Say Anything Blog

Wait… Your definition of “Liberal Insanity” Is allowing people to make their own decisions?  LOL!!

They may be horrible people, but no judge has the right to tell them not to have sex anymore unless they can be convicted and put behind bars.

I think Rob hates me… I mean, just look at the pic he took of me!

OK, spaghetti, you can raise the babies she gives birth to.

My question is, why are these 2 not in prison?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Wait… Your definition of “Liberal Insanity” Is allowing people to make their own decisions?  LOL!!

I think someone missed the point.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Sphag

but no judge has the right to tell them not to have sex anymore

“Judge Marilyn O’Connor banned Stephanie Pendleton and Rodney Evers in 2004 from having more children until they could get back the four children they lost to foster care, three of whom tested positive for cocaine at birth.”

BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

What idf they also demanded their “squatter’s right” to set up camp in your back yard? No judge should ban that either, right?

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”—The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

Joel said:

BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

Definitely. You’d think that if they could find a a way to pay for crack they could find a way to buy the occaisional condom.

Nobody was denying them anything but the right to reproduse their nasty little selves again.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

One can have babies that test positive for cocaine and then not go to jail over it?

What’s wrong with this country? I thought this was all covered by child abuse laws.

So how, exactly, do you reconcile this stance with another quite popular evangelical conservative stance that birth control and other means of family control should be “banned?”

If one is OK with not allowing parents to have sex, and, therefore, preventing procreation, couldn’t one argue that birth control for people of this ilk would be a wise solution?

Jay: Instead of attacking Christians over this, why not realize that the real solution to this problem is to lock up the druggie parents and adopt the children out to good homes?  The parents are criminals, and deserve to be treated that way.  If you let them out, you can’t restrict their freedom to procreate, can you?

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Jay asks Pilgrim to “reconcile” someone else’s position, So how, exactly, do you reconcile this stance with another quite popular evangelical conservative stance that birth control and other means of family control should be “banned?”

Is that what Pilgrim believes?

If not, then it’s an unfair question.

Jay....

I don’t reconcile the two things at all. Evangelicals don’t speak for me. I’m having a hard time “reconciling” how you came up with a parallel between the two issues.

In this case the fact is that any kids these two have would have be raised more like feral cats than kids. And they’ve already had four (4) taken away. By the way, who do you think paid the hospital bill for the four already here, these two brain donors?

You did, if you pay taxes. And you’ll continue to pay for their “right” to procreate as long as they...procreate.

Bumper sticker - Buy Condoms Instead Of Crack, Dipshit

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Perhpas my question was unfair.  However, my generalization is not disimilar to the broad generalizations that occur with relation to “liberal” though on this very board...every day. 

Despite this, I’m now supposed to partition “conservatism” into relgious and non-religious? 

Ok, perhaps I should have prefaced my question with this ... “What is your stance on birth control, abortion, plan B and planned parenthood?”

And THEN I’ll ask again.

Jay:

Each question you asked deserves a much longer forum than is available here, but here are some answers in their individual nutshells.

Birth control: Take it or don’t...free choice.

Abortion: I used to be more pro choice than I am now, but now I have to say that except in the cases of rape or incest I have to consider it wrong. Further, I have to take this stance: If you’re anti-death penalty and pro-abortion don’t even attempt to discuss the issue with me. oh, and Roe v. Wade is a farce based on a fallacy. Each state should make its own laws and the feds should butt out. Nuff said?

Plan B: I’m assuming you’re talking about the “morning after” pill. That’s a tar pit I haven’t thought through.

Planned parenthood: What aspect? Their lunatic fringe that thinks that a fouteen year old girl has the right to an abortion without telling her parents or just the regular mainstream lunatics who push the anti-abortion agenda while endorsing bad choices and bad behaviour?

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

slippery slope I think but one we should think about climbing. We should be able to rationally decide their kind stops having children. it is bad for all involved.

slippery slope I think but one we should think about climbing. We should be able to rationally decide their kind stops having children. it is bad for
all involved.

Yes, it’s all for the “common good”.  The only acceptable solution for our free society is to jail them for child abuse.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Roe v. Wade is a farce based on a fallacy. Each state should make its own laws and the feds should butt out. Nuff said?

Funny, as a person who is pro-choice, I do like the end result.  However, I am also not a fan of the specter of “Substantive Due Process”.  I think it’s bullshit, and I always have.  That didn’t go over well in Law School. 

And I’m not pro death penalty.  I work with recidivist criminals all day, every day...it doesn’t work.  And it won’t.  Besides, it’s incredibly expensive. 

