Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $26,672
Woo hoo!! And the first 30% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by bigLusr

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/29/2012 8:50:16 AM PDT · 28 of 30
    bigLusr to Dianna

    Please ping me if you do decide to pursue this.

  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/29/2012 8:48:34 AM PDT · 27 of 30
    bigLusr to Dianna

    The Google cache I linked to earlier is actually stronger evidence that Chick-fil-A is telling the truth. As the author of the examiner article noted, businesses can actually backdate posts on FB. However, since Google happened to catch the SC page between the recall and Henson decision it can’t be denied (just ignored).

    I guess Google caches aren’t sexy. So feel free to spread all the evidence we have. I’ve written to several individuals, blogs, news sites, and individuals and succeeded only in convincing people who won’t take the next step to spread the truth. I doubt if I start another post here I’ll make significant progress. Maybe you’ll have more luck. The torch is yours.

    If the world is just this evidence will go viral and several reporters will publicly apologize. For that to happen I can’t be the only one calling attention to it.

  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/29/2012 5:37:16 AM PDT · 22 of 30
    bigLusr to bigLusr

    Another notice posted July 19th - This one’s still up.

  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/29/2012 5:05:57 AM PDT · 21 of 30
    bigLusr to listenhillary

    Don’t feed the trolls.

  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/29/2012 4:45:00 AM PDT · 19 of 30
    bigLusr to Dianna; Politicalmom
    The Columbiana Centre Chick-fil-A removed the post from their Facebook page. However, it was there on the 19th, as evidenced by this Google cache of their page.

    I can't say with absolute certainty why it's not there anymore but I can say that I saw a notice for a franchise in Virginia while it was still up. It had attracted lots of nasty comments (from people who apparently didn't realize 19 < 20).

    It's reasonable to assume Columbiana Centre either also had nasty comments on that post (after the 23rd when news of Henson's decision went viral) or that they thought it, too, would be inundated with criticism.
  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/28/2012 6:56:28 PM PDT · 10 of 30
    bigLusr to bigLusr
    Please help spread the word that Chick-fil-A was telling the truth about the recall. Send a message to, call out the author (@SquirrelChatter) on twitter, post the evidence on Facebook, etc.

  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/28/2012 6:47:02 PM PDT · 9 of 30
    bigLusr to yldstrk

    I don’t believe Henson Co’s decision to break off future parterships with Chick-fil-A was in retaliation for a recall. They make kids toys and have for decades. They’d never have survived this long if they tried to get back at anyone who recalled one of their toys. Still, I think it’s pretty rotten that, when questioned about the recall, didn’t set the record straight immediately. To allow everyone to assume that Chick-fil-A was lying was petty and vindictive.

  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/28/2012 6:44:01 PM PDT · 7 of 30
    bigLusr to Paved Paradise
    Their 990 is here. It's quite a stretch to call most of these groups anti-gay. The major recipient, Marriage & Family Legacy Fund/Marriage & Family Foundation, is a retreat for heterosexual married couples. It's clearly a group that works to save heterosexual marriages but since they won't accept gay couples, are described as anti-gay. The best case for an actual anti-gay group is Exodus International... and they received a whopping $1,000 in 2010. Really, the gay activists are concerned that Chick-fil-A donates to Christian groups and Christian groups are not, by and large, pro-gay marriage.
  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/28/2012 6:25:59 PM PDT · 1 of 30
    I called out Cheryl Phillips in the comments section of her post on I pointed her to conclusive evidence that Chick-fil-A actually did issue a recall of the Jim Henson toys on July 19th, as they have claimed all along. Faced with the realization that her entire premise was false, Cheryl simply decided to continue spreading the lie.

    Apparently her idea of journalistic ethics is it's okay to libel someone as long as the victim ignores you while you do it. I disagree.

    I know I'm not Buckhead and I know Cheryl Phillips isn't Dan Rather but this still isn't right. We shouldn't allow citizen journalists to knowingly spread a lie. Chick-fil-A deserves a retraction. I can't get it on my own but if enough FReepers call her out we might be able to call attention to the truth.

  • What should the next Congress force Democrats to buy?

    03/24/2010 5:32:07 PM PDT · 5 of 48
    bigLusr to redbaiter

    A telescreen, naturally.

  • The real way Democrats believe they'll retain power in November...

    03/21/2010 6:14:01 PM PDT · 20 of 95
    bigLusr to freespirited

    Obama could care less about the midterms. He cares only about his own job security.

