You’re undoubtedly aware of the debate on foreign policy within various factions of the Republican Party, however, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) also highlighted social issues as an area where the old guard is butting heads with the young libertarian-leaning blood.

Report from New York Times:

While much attention has been devoted to the split between the establishment and the Tea Party, the growing divide along generational lines among Republicans could cause a significant a rift. Younger conservatives are more firmly staking out a libertarian orientation on social issues in a way that will shape the 2016 presidential primary as candidates seek to appeal to activists who are in the party because of social issues and to younger voters who see some aspects of cultural conservatism as intolerant.

That young people, regardless of party, prefer a live-and-let-live approach on social issues is nothing new. In 2012, President Obama defeated Mitt Romney by 23 points among 18- to 29-year-olds in part because of the president’s more liberal cultural views. But what is increasingly alarming to some cultural conservatives is that it is not just young Democrats who share those views — and that this youthful libertarianism is not fading when the Republicans of tomorrow graduate from college.

If the GOP abandons social conservatism, as has the Democratic party, then there is a large chunk of the conservative base that would end up without a party. Despite this wave of young libertarian blood, I believe GOP leaders are aware they must hold the Reagan coalition together if they want a chance at winning the White House in 2016.

On the topic of foreign poloicy, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have been playing tit-for-tat in the media since their respective appearances at CPAC. Report from Breitbart:

Sen. Rand Paul continued his aggressive brush back of comments from his usual ally Sen. Ted Cruz suggesting that Paul is positioned at the left, dovish flank of the GOP on foreign policy, telling Fox News host Sean Hannity Cruz was “mischaracterizing” his views.

“We always have been good friends. I’m not real excited about him mischaracterizing my views. I won’t let that pass. I think that sometimes want to stand up and say hey, look at me, I’m the next Ronald Reagan. Well, almost all of us in the party are big fans of Ronald Reagan,” Paul said.

The mini-feud started when Cruz, in a Thursday speech at the “Uninvited II” National Security forum, positioned himself between the hawkish John McCain at one end of the GOP and the dovish Paul at the other, with Cruz championing Reaganesque policies in the middle.

Defining and redefining Reagan has been a national pastime for Republican presidential candidates. It appears 2016 will be no different.


  1. When H (R) Clinton is elected, and the Democrats stay in control of the Senate, the hard heads who will not budge or work well with others, will have no one to blame but themselves. I for one will blame them too, and not give any campaign money to the party or candidate.

  2. I think it’s pretty clear that a party will have to control the House AND have 60 senators AND the presidency to get anything they want passed these days.

  3. This statement from the New York times is their attempt to shape other people’s thinking…or a stark loss of touch with reality:

    “That young people, regardless of party, prefer a live-and-let-live approach on social issues is nothing new. In 2012, President Obama defeated Mitt Romney by 23 points among 18- to 29-year-olds in part because of the president’s more liberal cultural views. But what is increasingly alarming to some cultural conservatives is that it is not just young Democrats who share those views — and that this youthful libertarianism is not fading when the Republicans of tomorrow graduate from college.”

    i sincerely hope the the liberals read this and believe it, while the conservatives see it for the naive hopefulness (or propaganda) that it is.

    The truth is that young people who are conservative/libertarian are that way mostly because of their parents. You see, thanks in large part to abortion on demand, liberals have been procreating less than conservatives over the past 40 years. Additionally, with the departure from government schools (homeschooling is becoming a trend), there are tons of young people all across the country who do not share Obama’s liberal views on social issues, or the democrats views.

    The liberals know they are fighting a losing game. In a country that is center-right, growing more and more right as people see the fruits of the leftist causes right before their eyes.

    the only thing people grow out of is liberalism, not conservatism. Its like the classic quote: “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.”

    If the republican party abandons social conservatism, they will forever be a minority party. It is social conservatives that win elections. Social conservatives make up the largest voting block in America. Socially liberal issues only pass via judicial fiat, almost never by popular vote. That should shout loud and clear where the people of america are on social conservatism.

    • Josh – i agree with your assessment but as a true Libertarian (and the platform) someone else’s bedroom or pregnancy habits is none of my or politics business.

      I personally would not abort and I’m hetro – but it’s not up to me or politicians to decide those fates for others. If they look inside, their soul will give them direction and it might be part of their lesson plan for this incarnation.

      I just hope Tea Party (Family values are encouraged) / Libertarian ( (1.3) ) Conservatism Platforms are the winners and has a vast majority in the upcoming elections.

  4. Sam – you must not value life or liberty then, which means you are likely not as true of a libertarian as you think you are.

    If you valued life, then you would want every child to have the opportunity to pursue happiness. Unless you believe that human life is sparked by the passing through the birth canal or a C-section procedure, then maybe i could see where you’re coming from. I would say that you do care about what people do in their bedroom…would you not want law enforcement to stop child abuse when they know it is happening? or any abuse for that matter?

