Say Anything Blog

Of course I’m not saying that, Rob. But since neither one of us were there or know the girl, neither one of us is qualified to pass judgement. esp. a severe as calling someone a monster.

Of course, passing judgement on others is one of the best parts of being a knee-jerk conservatives, isn’t it?

(OKAY...I was being sarcastic and a bit unfair there, but still, you get my drift)

The girl claims that Planned Parenthood helped her cover-up a crime.  An eleven-year-old girl who doesn’t know any better.  Planned Parenthood endorses that version of the story by printing the claim on their own website.

That, for me, is more than enough information to pass judgment.  This has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with covering up child abuse.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

’I was raped at 11, by my 17 year old boyfriend. I chose not to tell my parents because I didn’t think their involvement would help, that was the right choice for me.’

How can any of you question her impeccable judgement? You don’t know her? She may have been very advanced for a prepubescient tween. You Christofascists shoving your morality down her throat. Or was that her child molester boyfriend shoving something else down there?

And when she was 14 and decided to voluntarily have sex she decided to get abortion pills that day eventhough they don’t kick in for a month.

Well anyhow if she didn’t have an abortion mill looking out for her now that she’s 17 and sooooooooooooooooooooo in luvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv who would? And if she gets pregnant they can sure take care of that. I mean who are you to judge her when she obviously has such a great track record of decision making? As a parent I can guarantee that her parents couldn’t possibly be prouder of her and her well thought out judgements.

Of course Rob wasn’t there and doesn’t know the girl or the circumstances.  However… Planned Parenthood seems to think counseling an 11 year old girl with out parental knowledge is a good thing.  Rob was severly injured in a snow machine accident awhile back.  His injuries were life threatening but the emergency room only stablized and then waited until they got in touch with his sister (we were out of town) to begin treatment.  Because they didn’t have permission to treat.  But if our 11 year old daughter was raped she can be counseled in secret.  What nonsense.  We’re talking about the safety and well being of a little girl.  It’s not only nonsense… it’s monsterous.

Does anyone honestly believe that an eleven-year-old girl, in shock after being raped by her 17-year-old “boyfriend,” is capable of making decisions about who should and should not be told about the rape?

Yes. I do.

Do you have any idea what an eleven-year old girl might go through reporting a rape? It can be worse than the rape sometimes.

Perhaps you might want to think about the girl before you make knee-jerk statements like calling Planned Parenthood “monsters.”

PP is still the first line of defence between women and the Christofacists who want to wrest reproductive freedom away from them.

I am thinking about the girl, Don, but I am also thinking about the other children this guy may have raped.  Setting the abortion thing aside for a moment, you can’t possibly be saying that you’re against catching rapists....are you?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

You’re all assuming that the story is true.

Of course, Planned Parenthood is such an honest organization and full of integrity that I’m sure it must be true. They certainly wouldn’t lie about something like this just to raise money, scare women and girls, and embolden pedophiles and rapists.

(Please note that this comment is dripping with sarcasm.)

What happen to the ‘age of consent’ tenet which I believe is generally set at 18 years and has been for years the recognition of the age when an individual could make legal decisions regarding themselves and their affairs?  Certainly a 11 year old girl is way below the age of consent and should not be permitted to make life threatening decisions without parental or guardian consent.

I posted my response at length on my weblog, but I’ll summarize here.  Why is PP afraid of parents?  I think that’s the key question.  Does anyone here really think that the 11 yr old has a better perspective on this whole thing than her parents.  I realize that we live in a different world now than the previous generation, but as a parent, I am aware of a whole lot more things about the children my children associate with than they are.

How about thinking about it this way:  If a child goes to buy a car, he could consult his parents.  If he thinks of buying a house he might consult his parents.  The only people I know that are concerned about a child consulting his parents on decisions could be that salesman who knows that the parent will see something or know something through experience that the child doesn’t.  So how come when it comes to the matter of life and death of a unborn child, or even the sexual practices of a child, some people don’t want parents to have any say-- or brag about the child making the decision?  Could it be the same reason?

Um, Steve, that’s wrong.  The laws regarding minority have limited rights to everything from property to medical care.  Knowing kids, it’s a good thing, too.

