefs that we can distinguish what is good from what is mere claptrap or wishful thinking.

Political correctness is not a disease without a cause but a deliberate infliction of statist mentality on the body politic and conservatism is nearly as prone to enforcing it as is liberalism. Conservatism thereby becomes at once oppressor and victim.

For God's sake let us leave off this lazy tendency of debating not by considering the merits but by characterizing the messenger. When we indulge this temptation we are prone to error for we either whore after a Messiah as the country initially did with Obama and end up with a demagogue or we stick our heads in the sand and get destroyed by reality as the country did once more with Obama in the last presidential election. Choosing a president should not be a function of his charisma and judging the merits of an argument should not be dependent on the character of its messenger.

Thank you for your forthright apology which is unreservedly accepted.

[FourtySeven]

To state my proposition clearly: there is an inverse relationship between liberty and population density.

If I may comment, without participating in the disagreements you have had upthread with other posters, I would like to add: I agree that such an inverse relationship exists however I would say it's not necessarily a causal relationship. It could be merely correlative in nature (which as at least some know doesn't prove much).

Consider that the very heart of tyranny as seen in places like NYC is due to the very (fallen) nature of man. He seeks to control his environment around him by default. Sometimes to the detriment of his fellow man. Indeed this is fundamentally due to a lack of faith in Another to whom we belong. Man naturally has a desire for the infinite, infinite beauty infinite Justice. However when this is not realized via Faith in Christ, corruption of the infinite desire for Him is the inevitable result. This corruption can and does take many forms, one of which is a concerted effort by some to reach into and seek control of the lives of others. All in the name of "Justice" (but of course is nothing of the sort. It's tyranny not Justice.

So to conclude in brief: the problem of diminishing Liberty is not caused by "overpopulation" (whatever that means anyway). Diminishing liberties are made manifest more easily in population centers, because it is easier to "justify" them there. But greater populations aren't the cause per se. It's caused by men fundamentally not recognizing who and what they are, which are creatures of God made for Him, to serve Himmand his fellow man. So the decrease in liberties in population centers won't be solved by means of population growth controls. They will really wont be solved until and unless man comes to know his true nature and destiny, who is Jesus Christ.

[nathanbedford]

There is a wonderfully illuminating anecdot that emerges in the biography of Robert E Lee which occurred late in the war when the odds against victory were lengthening. Lee replied to a questioner who asked whether the South could win the war, "if every man does his whole duty and it be God's will."

In the event, of course, the South did not prevail but I believe the truth of the statement does. Someone else said we should work as though the entire responsibility were ours and pray as though everything were in God's hands. I take this to mean that in the political sphere we have our jobs to do and we cannot heap all responsibility on God.

Equally (and that means, equally) our political condition ultimately depends on our spiritual condition. If we have a constitutional republic that cannot succeed according to John Adams unless we have a virtuous people, I say we cannot have a virtuous people without the fear of God.

We can argue chicken and egg, whether virtue can survive in a densely populated area or whether vice causes densely populated sewers but we have our half of the job that cannot be ignored. We should not invite the vice of overpopulation and then expect God to redeem us.

[Moonman62]

It’s not just Obama. Even with a majority in Congress the GOP does nothing about it.

[wagglebee]

My conscious experience with Wagglebee is limited to his drive-by criticism of me on this thread. I described his criticism as "drive by" because my response to his intrusion into the discussion has never been acknowledged by him. He has no doubt moved on to find other prey.

Actually, I was rather busy yesterday and didn't find time to respond to your drivel.

I do not mean to lend prominence to Wagglebee, there are others who have behaved the same way on this thread.

I'm curious, what is the proper response to this:

This is not a conservative question, we don't have to deny that there is insufficient habitable and desirable land for the doubling of American population every fifty years in order to maintain our conservative credentials. I don't know where this notion that growing population is good comes from among conservatives. Is it because misguided conservatives do not want to admit a predicate that allows for abortion?

You have been all over this thread pushing the Malthusian overpopulation lie, a lie that has been used to kill more than ONE BILLION innocent people in the past century.

To your previous posts, NOBODY is suggesting that the entire population of the earth SHOULD be put in Texas, merely they have pointed out that this COULD be done.

Hence apart from a single unpleasant exposure, I have no way of knowing whether your description of Wagglebee is deserved as one who outs "liberals, libertarians who violate core conservative views, or others." As a self-confessed conservative with a "pesky libertarian streak" I suppose I would fall into the category "of others" which you catalog.

Conservatism and libertarianism are largely incompatible. Pushing the overpopulation lie is not a mere "pesky streak."