  • If I hear ONE more sob story from a Dem... (VANITY)

    03/21/2010 4:48:42 PM PDT · 14 of 30
    bigLusr to mnehring
    I have yet to hear one of these Dems say they actually pulled the money out of their own pockets to help these people.
    We so need another Davy Crockett.
  • If I hear ONE more sob story from a Dem... (VANITY)

    03/21/2010 4:47:02 PM PDT · 13 of 30
    bigLusr to TigerBait

    Can you imagine a government so large, so powerful that nobody could ever fall through the cracks? Terrifying.

  • If Obama Loses racism is the only reason McCain might beat him. (liberal insanity alert!)

    08/23/2008 7:25:43 AM PDT · 43 of 61
    bigLusr to milwguy
    It's just too easy to rewrite this article.

    What with the Clintonite sulkiness, Obama’s inability to defend his relationships with the terrorist Ayers, the felon Rezko, or even his wife, and the obvious realization that Obama is too young, too inexperienced, and too smooth-talking to be elected. Yet Barack Obama, for all his inexperience and shortcomings, is running neck-and-neck against John McCain, a centrist Republican nominee with a list of accomplishments longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a political operation using anti-semites, reneged on his promise to use public finance, and has made major gaffes in front of millions. McCain, on the other hand, has conducted his campaign with the character and wisdom that can only be described as presidential. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

    If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize McCain's missing 10-point lead on the basis of war weariness or the mental recession. But let's be honest: if you break the numbers down the reason Obama isn't behind right now is that he leads overwhelmingly in two groups: minorities, and the young. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

  • If Obama Loses racism is the only reason McCain might beat him. (liberal insanity alert!)

    08/23/2008 7:00:40 AM PDT · 35 of 61
    bigLusr to airborne
    His skin color really doesn’t matter to most people. It does to the 98% of the black voters who will be voting for Obama simply because he is black.

    ... and the 98% of those suffering from white guilt.

  • Nutritional "Boost" Making Westerners Taller, Healthier, Expert Says

    10/03/2006 3:45:00 PM PDT · 17 of 49
    bigLusr to MeanWestTexan

    Dang... I'm only 5'2". Guess it's time to check on that life insurance policy.

    My sister and I are both shorter than both of our parents. :-/

  • Some Lifelines Can Kill

    08/26/2006 3:23:17 PM PDT · 44 of 44
    bigLusr to Question_Assumptions

    It's amazing how quickly scientific advances are made. It now appears that this entire argument is moot.

  • Federal Judge rules NSA surveillance unconstitutional!

    08/26/2006 2:42:26 PM PDT · 586 of 586
    bigLusr to Truth-The Anti Spin
    The 'undisputedly' comes from the fact that the government lawyers didnt bother to dispute that particular claim in before this particular court. It's a legal term when used in this context.... they argued that AUMF gives the president the authority to ignore FISA, which the judge rejected.

    The executive did not argue that AUMF gave the president the right to ignore/violate FISA. That is a horrible and deliberate misrepresentation adopted by the left and this judge (but I repeat myself). Rather, the executive argues that AUMF satisfies FISA.

    From Wikipedia:

    The administration argues instead that the authority to perform warrantless domestic wiretapping was implicit in the authorization to use force in the AUMF. FISA provides that intentional surveillance without authority is a felony "except as authorized by statute." The argument, in this case, is that "all necessary force" includes "foreign surveillance", and that the AUMF is therefore a statute that otherwise authorizes the surveillance, satisfying FISA's conditions for not constituting a felony. (italics mine)

    The executive does not get to violate the law because we are at war. This President has never claimed that it can violate the law because we are at war. The word "undisputedly" comes from the left's oft-repeated mischaracterization, not from the executive's failure to argue its case.

    Is FISA unconstitutional? Has the executive even made that claim?

    Repeatedly. See Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President

    Indeed, were FISA and Title III interpreted to impede the President’s ability to use the traditional tool of electronic surveillance to detect and prevent future attacks by a declared enemy that has already struck at the homeland and is engaged in ongoing operations against the United States, the constitutionality of FISA, as applied to that situation, would be called into very serious doubt. In fact, if this difficult constitutional question had to be addressed, FISA would be unconstitutional as applied to this narrow context.

    Or the decision itself.

    Finally, although the Defendants have suggested the unconstitutionality of FISA...

    If they think FISA is unconstitutional, they need to get the Judiciary to agree with them.

    They tried. The judiciary (strangely) wouldn't even consider the question.

    It's that whole checks and balances thing.

    Funny... from where I sit I can't see anybody who's checking the courts.

  • Federal Judge rules NSA surveillance unconstitutional!

    08/18/2006 5:51:49 PM PDT · 577 of 586
    bigLusr to Truth-The Anti Spin
    Justify it to me....Why on earth should the executive not have to comply with the law? The libertarian in me cringes even to think of it.