    The issue with homosexuality is not about what they do in their bedroom. Everybody knows and nobody cares about their private choices. The objection is to the militant gay agenda’s attempt to force acceptance and outlaw objection to forced acceptance.

    If you valued liberty, then would you not value a society’s choice for definition of marriage? Even if you didn’t agree, would you not agree with the concept of representative government? Would you not see it as an encroachment on liberty to have a small portion of society force their morality on the majority?

    That is what is happening today with the militant gay agenda. For example, there was a couple who owned a bakery that said they would not make a wedding cake for a gay couple who were getting married. The couple did not refuse service, they would sell any product to the couple…just not a wedding cake. It was a conscience issue.

    What did the gay couple do? They sued and the bakery was shut down. If that’s not an encroachment on liberty, I don’t know what is.

    If I went to a bakery to have a cake made for a christian baptism after-party and the place i went did not believe in Jesus and did not want to make a christian themed cake, I would just go somewhere else.

    So you must not truly value life or liberty.

    I would think as a true libertarian you would be against the outlawing of homosexuality and also against forced acceptance of homosexuality.
    I would think as a true libertarian you would be indifferent about people’s sexual behavior, but for the protecting of life for any child created by such behavior.

    • Josh: Sam and I have been discussng the meaning of words and how some people see different meaning in the same words. But your diatribe is an example of intentionally twisting the meaning of words.

      For you to imply that you are somehow a “libertarian” is laughable. You are all about making rules about what other people can and cannot do. By contrast, Billy is probably the most consistently “libertarian” on here. Sam is close behind. And I don’t want ANY label.

      “Forced acceptance”–what total BS. You’re making it sound like somebody is going to hold you down to rape you.

      What about your constant and consistent efforts to “force acceptance” of Christian symbols and language and rituals on the many, many non-Christian sects in this country, and yes, agnostics and even atheists!

      I have to admit that I feel that the idea of gay marriage has surprised me. I have not been a proponent–except that it is true that gays have not had fair treatment in legal matters–treatment in hospitals, treatment regarding taxes and other financial matters, and on and on.

      The only thing you’re being “forced” to do is to stop trying to persecute these people.

      Regarding the bakery issue, I have mixed feelings about that. Seems to me a gay couple would be stupid to go to a bakery that doesn’t like them. I don’t know about you, but I’m always deferential to anyone who is preparing my food!

      But where do you draw the line? Should businesses refuse to serve black people? Little people (aka, “midgets”)? Ugly people? Smelly people? Nude people? Personally, I guess I feel the line should be the point between what the people ARE and what they DO.

      You think people wake up some morning and DECIDE to be gay, just to piss you off. I don’t think that’s how it works.

      • Geothe Bore — another idiotic post by you.

        All the “points” you made are illogical — therefore, idiotic once more.

        Silly kid…that tries to post with the Big Boys here…..

    • Josh – You want to start an argument with me about this and i’m not up for this. Goethe brings up some good points and i’ve expressed my personal thoughts many times. Because of my spirituality and belief we incarnate to perform a lesson plan that we planned it before arriving and it involves other souls.Free will an choice can always alter the original plan. People may have actually planned to be a homosexual or have a specific abortion between souls or before soul entry to the fetus. That’s the reason it is none of my or politicians business.

      That is also why I subscribe to the Personal Liberties section of the Libertarian platform:
      1.0 Personal Liberty

      Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

      1.1 Expression and Communication

      We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

      1.2 Personal Privacy

      Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

      1.3 Personal Relationships

      Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

      1.4 Abortion

      Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

      1.5 Crime and Justice

      Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

      1.6 Self-Defense

      The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

  5. Goethe – i think you are either misunderstanding, or deliberately twisting things yourself (what you are accusing me of doing). You are reading into my statements more than what is there.

    “What about your constant and consistent efforts to “force acceptance” of Christian symbols and language and rituals on the many, many non-Christian sects in this country, and yes, agnostics and even atheists!”

    Give specific examples, please, where I am trying to use the judicial system, legislative system, or executive branch to force acceptance of anything christian. Specific examples..

    “You are all about making rules about what other people can and cannot do.” – specific examples please for how i propose using government for this purpose…

    You should open your eyes. It is possible that your views on homosexuality (not sure what they are) are clouding your judgement, not seeing the tyranny of the militant gay agenda (not all gays agree with it…or even the redefinition of marriage). There are other means by which gay people can get the hospital visitation, share property…etc, so redefining marriage for those reason is a ruse.

    To draw the line you must ask first ask the question – does an individual have a right to say no to another individual? the answer is yes.

    I do not want government regulating that relationship to force a yes when someone wants to say no.

    For how do you draw the line. The answer is found in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury baptists: “…the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions…” Whether someone is gay or not should not go into the conversation as to why the vendor would not sell. The question is, was any real harm done other than emotional. With the cake…c’mon its a freaking pastry…how much harm can someone really experience by not getting one particular pastry from one particular vendor? The fact that the couple made a big deal out of it, and government followed through is evidence of the attempt at forced acceptance.