I have no objection to debating the merits of my position at any time, in fact I do it all the time but I do object to being "outed" by a drive-by vigilante who throws his bombs and moves on.

None who know me would suggest that I "throw my bombs and move on." I go after trolls until they're gone.

If you look at my about page and I infer from your remarks that you already have done so, you will find a decade-old description of: "those Posters who evade unpalatable reality by resort to name-calling, ad hominem attacks, zotting, and just plain old-fashioned hardheadedness" who are to be compared unfavorably to Nathan Bedford Forrest who was possessed of "unflinching fortitude to behold, accept, and deal with reality no matter how unpleasant the prospect."

Really? A founder of the Ku Klux Klan had "unflinching fortitude"? How did this penchant for "dealing with reality no matter how unpleasant the prospect" reveal itself when he LIED to Congress about his KKK membership?

Troll police are intellectually arrogant because they assume that their fellow conservatives are too stupid to think for themselves and must be protected from dangerous error by censorship.

Of course, the libertarian fall-back position that it's "censorship" to not allow them to push their garbage.

Paradoxically, their inquisition mentality means that at root they do not believe in conservative values, they do not think that conservatism can morally or intellectually prevail against other ideologies so they protect the ideology just as Torquemada protected the faith. They patrol up and down the bandwidth of Free Republic shutting down debate with personal invective, believing all the while that they are strengthening the very philosophy they are wounding.

No, if I want to see leftist positions espoused I can simply turn on the television, I come to Free Republic to avoid it.

[trisham]

No, if I want to see leftist positions espoused I can simply turn on the television, I come to Free Republic to avoid it.

***************************

Amen to that, and well said, all.

[nathanbedford]

I go after trolls until they're gone.

the libertarian fall-back position that it's "censorship" to not allow them to push their garbage.

if I want to see leftist positions espoused I can simply turn on the television, I come to Free Republic to avoid it.

There is no safe haven for you, not even in Free Republic, because you take your dogmatic, intolerant, censorious soul wherever you go.

[wagglebee]

There is no safe haven for you, not even in Free Republic, because you take your dogmatic, intolerant, censorious soul wherever you go.

Really, opposing the elitist population control agenda (e.g. abortion and mandatory contraception) is "dogmatic, intolerant and censorious"?

Or is this simply a reaction to me doubting the "unflinching fortitude" of a central figure in the formation of the KKK?

[ek_hornbeck]

You seem to be some sort of self-appointed politically correct censor. You shriek about people's "leftist views" and call everyone who disagrees with you a "troll," and yet you have the same Pavlovian response as PC liberals to a whole range of issues. Watching somebody have conniption fits over The Bell Curve or over the factual suggestion that we aren't exactly getting the best and brightest pool of immigrants is something I can get from an Obama supporter any day of the week.

[wagglebee]

You seem to be some sort of self-appointed politically correct censor.

No, anti-FReeper sites have incorrectly ascribed that moniker to me.

you have the same Pavlovian response as PC liberals to a whole range of issues.

Really? I just checked, I've posted 8,635 threads and made 61,946 posts. I invite you to go back and find a single one where I've sided with the left.

Watching somebody have conniption fits over The Bell Curve

You mean the book the left loves because it promotes eugenics?

or over the factual suggestion that we aren't exactly getting the best and brightest pool of immigrants is something I can get from an Obama supporter any day of the week.

I never suggested that we weren't getting the best and the brightest immigrants, I simply pointed out that had we not murdered 60 MILLION INNOCENT AMERICANS there wouldn't be any jobs to migrate here for.

The current problems with illegal aliens is a SYMPTOM of the problem. The actual problem is the demographic crisis created by abortion. Nearly all of America's domestic problems are directly related to the fact that we kill over a million babies a year.

Civilizations REQUIRE stable population growth to survive and proponents of such works as The Bell Curve have ignored this in favor of putting America on a suicidal course of self-destruction.

[darrellmaurina]

89 posted on 10/8/2015, 8:52:47 AM by nathanbedford: “Thank you for your forthright apology which is unreservedly accepted.”

Thank you, Nathan Bedford. Disagreeing without being disagreeable is important (assuming, of course, that the disagreement is among people of goodwill, which isn't always the case, such as when dealing with true enemies of sworn oaths taken to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution).

So is following the agreed-upon rules of discussion, which includes PINGing people being discussed. I blew it, I was wrong, and the apology on my part is needed.

I'm probably going to bow out of this debate and go back to reading without writing. Real life politics of city councils are going to consume much of my time for the next few days and weeks.