    If the Congress passed a law saying "nobody can ever write anything negative about anyone who holds federal office", I could (and would) break that law early and often. Wouldn't you? If a law is unconstitutional, it can (and in most cases probably should) be broken.

    There are only three interesting questions in this case. Did the President violate FISA? If so, is FISA Constitutional? And if the answer to either of those is no, then did the President violate the Fourth Amendment?

    The decision says the executive "undisputedly" violated FISA... (but then a few paragraphs later goes on to say that the executive does dispute the claim and points to the AUMF). Did the POTUS indeed violate FISA? Maybe.... eh... probably. I think resting on AUMF is colorable... but weak.

    But that is meaningful only if FISA is Constitutional. Is it? Probably not. Could the President sign an executive order requiring Congress to submit all proposed laws to a judge before they could be voted on? No. Such an order would have a seemingly Constitutional purpose (to prevent Congress from writing potentially harmful laws that don't pass Constitutional muster) but would violate the Separation of Powers. This decision doesn't even comment on the constitutionality of FISA... saying since the President violated the Fourth Amendment it doesn't matter one way or another.

    But how did the court come to the conclusion that the President violated the Fourth Amendment? According to the decision, the POTUS violated the Fourth Amendment by violating FISA (circular reasoning alert!) and... get this... "Accordingly, the Fourth Amendment... requires prior warrants for any reasonable search...

    The fourth amendment requires warrants for any reasonable search? What? Since When? So no more exigent circumstances? No more Terry stops? What about 'plain sight'? What about people on parole? When I'm at an airport can I refuse to go through the metal detector? There are plenty of warrantless searches found to pass Constitutional muster. The cases she sites all acknowledge that there are times when warrants aren't required. She's dismissed them all.

    (She also claims that the President violated the First Amendment. Can you explain to me how the president could possibly have violated the clause that begins "Congress shall make no law..."? )

  • DFU SONG: Oh Donna (Oh Anna Diggs Taylor...hurting our nation one NSA intercept at a time)

    08/18/2006 4:29:48 PM PDT · 7 of 11
    bigLusr to ChinaThreat
    The scary part is... she claims that standing shouldn't matter.

    Although this court is persuaded that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient injury to establish standing, it is important to note that if the court were to deny standing..., the President’s actions...would be immunized from judicial scrutiny. It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control...

    Seriously, what was the point of that paragraph? There are only two reasonable interpretations -- she hopes some lower court will hear a case where the plantiff sues the president without standing and use her as precedent... or she hopes when some higher court finds that the plantiffs don't have standing they'll be persuaded to try the case anyways.


  • Some Lifelines Can Kill

    08/04/2006 4:34:30 PM PDT · 42 of 44
    bigLusr to Question_Assumptions
    If you told me your neighbor had a baby, I'd tell you that it's irrelevant because even among cultures where infanticide was widespread, they never killed all of their children.

    First... sorry for assuming this was a quantity argument. But even among cultures where auto theft is frowned upon, cars are sometimes still stolen... and there are those that rationalize the actions of the theives. The existence of one thief and the fact that his theft wasn't front-page news isn't necessarily evidence that society at large isn't opposed to auto theft (or is less opposed than it should be or is on its way towards accepting auto theft as moral).

    Your correct response would have been to point out that it's being investigated and, if it were infanticide, they might be arrested for killing a baby. That shows that the official legal position still frowns on infanticide.

    My "correct" response? Correct how? In my mind the official legal position is secondary to society's position. (In India the official legal position still frowns on infanticide but it's still a problem, right?)

    I've already given you an example of legal infanticide, as understood by a majority of Americans in polls -- partial-birth abortion. Why isn't it illegal and why aren't people more outraged over it?

    Partial-birth abortion is illegal in at least 23 states. As for why it's not against federal law, if I remember correctly the major debate was that it didn't allow for a life-of-the-mother exception. I personally believe the federal law failed because politicians are ill-equiped to argue what makes good medicine. It's likely that state laws failed for similar reasons, though I can't comment on each state specifically.

    Personally, I'm glad it failed. I believe every state should ban all abortions (except where the mother's life is in danger -- then it's a sad case of self-defense) but I don't think it should be against federal law. I just don't see which of the enumerated powers should be interpreted to allow the federal government authority to pass such a law. A lot of people ARE outraged. As for why more people aren't -- everyone picks his battles. It simply takes too much energy to be outraged at everything evil.

    First, most persuasive discussions between people either on the Internet or in person don't follow formal rules of logic and proof. All I need to do is make a case that the person I'm talking to finds persuasive.