And as far as I’m concerned, stay out of sexual reproductive choices.  Aren’t conservatives supposed to be ANTI-government intervention?

Funny, as a person who is pro-choice, I do like the end result.

Over 50 million dead babies cry out to you.  It’s killing children; not an “end result”.  Kinda like the “Final Solution”, don’t you think?

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

And as far as I’m concerned, stay out of sexual reproductive choices.  Aren’t conservatives supposed to be ANTI-government intervention?

Jay,

You will, of course, forgive those of us who view your views as a bit self-serving.  You would have the government (i.e. the courts) “stay out of sexual reproductive choices” AFTER the Roe v. Wade decision which you favor?  Is that the sort of “reasoning” you picked up in law school?

As for your “not pro death penalty” stance, that could do with a bit more of an explanation.  How does a high rate of recidivism support an anti-death penalty position?  The death penalty, or capital punishment, is called a “punishment” or a “penalty” for a reason.  Because such was earned by the especially brutal or heinous nature of the crime.  The idea that the intent of capital punishment is to discourage crime is a largely strawman argument from the left.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

These two adults should be deemed incapacitated because of their addiction to drugs (disability) makes them unable to effectively comprehend and communicate ever day decisions.
Their choice to use drugs blatantly displays they lack the ability to satisfy their own essential requirements for physical health, safety, or self-care.
Their personal well being is in jeopardy and emergent intervening is seriously called for. They should become a ward of the state and guardians should be appointed to oversee their daily well being.
Maybe the judge should have appointed herself as their legal guardian and this would have given her the right of deciding what is best for the ... incapacitated drug users.
Just a thought, lol

Over 50 million dead babies cry out to you.  It’s killing children; not an “end result”.  Kinda like the “Final Solution”, don’t you think?

Not sure why I even bother to respond to this nonsense considering the “end result” I’m speaking about is the “choice” it provides...not the abortion.  Take a breath.

You will, of course, forgive those of us who view your views as a bit self-serving.  You would have the government (i.e. the courts) “stay out of sexual reproductive choices” AFTER the Roe v. Wade decision which you favor?  Is that the sort of “reasoning” you picked up in law school?

Man, you guys are incredibly condescending.  The “reasoning” you speak of is called “stare decisis.” The Courts have made their decision and interpreted the constitution in a specific way.  We have substantive due process.  We have for quite some time.  There is settled constitutional law based upon it...lots of it. 

The “self serving” comment is a bit disingenuous.  People choose sides in politics based upon what serves them morally, financially etc.  If you think otherwise then I’d question your credibility.

And perhaps your equation of the government to “the courts” is the most comical.  The “government” is the legislature.  It is they who want to constrict choice through laws...not the Courts.

I’m speaking about is the “choice” it provides...not the abortion.

How do you separate the two?  Each “choice” kills a child.  Are you that compartmentalized?

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Jay,

Just out of curiosity, did you actually finish law school and pass the state bar exam?

Man, you guys are incredibly condescending.  The “reasoning” you speak of is called “stare decisis.” The Courts have made their decision and interpreted the constitution in a specific way.  We have substantive due process.  We have for quite some time.  There is settled constitutional law based upon it...lots of it.

Talk about condescending… or patronizing, as you prefer.  I’m well aware of stare decisis (please note that Latin words or phrases are properly italicized) as the comment thread regarding Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent remarks makes clear.  I’m also well aware that Plessy v. Ferguson is no longer the law of the land, nor is Bowers v. Hardwick, nor is Dred Scott v. Sanford, and that the ruling in U.S. v. Miller (1939) could well be expanded or perhaps overturned within the next year.

Roe v. Wade is obviously an agreeable outcome for those who favor abortion.  Social policy to be applauded.  But to suggest that “good” social policy makes for good law is patently nonsense.  And to pronounce that decision somehow untouchable because of stare decisis is indeed disingenuous.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

The “government” is the legislature.

Not in this country; it’s the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch.
BTW, Roe v Wade was not legislation; it was the judicial branch legislating, which they aren’t supposed to do, even according to your limited knowledge.

The “v” in Roe v Wade stands for versus, which is Latin for “against”, signifying it was a legal decision, not a legislative one.  Duh.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

What 3rd World shithole did this jay moron come from? Only thing worse than lawyers are wannabe lawyers.

jay, since you are the one so happy with the “end result” you can pay for this crackassholes children and habit. As for RvW, it guarantees doctor patient confidentiality, not abortion, you idiot. Law School my fucking ass.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem