Free Republic

Proof that PP is for abortions, not a substitute for an Obgyn. If she had gone to an Obgyn, the doctor would have done an ultrasound.

As oldvirginian opined above, PP was never about women's health. The "abortion IS health care" assertion was always rooted in duplicity and sophistry.

But you know this, I'm sure.

PP was always about murdering babies for Big $$$. It was never about the woman’s health.

Indeed the whole "woman's right to choose" and "abortion IS health care" canards are just two more instances of where the Left employs juuust enough truth to craft a better lie.

Consider what the Left does should a woman "choose" to carry her baby to term, give birth to her child, then protect that child from harm by, in part, purchasing a gun.

Consider that though abortion is a medical procedure, it is decided not health care. Neither for the mother, nor especially for the child.

Again, Leftist invoke just enough fact to fabricate a more plausible falsehood. It's how they roll.

Just...wow.

Stupidity ought to be self-correcting, shouldn't it? Alas, such stupidity is not new. Below are two videos which prove this.

The Theory Of Stupidity (by Dietrich Bonhoeffer).

Bonhoeffer‘s Theory of Stupidity.

"I am Spartacus."

Part of me wants to join you: "I am Spartacus."

Another part of me can't shake the notion that Trump is our era's Emmanuel Goldstein.

If Trump is today's Goldstein, who, I wonder will be Trump's Atticus Finch?

And, if each of us is Spartacus/Goldstein, who will be our Atticus Finch?

"To Kill a MAGA-man."

Gives new meaning to the term, “explosive diarrhea.”

Doesn't it though?

When your bowel excretions involve blast radius that can be measured in meters, then I think it's safe to say you're up sh_ts creek without a paddle.

Of course, when your anus presently serves as a rocket nozzle, lacking a paddle for locomotion probably isn't your main concern.

Rectum? It almost killed him.

An oldie, but appropriate goodie. Kudos, sir.

Thanks for the outstanding belly-laugh.

Cheers.

AGAIN, they got billions from Covid and now this. They are going to hire MORE union dues payors and there will be NO accountability to the desired outcome, identifying school shooters or problem kids.

Surely you grok that the purported/advertised "desired outcome" (identifying or helping problem kids before they descend into acts of mass murder) is not the outcome which The Ruling Class truly desires?

Indeed, I think we can be excused for concluding that actually addressing or fixing any problem is not what Ruling Class members want. Not truly. If only because they need problems to exist, so they can continue to bloviate about "there oughta be a law." Or bloviate that "we must make sure that this never happens again." In short, The Ruling Class needs festering problems so they can, through more and more liberty-eating legislation, pretend to fix them. Upon what else but crisis after (sometimes-fabricated) crisis will they rely for getting (low-info) citizens to vote them back into office?

And, the de facto "slush fund" which all this Federal Spending provides to Democrat Party coffers...? Why, that's just an added bonus.

I think you know this, so I'll leave it there. Cheers.

Funny how few fully follow the plain and plainly concise phrase, "...shall not be infringed."

It's not rocket surgery, you know. And yet, too many of our elected Reps and Senators seem entirely and utterly bent on blowing it.

I know that my questions and replies could be characterized as posts which have hijacked this thread, but I will continue with my "hijacking" by saying this: I don't have time currently to reply to your fine post, but you state so many humble, sage, sober, wise, and insightful things that I will later on reply at length. Later I will do your post justice with a proper reply.

But for now, I will apologize to anyone (including the thread starter, RoosterRedux, and DoodleDawg) for my unintentional hijacking of this thread.

I think Thomas Lifson's blog post referencing Rabbi Michael Barclay's PJ Media article is spot-on. I believe that Rabbi Michael Barclay's comparisons were spot-on. Both Thomas Lifson and Rabbi Michael Barclay raise valid points; both men make statements which have merit.

What we, as in We The People, must or will do about this is an entirely different discussion. One into which I don't have time to delve right now. I wish I did.