    You stated that you could make a slippery slope argument sound by showing that you can't stand still. "Can't"... that was your term. I agreed with you (why? because there is one issue in particular where I find the slippery slope argument persuasive and actually use it... but that's only because I have read the study that suggests a -causal link- between the first step and the bottom of the slope). If you could show that one "can't" stand still then your argument would be persuasive. But to prove "can't" you have to follow formal rules of logic and proof (though I left the possibility of going from "can't" to "unlikely to" with a few of my questions). You've done neither. Perhaps there is another way to make the slippery slope argument persuasive. I haven't seen it.

    The problem with these debates is that there is no firm place to stand in the middle and the only two stable places are at the end, too far apart to allow for a gentle sway between the two.

    What about you can only kill an embryo if it was going to die anyways? That's where most pro-lifers put the line... every single one of these embryos, through accident or design, is going to thaw and die without ever getting a chance to be born... regardless of whether they'll be used for research or not.

    Despite how logically questionable slippery slope arguments are, in the real world, they change minds all the time.

    I've seen it used but I've never seen it work. I suspect it happens more often than never but less often than "all the time"... But how often it happens isn't really the issue so much as "is there a better way?" I think there is.

    FR is a great community, but in many respects is little more than an echo chamber. I see them batted around on, for example, abortion threads where everyone agrees that they're persuasive (I believe because they all already agreed that abortion is wrong before the thread was posted)... but on subjects where FReepers tend to disagree (for example on Schiavo and crevo threads) they're quickly dismissed by the opponents.

    Often, they're dismissed by pointing out how bad things would be if we slipped the OTHER way... a quality which makes slippery slope arguments uniquely vulnerable.

    Some FReeper will exclaim "If we start teaching ID pretty soon we'll have to teach flat-earth theory!" which is quickly followed by something along the lines of "Darwinism caused eugenics... if 'evilutionists' are left unchecked what will it cause next?"

    Now... the fact that I've never seen a slippery slope argument work might just be evidence that I'm looking in the wrong places. But I still think there's a better way.

    The problem with that argument is that it's not "unnecessary".

    Geez... talk about arguing just to argue. The loss of life is unnecessary because the research is unnecessary.

    It's not an equivalent issue in the case of stem-cell research because you can always ask Grandma. And, at the point where Grandma is so brain dead that she can't be asked and has no chance of recovery, well, we do allow her to be cut up for her organs.

    In my example, Grandma was in a coma but not brain dead. Granted it's still not perfect. As you said, no analogy is. Always looking for better ones. In your 'missing organs' analogy do you change the date of the execution to match up with a patient's surgery? 'Cause if not, I wouldnt have a problem with it (how many deaths actually are just?).

    An important thing to remember is that convincing the other person that you are right and they are wrong isn't the most important part of an Internet debate. Convincing the lurkers that you are sane and your opponent is crazy is the objective.

    I'm neither trying to convince you that I'm right nor am I trying convince anyone lurking that you're crazy. Neither of those goals seems worth fighting for... especially not on a forum like FR. My purpose here is similar to why military forces use wargaming. We're on the same side of this debate, but exploring the weaknesses in each other's arguments here in the company of friends is a great way to prepare for debates that occur 'out there'.

    If indeed a slippery slope argument IS the most effective way to change hearts and minds then I want to learn WHY it's so effective (and in particular why it's more effective than what I use) and how we can take advantage of that. If it's not... what other persuasive arguments can be used and what are the weaknesses of those? In that way I guess you could say I am arguing (here) just to argue (out there).

  • Some Lifelines Can Kill

    08/01/2006 3:13:36 PM PDT · 39 of 44
    bigLusr to Question_Assumptions
    So what conclusions would you draw if I told you my neighbors just had a baby and didn't kill him? Would you conclude that abortion is becoming nonexistent? Would you decide infanticide is sharply declining? Would you go out and buy stock in Huggies?

    Or would you conclude that logically, my story is no more convincing than yours? (See here, here, here, and Spotlight fallacy here.)

  • Some Lifelines Can Kill

    07/29/2006 2:05:39 PM PDT · 37 of 44
    bigLusr to Question_Assumptions
    ...they seem to assume that (A) a Western industrial nation is exempt from descent into murderous barbarism...

    Absolutely not. I just doubt that the descent is inevitable if we allow stem cell research. And more importantly, I doubt you will convince pro-life proponents of ESCR that it's inevitable.

    (B) they assume that trends quickly go to their extreme so we can see the full effects of things that happened only 30-something years ago...

    Again, no. "Still waiting" is an acceptable answer. But if you can't prove statistically that we'll start accepting infanticide you have to prove it by showing it's the only logical outcome.

    As with all speculation about the future, neither of us know how it will turn out.