This also speaks to Don’s comments; for several hundred years, our legal tradition has held that there are certain contracts that minors cannot agree to.  Don is arguing not with us, but with centuries (millenia really) of philosophical, political, religious, and legal tradition.

The bigger picture here is that Planned Parenthood is in trouble nationwide for failing to report cases of suspected rape.  In most states, any nonsectarian counselor or medical facility is a mandatory reporter of rape.

So for PP to report this to the public, anonymously, but not to the relevant authorities, is morally monstrous.  It is to leave sexual predators out on the streets.  As the father of daughters and former neighbor to kids who did get molested, my thoughts about this policy of PP are somewhat less than printable, to put it mildly.

Abortion, being a “constitutional right,” is exempt from parental consent.

Agreed that consent laws are generally not enforced; what I was getting at is that abortion law has a position somehow different from all other rights, enumerated and otherwise.  That is, the rejection of consent laws does not flow from the enshrinement of rights in general, but rather from the rather peculiar status accorded to prenatal infanticide since 1973.

I’d like to agree, Robert, but I don’t know of any instance where parental consent for an abortion has been enforced. PP and other groups fight against notification, let alone consent.

Abortions performed on minors, being an invasive procedure, should require parental consent. Period. The problem, however, is that a woman’s/girl’s privacy comes into play, and the pro-choice crowd worry that a “Christofacist” parent will say no, thus forcing their 11-year-old girl to carry the pregnancy to term. If the right to abortion is guaranteed by the constitution, what right to parents have to say no?

Now, I don’t agree with that, and my previous comment wasn’t meant to be taken literally, that’s just the way I see the argument being played out.

The problem goes beyond abortion, unfortunately. If this story is true, you have a 17-year-old boy raping an 11-year-old girl. That’s an egregious act. You’re going to find people, however, that would have no problem with it if it was consesual. When people treat sex as nothing more than a good time, and practically encourage it, you’re going to see this kind of behavior. There’s no moral underpinning to support the idea that sex should be confined to the marriage bed. That, of course, is another argument.

what gives them (supreme court) the right to overrule the will of the people re: 10th amendment to the US Constitution

What’s wrong with this picture, you have to be 18 (maybe 21) to buy a beer; you have to be 15 to drive a car; you have to be 18 to buy cigarettes; you have to be 18 to vote; (I may be off on some of those years but you get the point); you can be 11 or younger to kill a baby. 

I think that technically one is not a true citizen eligible for all constitutional rights until you are at the voting age.  Of course, the supreme court idiots may say otherwise.
Question: what gives them (supreme court) the right to overrule the will of the people re: 10th amendment to the US Constitution - “The powers not relegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.”

Dave, I think you misunderstood the point that I was trying to make, that the supreme court with their erroneous rulings making new law are acting like tyrants.

"But that doesn’t mean we can ignore the rulings we don’t like.”

Short cut to tyranny: Have a group of elitists that can make laws that cannot be overruled by anyone.

When your only alternative is a shortcut to tyranny (a group of Weathermen committing domestic acts of terrorism), I think I’ll take it, docdave. I don’t like capital punishment, so I’ll try to persuade others to see my view, but if I fail, that doesn’t mean I can ignore the law (or worse).

Don Myers said, PP is still the first line of defence between women and the Christofacists who want to wrest reproductive freedom away from them.

“Christofacists”? You’re the one who is defending the killing of the unborn. Seems pretty fascist to me. Certainly elitist.

Of course, passing judgement on others is one of the best parts of being a knee-jerk conservatives, isn’t it?

Wait, you just said, “Christofacists”. You’re always passing judgement about us. You’re a flaming hypocrite.

Now insult us. It is all you’ve got.

I started to write a comment to a post on Say Anything , but it go so long I decided to post my opinion here, and summarize over there.  I think Rob’s right on this one.  I’m sure we all as parents would love everything to always be right with our kids.  However, all parents know that this is not the case.

I don’t see you doubting the veracity of the story.

If even one girl was able to get through all that shit and avoid getting pregnant and/or infected, it’s a miracle.  She could have been totally fucked up, had several children by now, and would be well on her way to a meth addiction.  Now, what kind of impact would that have on society as a whole?  Could that mean more mouths on the government dole?  Doesn’t this girl serve as some kind of role model for self-sufficiency?  There are others like her; if more of them can live even close to a normal life, that’s a good thing for all involved. 