Cheers.

Probably more like 50¢ now. 😋

Good point. I still have a $10 bill I stumbled across in 1980 when I was in high school. It was a "Series 1950" bill. I don't know why it struck my fancy to keep a 30 year old piece of US currency, but it did and I still have it. In a fireproof safe of all places!

The point is that this $10 bill now has significantly less purchasing power than it did when it was printed. And, with the currently out-of-control inflationary pressures afflicting us today, I won't hazard a guess as to how little inherent value this now-72 year old bill has. Indeed, I hold on to it only for the "sentimental" value: I earned it mowing lawns back in the day. So, the bill helps connect me with my youth.

Thank you for the kind words. As we age, most start to mellow a little, at least the majority of the time, and see things in a broader perspective. 🙂

You are welcome. And man-oh-man are you correct about how age can mellow us out. When I was younger my behaviors used to be of the rather insufferable variety. I thank the Creator each and every day for His (Herculean?) efforts to pound some humility into my thick skull. Dare I say He may even have required another "day of rest" to recover from His efforts to reduce the size of my once-enlarged ego...?

Cheers.

Well said, rlmorel, well said. I voiced a quiet but robust "right-on, right-on!" when I read your sage assertion, "To say the comparisons in both examples are both the same is intellectually lazy at best, and provocatively bad at worst."

It's funny how there seems to be a correlation between increasing level of intellectual laziness and the decreasing level of rational discourse.

For what it is worth, it's taken me years to realize that many individuals simply do not want to seek common ground. Or, when common ground can't exist because the differences contained within the different opinions can never be eliminated, such individuals refuse to chose the "let's agree to disagree" path. If only because of work required. And the lazy, by definition, don't like to work.

Intellectual laziness is just as frustrating to encounter as are the behaviors of closed-minded individuals. Intellectual laziness is just as frustrating to encounter as is the hubris of individuals (e.g. BHO or AOC) who think they are so enlightened, so erudite, and so thoroughly "on the right side of history," that they already know enough. And, because they already know enough, they haughtily conclude that they simply don't have to listen to any other point of view or any other substantive argument. (Indeed, this latter type individual often arrogantly dismisses any substantive argument as utterly unworthy of consideration. It is beneath their dignity to listen to vermin. Vermin must be dispatched, not given a voice.)

But I think you know this. So, I'll leave it there.

Thank you for sharing your insights. And thank you for reading my long-winded replies. I appreciate it. Cheers.

Hopefully, it’s just a phase they are going through and maturity will finally win the day with them. 🙂

I'm right there with you.

My wife has a phrase which is predicated on the sort of soberly patient self-restraint required to temper any temptation I have to lose my temper: "as long as there is breath, there is a chance." For individuals to experience an epiphany of their own without any input from me; for individuals to be convinced over to "my" side of an issue by substantive/rational arguments (as opposed to being intimidated into silence, or forced to comply); for individuals to experience a clearing of the emotional fog which often envelopes our minds, so that the excess emotional froth which generally drive most of the cries "but we gotta do something!" can dissipate.

Just my 2¢. Or, accounting for inflation, perhaps I ought say 5¢. 🙂

Thank you for sharing your sage and sober thoughts. I appreciate it. Cheers.

The whole point is that the Ukraine cheer leaders are not open for polite discourse on the war. Either you adhere to their their thoughts or you are also an enemy, a Putin puffer, or a nut-case. All quite ludicrous indeed. 🙂

Polite discourse. Hmm. As you and rlmorel have already discussed upthread, there does appear to be a diminishing number of "let's agree to disagree" discussions in recent years. Even here on FR.

Perhaps that's why I have not yet cracked the nut: because I still (naively?) believe in both the benefit and the utility of the "let's agree to disagree" paradigm...?

Ad hominem attacks, whether they are launched by Left-leaning individuals or by the occasional Right-leaning individual, just flat-out sour my stomach. In my opinion, the very moment an individual indulges in or resorts to an ad hominem attack he or she has just admitted that they have the debate skills of an adolescent. They beclown themselves, do they not?