    Bingo! The slope is not, in fact, so slippery that one can't take a middle ground stand without sliding one way or the other. The slope may be slippery enough that you're afraid of sliding to the extreme... and I appreciate that. But I think 1- you're not going to change any minds and 2- you downplay the significance of the unnecessary loss of an embryo's life... it's almost like you're saying it's just an embryo it's life doesn't matter... what matters is that one day a baby will lose its life because of this and that baby's life is important.

    I don't believe that you actually think the embryo's life is unimportant. I believe that you just think those you'll be debating believe the embryo's life isn't important. But I believe that quietly accepting your opponent's assumption is a mistake.

    ghoul n.

    1. One who delights in the revolting, morbid, or loathsome.
    2. A grave robber.
    3. An evil spirit or demon in Muslim folklore believed to plunder graves and feed on corpses.

    Take either the first definition literally ... a scientist who delights in the morbid or the third definition figuratively... killing the embryo to "feed" on the stem cells. And it's bad for the same reason cutting up Grandma' while she's still alive would be bad.

    I apologize if I've come across as impatient. I'm not! I'm quite enjoying myself. :)

  • Some Lifelines Can Kill

    07/28/2006 8:12:31 PM PDT · 31 of 44
    bigLusr to Question_Assumptions
    You know... I'd worked out this detailed point-by-point in my head this morning at work. But you know what? It was boring.

    Really it comes down to just two points (though if you're really Jonesing for a point-by-point I'll put it together some time next week).

    Whether a slippery slope is a sound argument or not depends on showing that the slope is, in fact, so slippery that one can't take a middle ground stand without sliding one way or the other.

    Agreed. Since you have not yet shown this so your argument is not sound. You claim that such an argument can be made. Pretend I'm from Missouri.

    Specifically, I'd like you to either answer a few of the following, point me to websites that answer many of the following, or (ideally) point me to places where you've -- over dozens of posts, convinced a pro-choicer to either become pro-life or pro-infanticide.

    • Has infanticide become acceptable or commonplace in the United States after abortion was made legal?
    • What about other industrialized nations?
    • Which ones?
    • How long after abortion was made legal was the acceptance first noted?
    • Are we sure the rise in acceptance started -after- the relevant laws passed (or were repealed)?
    • What percentage of the population would have to consider infanticide moral for you to assert that it is generally accepted? Or, what percentage of infants would have to be murdered for you to consider that infanticide has become commonplace?
    • Can this acceptance or rise be causally linked to the passage of abortion laws?
    • Which studies verify this causal link?
    • Can you point to two roughly similar nations whose acceptance of infanticide diverged only after one permitted or banned abortions?
    • Which countries, if any, aren't generally accepting of infanticide even though they are generally accepting of abortions?
    • How do you explain these exceptions (if they exist)?

    And secondly in response to "a 'ghoulish destruction of human life' is ... very much like a slippery slope argument" no, it's not.

    The slippery slope argument says don't A because Z is really bad... and if you A now eventually you'll (or we'll all) end up Z-ing (and... presumably will be unable to stop at B, C, D, etc). My argument says even if you don't believe A-ing will cause you to Z... A is still bad, so don't A... and if you don't believe A is bad, tell me what it is that makes you think A is okay and let me show you that A is worse than you think.

    Everything else was either nit-picky or reiterating the above.

  • Nicotine 'Sobers Up' Drunk Rats

    07/28/2006 7:51:56 PM PDT · 15 of 36
    bigLusr to FJ290
    What I want to know, what scientist dreams up this stuff? "Hey, I know, let's take some rats, get them drunk, try to counter it with nicotine and see what happens!" Who funds this, LOL!

    Best. Job. Ever.

  • Some Lifelines Can Kill

    07/27/2006 7:19:58 PM PDT · 29 of 44
    bigLusr to Question_Assumptions
    My problem with what you wrote is that the vast majority of the time slippery slope arguments only convince those who don't need convincing. They should be avoided.

    You clearly don't believe that outlawing the murder of embryos in the name of "protecting life" will lead us down a slippery slope to a place where no killings are ever justified. The thought seems irrational and silly to you, even though I'm sure you could imagine someone on a left-wing blog trying to make exactly that claim.

    Likewise, those who support Embryonic Stem Cell research don't believe that allowing it will lead us down a slippery slope to a place where any killing of life deemed "less valuable" (such as that of an infant) is acceptable. This argument is every bit as irrational and silly as its counterpart above.

    IMHO, you shouldn't try and convince people that since infanticide is wrong and we as a society should avoid it, ESC research should also be banned. Your ideological opponents see a bright-line between the murder of a bouncing baby and the destruction of a hundred cells... and they can't imagine any slippery slope bringing them to that extreme.

    It would probably be more effective to stick to why the embryo's life -- even before it gains consciousness -- is valuable.

    The benefits hinted at (not even promised) by scientists who want to do ESC research are not worth the ghoulish destruction of human life -- even if that life doesn't have a face, isn't conscious, or can't feel pain.

  • Pluto thought to be warming up

    07/26/2006 7:10:58 PM PDT · 47 of 108
    bigLusr to Robert A. Cook, PE

    Between 4 and 7 hours... depending on where it is in its orbit.

  • Pluto thought to be warming up

    07/26/2006 7:05:09 PM PDT · 34 of 108
    bigLusr to MNJohnnie
    Global warming just became Solar System warning... Galactic warming will no doubt follow. And it will STILL be George Bush's fault.
  • DUmmie FUnnies 07-24-06 (William Rivers Pitt Vomits Up Apocalyptic Visions)

    07/24/2006 5:20:47 PM PDT · 132 of 152
    bigLusr to PJ-Comix
    Besides, you're safe. The Bush administration has spent an enormous amount of time and energy convincing you that you're covered, that they've got your back, that they are all about the defense of the homeland. Nothing else has been blown up over here since 9/11, so they must be doing something right.

    I'm confused. I thought the Bush administration was full of fear-mongers... making us... the weak minded republicans... afraid of terrorism and using that fear to manipulate us into relinquishing complete control to the Haliburton cabal.

    Now I find out that the Bush administration is actually luring us into a false sense of security! He's using the media to brainwash the weak-minded public into believing that the next attack won't ever materialize!

    So which is it? Are we all being duped because we're too stupid to see that the terrorist threat is exaggerated? Or are we all being duped because we're too stupid to see that the terrorist threat is downplayed?

    Guess I'm too stupid to tell.

  • Some Lifelines Can Kill

    07/24/2006 4:51:16 PM PDT · 16 of 44
    bigLusr to Question_Assumptions
    I respectfully disagree. I don't think that is the key. And I'd be pretty skeptical if you said you've "cured" any pro-choicers with that argument... and it's even less effective in terms of ESC research.

    Do you really believe that all human life "should be protected regardless of it's [sic] capabilities"? Really? You know what Saddam is capable of. If his people give him the death penalty should we offer him asylum here in the US? Should Schwarzenegger have commuted Tookie Williams' sentence?

    I know that's not what you meant by "capabilities" but assuming you're for the death penalty you're acknowledging that not all life has equal value... that not all life is worth protecting.

    Or what if we find OBL but he's carrying a newborn everywhere he goes. If you attack, he promises to murder the little one. Do you charge in anyways? Most people here, I'd wager, would say absolutely. Sucks to be that baby... sucks to be the parent/sibling/third cousin twice removed of that baby... but that sacrifice would ultimately be worth the thousands of lives we'd potentially be saving by taking out the (insert your favorite expletive here).

    The decision becomes even easier if he's carrying around a test-tube with a 4-5 day old blastocyst that's about this big.

    Are we then caught in a "utilitarian haggle over the greater good"? Absolutely. Is it hard to digest? Yup. The realistic notion, though, that not all life is worth protecting at all costs is going to be present in the minds of those who approve of this type of research.

    IMHO the key is to get people to re-evaluate the cost vs. the reward.

    Imagine Grandma's dying. She's 105 and was starting to lose touch before the stroke last week. She's in a coma now and will be dead within 24 hours. The doctor approaches you with an unusual request. There's a new theoretical method for reattaching severed limbs that just appeared in all the medical journals. The doc wants to know if he can experiment on Grandma. He'll simply remove her arms and legs and then reattach them. He'll pump her full of gallons of morphine so pain will be no issue. With a lot of luck this could save... or at least significantly improve... many, many lives somewhere down the road. Somewhere... twenty years or more down the road... and maybe never.

    Yeah, given the she's pretty much guaranteed to die on the table, but she's as close to dead as you can get. She can't think... she's not aware of her surroundings... and she won't feel any pain. Is scientific progress worth it?

  • Some Lifelines Can Kill

    07/23/2006 6:42:24 PM PDT · 4 of 44
    bigLusr to Mr Ramsbotham

    Only to those of us who are already against embryonic stem cell research. To those who draw a distinction between conscious life and unconscious life I doubt this story will have any power at all.

  • Catholic Loses Job Over Views on Gay Marriage

    06/16/2006 2:02:49 PM PDT · 86 of 94
    bigLusr to Mrs. Don-o

    Yes it would be discrimination. No it wouldn't be illegal.

    It's somewhat beside the point... but it's important to realize that Smith wasn't fired for being Catholic. I think it's a safe bet that at least one other Catholic has been appointed by the Governor and is still employed. Smith was fired for making comments that upset people... people the Governor was probably relying on for support.