Focusing on the unintended consequences ("the rapist is still free") avoids acknowledging the potential good that can come out of the situation.  If we try to eliminate all of the unintended consequences, there are bound to be unintended consequences.  That is a fact of life.  Of course rapists should be caught and punished.  But this girl’s life is appreciably better than it might have been due to this group’s resources, and that’s a good thing.

And where does it say that the rapist got away?

You’re assuming that her life would have been made worse by bringing the parents/law enforcement into the equation.

No, it’s quite possible that her life could have been as good or even better if the parents were involved, just as it’s possible it may have ended up for the worse.  But in this particular case, it all ended up OK for this girl.  That’s why these things belong in the realm of the private; each situation is unique.  There is no final piece of legislation that will take every situation into account.

But this girl’s life is appreciably better than it might have been due to this group’s resources, and that’s a good thing.

You’re assuming that her life would have been made worse by bringing the parents/law enforcement into the equation.  Why on earth would you assume that?

What have you got against parents?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I guess my problem is that groups like planned parenthood want to take me, the parent, out of my child’s life.

In an earlier thread I said I wanted to be made aware if my kid was engaging in homosexual making out at school.  In this thread I’ve made it obvious that, should my daughter get raped and impregnated by her much older “boyfriend,” I’d want to know about that.

You’ve responded in the past that if I were a good parent I would already know these things, but that’s crap.  Even good parents can’t be everywhere.  All I’m asking for is an assist here.  I’m the parent.  We parents are responsible for raising these kids.  Why is there such a push to exclude us?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

[...] Other Coverage at GOP Bloggers and Say Anything [...]

[...] Rob at Say Anything: If I knew more about the situation I might agree with the girl that her parents shouldn’t have been told (at least not at first, what kind of parents let their eleven-year-old daughter date a guy who is seventeen?), but nobody even contacted law enforcement? Rape is a crime, and so is pedophilia. Thanks to Planned Parenthood the schmuck who took advantage of this little girl is out on the loose somewhere. [...]

1. 11 year-old is raped. PP shields parents from knowledge of crime.

2. 14 year-old decides she’s emotionally mature enough for sex, after being raped at 11. PP shields parents from knowledge that their daughter is taking birth control pills and is sexually active at an age at which it’s illegal for her to be so.

3. 17 year-old is very happy in her sexual freedom, currently very much in “love” with her boyfriend. The road she’s taken has necessitated four(!) HIV/STD tests.

Now, tell me where I go wrong here: PP refuses to report not one, but a multitude of crimes in this girl’s life, crimes which have left many adults scarred for life with deep emotional issues. They’ve subsequently refused to truly help a young girl understand the dangers of unprotected sex, nor have they recognized or intervened when the details of the case seem to point to a high level of promiscuity, typically a sign of self-esteem issues and potentially indicating psychological problems such as bipolar disorder or codependency. By their reporting of this case as a “success story,” where is it much of a stretch to see that Planned Parenthood measures their successes in the facilitation of illegal activity (statutory rape), the alienation of children from their parents, the promotion of rampant promiscuity, the production of unwanted pregnancies (and hence abortions), and the advocation of high-risk lifestyles for HIV/AIDS/other STDs for young children and teens?

To use an imperfect illustration, if you came upon someone who had run off the road into a muddy ditch, would you try to help them out of the ditch, or would the extent of your “help” be washing their car off? PP is essentially helping people stay in the same lifestyle that got them into a mess, only fixing the “cosmetics” of the situation, and not exerting any effort whatsoever towards helping them get out of the lifestyle patterns that virtually ensure more problems. They’re helping people stay happy in the ditch.

I’m with you Bo.  Thanks for saying it so well. 

I cannot imagine my daughter not telling me if something like this happened, but at the same time, if she doesn’t I should be informed before she’s indoctrinated into the cyle of self destruction that calls itself Planned Parenthood.

A little girl at 11 does not have the mental capacity to make an informed decision that risks her life.  She doesn’t have the capacity to know what love is, and certainly does not know or understand how complex a sexual relationship is. 

I take offense to the ChristFacist comments on here. You have to be kidding.  What parent does not want their child to make good choices with direction from them?  Next thing you know we’ll have the kids running free to do whatever they please because it’s bad to monitor your kids and squash the freedom that the constitution allows them.  Come ON!!  Are parents that scary?  I think not.

"PP refuses to report not one, but a multitude of crimes in this girl’s life, crimes which have left many adults scarred for life with deep emotional issues.”

As I see it, Planned Parenthood is little more that a crime syndicate promoting illicit sex from which they get the bulk of their abortion prospects.  But since they operate under a psuedo-legal umbrella they have little to fear from the authorities.  Their evil cousins the Mafia and drug cartels never had it so good.

As I see it, Planned Parenthood is little more that a crime syndicate promoting illicit sex from which they get the bulk of their abortion prospects.

Now really, how can you argue with that?

[...] � Planned Parenthood Monsters from Say Anything Tracked on December 14, 2005 11:51 AM [...]

Forgive me, I’m not familiar with posting on a BLOG site but, has it occured to anyone that if Planned Parenthood reported every girl that came in reporting statutory rape word would get around and the girls would cease to come in, leaving them without resources to access.  A parent would never know until the girl started showing signs of pregnancy or STDs.

Secondly, have any of you gone to the PP site and accessed the posting feature?  How easy do you believe it would be to post a complete fabrication?  How do you think PP would be able to verify the facts of that story?  Just like how would you verify if a voice over a phone was a twelve year old actually scheduling an abortion instead of some PL ‘going under cover’ in an asinine attempt at a sting.

“Oh sure officer, she said she was twelve on the phone, address?  Here it is.  You mean it doesn’t exist!  How do I know she was twelve?  I don’t!”

Dee? Your kidding, right? What a twisted, laughable attempt to defend the indefensable.

Dee? Your kidding, right? What a twisted, laughable attempt to defend the indefensable.

Amen 2Hote9

Dee, are you an apologist for Planned Parenthood aka Unborn Infant Murder Incorporated?  Maybe you are also sympathetic to suicide bombers.  They also kill indescriminantly.

Forgive me, I’m not familiar with posting on a BLOG site but, has it occured to anyone that if Planned Parenthood reported every girl that came in reporting statutory rape word would get around and the girls would cease to come in, leaving them without resources to access. A parent would never know until the girl started showing signs of pregnancy or STDs.

I don’t see where having Planned Parenthood hide a pregnancy/STD from a child’s parents and thus ensure that the person responsible for the pedophilia remains on the loose is a more preferable option than having the parents discover the problem with their child.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob: I think that comment reveals PP’s true agenda: They don’t want to lose any business by reporting the statutory rape situations to the parents. No mystery here.

MI, I seem to remember you and dave telling us that definitions are unimportant. Now you are slinging them around. Consistency. Look that one up while you are at it.

Call me dense, but what exactly was the point of posting that definition?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Indiscriminate
1. Not making or based on careful distinctions; unselective: an indiscriminate shopper; indiscriminate taste in music.
2. Random; haphazard: indiscriminate violence; an indiscriminate assortment of used books for sale.
3. Confused; chaotic: the indiscriminate policies of the previous administration.
4. Unrestrained or wanton; profligate: indiscriminate spending.

Sorry, should have included the inspiration:

Dee, are you an apologist for Planned Parenthood aka Unborn Infant Murder Incorporated? Maybe you are also sympathetic to suicide bombers. They also kill indescriminantly.

MI, I seem to remember you and dave telling us that definitions are unimportant.

Where?

In comment threads on this blog. We all laughed like hell at you two’s idiocy. Remember? I am sure you will now deny ever having said anything of the sort, so please procceed.

If you provide a link, there’s no way I can deny it.

In comment threads on this blog. We all laughed like hell at you two’s idiocy. Remember? I am sure you will now deny ever having said anything of the sort, so please procceed.

Ain’t providing you a thing. Aaron,Seth,paulieB,docdave, and Rob all participated in the 3 threads where dave, and then you, proselytized that the meanings of words are at best relative and fluid, and at worst of no use in any discussion of politics or the war on terror. Your constant shifting of ideaological positions is a point we all laugh about on a regular basis.

Oh, you mean that thread where you declared your sexual attraction to livestock?  That’s right, I remember now.

And don’t ask me to provide a link to it, we all know you said it.