In his book, Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt had something similar in mind, I think, when he wrote the following about flippancy, duplicity, and sophistry: "And such shallow wisecracks [are to] pass as devastating epigrams and the ripest wisdom."

When instead the adolescent antics and juvenile jollies often invoked as components of the ad hominem attack have precious little in common with rational discourse.

Just my 2¢. Cheers.

DoodleDawg wrote:
Both sides say how they are reluctant to compare the other side to Nazis but neither side passes on a chance to do so.

rlmorel wrote (in his reply to Robert DeLong in post #8):
We see people on all sides who like to paint a moral equivalence boiling away the issues that actually differentiate the comparisons made by the Left against the Right, and the Right against the left by saying “Oh, both sides do it”.
It is an ignorant and simplistic approach at best, and at worst, is intentionally done to further corrosive damage and suppress rational dialogue.

For what it's worth, I have long wondered why both are verboten: if the criticizer of today's troubles/events makes any comparison of today's events to events in Germany in the 1930's...and at the very same time if anyone dares criticize any statement based upon that type of comparison.

I hope my point here is not too convoluted. I just find it rather peculiar that all of this is a "Lose-Lose" situation. You "lose" in the minds of some individuals if you try to draw parallels between events today and events of 1930's Germany; but you also "lose" (in the minds of others) if you dare criticize the criticizer.

Please don't misunderstand me: I have no solution for this apparent "Lose-Lose" situation. Indeed, by pointing this out I have no doubt stepped into another "No-Win" situation. I have been trying to crack this nut for over 25 odd years. But for the life of me I haven't cracked it yet.

Just my 2¢. Cheers.

Does the democrat Ministry carry any penalties for getting something “wrong” on their internet?

Sure it does. For guidance, simply refer to Lavrentiy Beria's maxim, "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."

Oh, and I doubt the penalties for our "thought crimes" will be as easy to ignore as the behavior that is lampooned here: https://xkcd.com/386/

It's a sad and tragic irony that the man who runs the xkcd site is, in my opinion, a hard-core leftist. That is, I'm pretty sure he's a full-bore "Orange Man Bad" club member.

Sounds like a triple entendre if there ever was one.

And you know darned well that if the tables were turned and if the roles were reversed (a Leftist tweeted this about a Republican), all the usual suspects would be re-tweeting and otherwise celebrating the original tweet. They'd be utterly gushing with grins, giggles, and guffaws.

The Left likes to dish snark out by the heaping helpings. But they sure squeal like stuck piglets when a well-timed witty barb lands home on one of their sacred cows.

(Yes. I just compared Ever-Cackling Kamala to a cow. A brown bovine, as it were. If anyone is offended, too bad. She climbed the political ladder by getting her start down on her knees. She, and she alone, brought all this gutter-talk and disrespect down upon herself.)

The hosts on WMAL are making it a point to say “Camela looks like a UPS driver” on their shows.

Good for them! WMAL's HR/management weenies can't fire everybody, right? At least, not without shooting themselves in the foot again.

This lock-step loyalty to woke-ism has got to stop. Without push-back the inmates will indeed fully run the asylum.

Well that still works for Kamala filling all her holes.

Eew! What a visual. Excuse me whilst I go find my brain bleach. ;-p

Somebody has said that you know who is in charge, or who rules over you, if you aren’t allowed to make jokes or make fun of them.

That is one of my favorite aphorisms: "You'll know who controls the culture by whom you are forbidden to criticize."

Here's another pithy one: "An empty stomach is never a good political advisor."

Or as in the case of far too many Democrats these days, you can replace "stomach" with "skull."

Just my 2¢. Cheers.

Cancel culture writ large.

(WARNING: This bit which follows is vulgar. Be forewarned.)

Ought we ask Willie Brown if Heels-up Harris can make packages come on time?