    But that doesn't address the question of legality.

    You probably realize that there are times when it's legal to discriminate. If you want to hire a babysitter you can choose to only hire females. If you're a casting director for a TV show you can narrow your applicant pool for a particular role down to black males 30-35 years old. If you, as a church employee, want to create a nursery for your church's members you don't have to hire a Buddhist to be the nanny... even if s/he's more qualified than the Presbyterian you choose to hire.

    And if you're an elected official who appoints policy makers, you can choose to only appoint (and only keep) those who will benefit you politically.

    It would be wise for MD Republicans to criticize the Governor... loudly and often... for firing Smith. They should write letters asking for Smith to be reinstated. They should find a Republican to challenge the Governor next time around. But we shouldn't threaten a lawsuit... the law's unequivocally on Ehrlich's side.

  • Catholic Loses Job Over Views on Gay Marriage

    06/16/2006 1:05:27 PM PDT · 80 of 94
    bigLusr to Mrs. Don-o
    Then it would be poor decision making on the part of Gov Ehrlich, would probably cost him the next election, but Would Not Be Illegal.

    Lesson of the day: morally reprehensible ≠ unconstitutional.

  • Catholic Loses Job Over Views on Gay Marriage

    06/16/2006 12:23:46 PM PDT · 71 of 94
    bigLusr to untrained skeptic
    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

    (f) The term ``employee'' means an individual employed by an employer, except that the term ``employee'' shall not include any person elected to public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the qualified voters thereof, or any person chosen by such officer to be on such officer's personal staff, or an appointee on the policy making level or an immediate adviser with respect to the exercise of the constitutional or legal powers of the office.

  • Catholic Loses Job Over Views on Gay Marriage

    06/16/2006 11:00:32 AM PDT · 62 of 94
    bigLusr to TheCrusader
    The Governor does not have the power or the right to fire an appointee for his personal religious beliefs, that's blatantly un-Constitutional and leaves him wide open to a lawsuit.

    1. He hasn't been fired for his beliefs. He's been fired for expressing those beliefs on a radio show... making this a question of free speech, not free religion.
    2. He has been fired, at least according to the Baltimore Sun.
    3. Which part of the Constitution does it violate?
    4. If Smith had been fired for running his own adults-only website with pictures of himself and the Governor's wife, would you still think the Governor would be open to a lawsuit for firing him?
  • Catholic Loses Job Over Views on Gay Marriage

    06/16/2006 10:47:54 AM PDT · 57 of 94
    bigLusr to TheCrusader

    If Smith were your average pencil-pushing state employee you'd have a colorable argument (under the 14th amendment as it's recently been interpreted). He's not. He was appointed by the Governor to be an extension of the Governor. The Governor's right to fire his appointees is absolute, checked only by the people come next election.

  • Catholic Loses Job Over Views on Gay Marriage

    06/16/2006 10:26:27 AM PDT · 34 of 94
    bigLusr to StJacques

    Pop quiz. What are the first five words of the first amendment?

    Think of it this way... What if the guy started posing for smutty magazines on his own time? Could the governor fire him for that?

    Clearly he could... and you'd be glad he was, I'd wager.

    It's not a first amendment issue. There's simply no standing for a lawsuit... no matter whose time he was on.

  • Catholic Loses Job Over Views on Gay Marriage

    06/16/2006 10:17:08 AM PDT · 28 of 94
    bigLusr to Non-Sequitur
    nd how many threads has FR had about people being booted from organizations for being gay, expelled from schools for having gay parents, or getting fired for being pregnant and unwed?

    Exactly. How many people here would be upset if the guy was fired for coming out on a cable show? If the governor doesn't like the face being put out by one of his appointees it is his right, as governor, to fire the guy. Case closed. Don't vote for the guy next time, but we can't go complaining about "free speech" on this one, guys.

  • Catholic Loses Job Over Views on Gay Marriage

    06/16/2006 10:10:09 AM PDT · 17 of 94
    bigLusr to bordergal

    Nah. He was appointed by the Governor and serves at the Governor's pleasure. If an elected official was fired by the Governor we'd have a first amendment issue.

    This is just a reason to not vote for this Governor next time around... no legal standing for a lawsuit.

  • Town won't let unmarried parents live together

    05/17/2006 9:47:13 AM PDT · 44 of 185
    bigLusr to rhombus
    Don't they have anything better to worry about in that town?

    Nope! Wanna' take a guess as to why?

  • Town won't let unmarried parents live together

    05/17/2006 9:27:50 AM PDT · 18 of 185
    bigLusr to Integrityrocks

    The mother and father aren't related by blood, marriage, or adoption.