MI, I was the one who brought up definitions of terms like human, person,etc. and yes, you and others of your ilk said that definitions were not important. I believe that what you have it is called selective amnesia.

MI, I was the one who brought up definitions of terms like human, person,etc. and yes, you and others of your ilk said that definitions were not important.

Ah, was this the thread where the Hawaii court was incorrectly accused of saying that unborn children aren’t “human beings,” when in fact they ruled that they did not qualify as “persons,” which are defined in Hawaii law as a human being who is alive and has been born?  The one where even Rob and 2H9 agreed with me when I said that it’s that law that would need to be changed if you didn’t like the court’s ruling?  Where in that thread did I say that “definitions are not important”?

I do loves me some livestock, especially roasted over an oak and maple fire. That’s the one.

2H, the defense of a typical leftist: if you can’t prove I said it than I didn’t, and even if you have proof it’s right wing propaganda.

if you can’t prove I said it than I didn’t, and even if you have proof it’s right wing propaganda.

And where’s that proof?

I already gave them 4 chances (I guess if I weren’t a liberal, I would have just given them 3), Dave, but it’s easier for them to just keep repeating the same charge without backing it up.  Apples don’t fall far from the ideological trees.

I know for a fact that I said that it was useless to use dictionary definitions in a political or philosophical debate, but my views rarely find agreement with others here.

At the risk of putting words in you mouth, I think that you’d agree that the word ”indescriminantly”, besides being misspelled, was a case of incorrect usage.

MI, hooray for you, you found a mispelled and incorrectly used word.  Not the first time I have done that.  I also noticed that you didn’t comment on the entire context in which the word was used.  You never write anything of substance.  All you do is knitpick.  How boring!!

if you can’t prove I said it than I didn’t

I know for a fact that I said that it was useless to use dictionary definitions in a political or philosophical debate, but my views rarely find agreement with others here.

All you do is knitpick. How boring!!

Now you know how I feel coming to this site these days.

Dee, are you an apologist for Planned Parenthood aka Unborn Infant Murder Incorporated? Maybe you are also sympathetic to suicide bombers. They also kill indescriminantly.

There’s the entire quotation.  Gangs of Planned Parenthood employees do not roam around killing people indiscriminately.

MI, you hate us, go the fuck away.

And yes, PPH thugs do murder indiscriminately, it is called government funded abortion on demand, without notification of parent or spouse, stupid.

So if you compare the actions of Planned Parenthood with the actions of terrorist groups, why don’t you commit acts of violence against women’s clinics, 2hotel9?

And yes, PPH thugs do murder indiscriminately, it is called government funded abortion on demand, without notification of parent or spouse, stupid.

So, Planned Parenthood provides abortions to women who aren’t pregnant?

MI, you hate us, go the fuck away.

Say Anything (as long as it doesn’t hurt my feelings. *sniff*)

Should a catholic priest notify parents of everything a teen says in confidence in a confession box?

Actually, there have been court cases that have held people in the counseling profession responsible in the case, say, of a person telling the counselor he’s going to commit suicide and then does.  There are many laws on the books about reporting if a crime is suspected-- ethics mandate that you divulge what you know.

Should a catholic priest notify parents of everything a teen says in confidence in a confession box?

If he doesn’t, and the teen says a crime was committed, then the priest is a “monster,” per Rob’s definition.

If you have a truly great relationship with your daughters, they will come to you anyway. I know in my country, where possible authorities will attempt to persuade young teenagers to talk to their parents. However, in order to provide help for those youngsters unfortunate enough to have poor parents, it does seem necessary to have provision for anonymous help.

Should a catholic priest notify parents of everything a teen says in confidence in a confession box?

There is a set of rape victims who would talk to eg. PP anonymously, but would avoid them if they would inform parents/police as a matter of course. It is better that they tell someone than no-one.

Actually, there have been court cases that have held people in the counseling profession responsible in the case, say, of a person telling the counselor he’s going to commit suicide and then does.

Unless there’s a specific set of circumstances you’re referring to, if this were true then every social worker, psychologist and shrink would be in court at one point or another.  For the most part, almost every client they see is suicidal at one point or another, and a certain percentage act on it, with varying degrees of success.

I was off on the suicide example, but here’s the real case, and it is more relevant.