  • Town won't let unmarried parents live together

    05/17/2006 9:11:45 AM PDT · 1 of 185
    The sad part of this story is actually here. This story appeared in the 360 blog on Apr 25.

    By far most of the comments on the blog follow along the lines of "Marriage is just a piece of paper!"

    When exactly did that happen in our society? And do you guys think the three brides I saw this weekend know that their entire celebration is just for "a piece of paper"?

  • Immigrants and Wages(More proof that illegals drive down the wage scale.)

    05/08/2006 10:40:47 AM PDT · 26 of 58
    bigLusr to samadams2000

    IMHO It's not race. It's income. You're seeing a lot of low-income people in San Jose and that corresponds to more filth.

    In my experience Hispanics in lower, middle, and upper class homes aren't any messier than their white counterparts.

    It's the same phenomenon as Wal-Mart shoppers refusing to walk the 15 extra steps to put away their shopping carts.

    It'd be interesting to find out why this is. Maybe it has to do with not feeling a sense of pride or responsibility in their community.

  • Another suggestion: who "outed" Plame [A shrewd reader at Free Republic has found this article...]

    05/07/2006 5:00:21 PM PDT · 13 of 65
    bigLusr to Vn_survivor_67-68

    I assume "wayback" here means the wayback machine... a place to go to see what the net looked like in the past.

  • Another suggestion: who "outed" Plame [A shrewd reader at Free Republic has found this article...]

    05/07/2006 4:58:51 PM PDT · 12 of 65
    bigLusr to Sub-Driver

    Not Found

    The requested URL / was not found on this server.
  • 10-Year-Old Prohibited From Singing Anti-Bush Song

    05/05/2006 1:27:49 PM PDT · 8 of 56
    bigLusr to Junior_G

    I agree. But if it was a pro-administration song I daresay people here would be much more upset. I say it's sad that kids that young are getting involved in politics but she should be allowed to sing it (provided it's not obscene... anyone here heard it?)

  • Research fuels religious debate over homosexuality

    05/05/2006 1:22:37 PM PDT · 12 of 49
    bigLusr to conservative physics
    So I guess people born with the need to kill people aren't committing a sin either since they didn't choose to be born with the need to murder people.

    According to most Christians, no, they're not... unless and until they act on that need. Note the quote. "The homosexual orientation is not chosen and, therefore, is not sinful..." It doesn't say "The act of homosexual fornication is not chosen and, therefore, is not sinful..." They're saying you can't choose to whom you're attracted and so won't be held accountable for that... but you can choose what to do about your attraction.

    Put another way, since fornication between any two people is sinful, being attracted to another person of the same sex is just as sinful as being attracted to a person of the opposite sex to whom you are not married.

    You don't sin, according to the popular view, until you actually commit a sinful act.

    Of course, Christians with this view aren't familiar with Matthew 5:28. Those that are realize that all lust (heterosexual or homosexual) is sinful, that all of us are guilty of it, and that we all need God's forgiveness.

  • Nipped in the butt: Smoking bans take aim at Big Tobacco but often hit the little guy

    05/05/2006 11:57:17 AM PDT · 8 of 182
    bigLusr to ClearCase_guy
    No... but see. Their intention was good. See, they were protecting the little guy from Big Evil Tobacco and they didn't mean to hurt the little guy... (as opposed to Evil Conservatives (purely coincidentally) do help the little guy).
  • DUmmie FUnnies 05-03-06 ("How could this incompetent administration pull of MIHOP?")

    05/03/2006 6:34:11 AM PDT · 6 of 128
    bigLusr to PJ-Comix

    La la la... everybody look at me

  • Refresher Course: Keywords [Use them when you post and use them to search]

    04/26/2006 6:17:48 PM PDT · 33 of 36
    bigLusr to TaxRelief
    I find keyword searches almost completely useless. Some articles never get any keywords added... others might not have the keyword you've got in mind... still others might have the keyword you want ... only misspelled.

    Plus, articles returned by a keyword search are ordered by the time that the keyword was added... not by popularity, relevance, or even the date that the message was posted. That means finding a thread from more than a few months ago (especially if the keyword is popular) can be excruciating.

    Title searches have similar problems. As someone mentioned upthread, trying to find postings that relate to free speech on college campuses might say something like "Okoboji U Newspaper Fined for Editorial".

    The best way I've found to read relevant articles is to use google. Say you're trying to find articles about campus speech on FR. Go to google and type campus free speech. The magic phrase "site:[[domain]]" (remember that colon) will instruct google to only return pages that live on [[domain]]. Then you've got all of google's page ranking power right at your fingertips. You'll get much more reliable results than anything you can (or should be able to) do through FR's various search abilities.