Tarasoff, 1976, Califorina

1. Client at university counseling center told counselor that he planned to kill girlfriend.
2. Therapist informed campus police.
3. Police took him into custody, but released him, since girlfriend was out of town.
4. Client later killed girlfriend.

Woman’s parents sued the counselor, the university, and the police claiming that they were negligent in not informing the family of the danger.

Calif. State Supreme Court ruled in favor of mother, that the therapist was remiss in not informing ALL the appropriate persons in an attempt to avoid the violence.

Some counselors carry insurance for this type of thing.

Tarasoff, 1976, Califorina

I’d call that a pretty specific set of circumstances.

I gave an example of a case where the counselor was held responsible.  I’ve know people who have gone through human services classes that are bound to report things they see in a home, etc.  Doctors are bound to describe abuse. 

Since the whole core of this discussion revolves around whether a parent should be notified, the case, as well as the whole theory of reporting abuse is relevant.  Why should a doctor have to report physical abuse and not a rape?!

Because unrestricted abortion on demand is the Holy Grail of the lefties. It’s “special” don’t you know?

"Because unrestricted abortion on demand is the Holy Grail of the lefties.”

Not a real tenet of the leftists but a result of a philosophy that is:

. Secular - generally opposed to religion and the belief in God particularly Christianity.  Belief that mankind can elevate itself to a God like existence.

. Relativism - morality is based on individual beliefs and not on societal beliefs e.g. if a woman wants an abortion that is acceptable because that was her moral choice.

. Political correctness - only our tenets and beliefs are to be accepted; alternate beliefs are to be ridiculed.

. Intellectualism - the educated know whats best for the rest, the ordinary people, the serfs

. Collectivism, sometime called statism - the state is responsible for all the cares of its people and the people must conform and not exercice any independant contrary initiative

I think that covers most of the leftist definition.  Add to it if you wish

docdave: I thought it was important, because parental notification validates family structure and strengthens the family, so of course the lefties oppose it.  It’s not for the good of the children, obviously, so we have to look elsewhere for the real reason they oppose it.  It creates a wedge of separation between parents and children, which is the real purpose.  PP is obviously an agent of this agenda.

docdave: Great post, as far as it goes.  Abortion is part of the activism of the lefties, which is aimed at undermining our society from within.  This is done through the media by constant propagandizing of leftist ideology as fact, while denying or failing to report any diversity of opinion. Abortion, specifically, aims to dismantle the family structure, which Marx recognized as being a threat to the proper loyalty to the State.  The proletariat, in their “ignorance” must be reeducated to regard the State as the primary family unit(it takes a village).  There’s a lot more.

robert, I agree with you.  I just hadn’t taken it to the next level with is of course Marxism which is really tninly disguised totalitarianism which in brief is the absolute control of life itself; who is born, who is allowed to exist and when one is to die.  All of the absolute abuses lie under this category including gun confiscation which disable the masses from ever rebelling against the totalitarian tyranny.  All one has to do is look at the precepts of Nazism and Leninism of which many are paralleled in some form in the leftist platforms to see what is necessary for complete state control.

Not a real tenet of the leftists but a result of a philosophy that is:

. Secular - generally opposed to religion and the belief in God particularly Christianity. Belief that mankind can elevate itself to a God like existence.

. Relativism - morality is based on individual beliefs and not on societal beliefs e.g. if a woman wants an abortion that is acceptable because that was her moral choice.

. Political correctness - only our tenets and beliefs are to be accepted; alternate beliefs are to be ridiculed.

. Intellectualism - the educated know whats best for the rest, the ordinary people, the serfs

. Collectivism, sometime called statism - the state is responsible for all the cares of its people and the people must conform and not exercice any independant contrary initiative

That’s fair…

Do you disagree Dave or is rolling your eyes like a little petulant child the sum of your response?

Yeah, rolling my eyes like a little petulant child was the sum of my response to that post.

It might be mandatory to report an intended crime, but it is mandatory to report an already carried out crime, especially when the victim is begging not to press charges? It’s a different case.

Planned Parenthood Monsters The Lord works in mysterious ways A Few Bad Apples Spielberg’s Munich Another Appeasement? Mexican immigration hypocrisy The Male Slut Syndrome More Munich Trashing Kos: “Vindicated” Over “Screw ‘em” Comment