    To be quite honest, a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for almost any reason. Exceptions would be things like, a dying person needed to purchase something to save their life, was fully able to purchase and seller fully able to provide, but the seller refused to sell, and the person died consequently. I would consider that manslaughter in the least.

    If society doesn’t like that business’s practices, then they shouldn’t shop their. There are other legal means than the arm of government to deal with those things. If a majority of society doesn’t care, or agrees with the business, what do you have but tyranny in order to enforce the will of the offended customer on the business. Forcing someone to sell you something against their will is tyranny.

    For a so called libertarian to ignore that says to me they aren’t a libertarian at all. Libertarians would seed the right of the bakery not to sell the cake and tell the gay people to buy a cake somewhere else. If a libertarian says to the bakery, you should stay out of their bedroom…so sell them the cake…that’s not libertarianism.

    • Josh: OK.

      The question is, are you willing to look at it HONESTLY if I take the gargantuan time it will take for me to go back and pick out all the time you “Nanny stated” us?

      I don’t want to put an hour or two into finding YOUR words and then have you blow it off.

      I think Sam pointed out pretty well the ways you are NOT a libertarian.

      • I agree that would be a waste of time to go back, find my previous comments, honestly assess them, then paste them in their context.

        to be clear, I am not 100% libertarian, or 100% conservative…at least as those who define the boundaries of those terms. I’m somewhat a mixture. I also never made a claim to be 100% libertarian.

        But I have not “nanny stated” anyone, because I do not believe it is the purpose of government to represent my views in particular. But I do believe in representative government. Some may consider representative government to be nanny-stating, when they disagree with what the representative government holds to be illegal. If most of society wants to outlaw drugs, its not nanny-stating, its representation. If most of society wants to have a choice about whether or not to purchase health insurance, and government makes a law saying they have no choice…that is nanny stating.

        If you want to discuss individual subjects you think I am a nanny-stater…feel free. It would save the time of searching. So go ahead, post the topics and we’ll see if I’m a nanny stater…

        • Josh — trying to reason with Geothe Bore is causa perduta, since he is unable to think logically.

          The only thing you can do is instruct this kid, but he won’t accept it since he is destined to remain ignorant by lack of brainpower.

        • Josh:

          Ok, we’ll, you apparently don’t think that women are smart enough, or moral enough, to decide if they are not capable of handling a pregnancy. Silly women–let’s nanny state these irrational beings.

          And you think that people who are gay are just dumb or selfish or just plain bad, so we need to have the nanny state restrict their rights, and punish them so that nobody else will be the way they already are.

          And you think a narrow interpretation of Christianity is the swellest thing ever, so you want the nanny state to have symbols and sayings all over the place, to fix those stupid Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Deists, atheists, and others, so they’ll be like you.

          I have not been a proponent of gay marriage, and to tell you the truth, I’m still not used to the idea, but if gay people want to get married, it doesn’t hurt me, and it doesn’t hurt you, and it is the very essence of libertarianism–and the American ideal–to allow individuals do what they want, as long as it doesn’t hurt others. My neighbors were “partners” in every way for 20 years, but they didn’t get the benefits that my wife and I had, because the nanny state said we were somehow “better” than them. That just doesn’t seem right.

          • Goethe – if you can’t win an argument on content, just admit it, or stop arguing. Mockery instead of real content doesn’t make you look as intelligent as you are.

            I have no idea where you get any of the ‘you think’ stuff…no idea. It wasn’t from me. I think you trying too hard to read between the lines.

            I think you forget that gay people have *always* been able to get married. They can hold a ceremony, exchange rings, invite friends and family and have a life long commitment sharing property and inheritance.

            Whether being gay is normal is something society is debating right now. Every time it comes up (like Nationalized Health Care) America rejects it. i have no issue with the debate and discussion. What i take issue with is the one way street some people have when it comes to homosexuality. It seems they only deem the right to believe homosexuality is OK, but not the right to believe its not OK. That’s an issue with me.

            Are we against polygamy as a society? Yes. But If love is love, does that mean society has no say here?
            Are we against incest as a society? yes, but if love is love, does that mean society has no say here?
            If love is love why can’t gay siblings marry each other?
            Are we against adultery as a society? yes, but if love is love, does that mean society has no say here?

            Somehow homosexuality has been treated as some special class and is getting special treatment. I am all for open honest discussion and I think society should decide…I know society has decided. The problem is that anyone who doesn’t agree with homosexuality gets a diatribe along the lines of….”you think that people who are gay are just dumb or selfish or just plain bad, so we need to have the nanny state restrict their rights, and punish them so that nobody else will be the way they already are.”

            that is not open honest discussion, that’s just diatribe.

            • Josh: So now, you’re saying you’re FOR abortion, gay rights,and want to take down all the religious symbols and rules???

              And you can “believe” what you want. If you think being gay–or being black or being short–is a bad thing, that’s up to you. But the question at hand is whether we should have laws withholding rights.

              While it’s true that gays may or may not have a religious ceremony, we’re not talking about a religious ceremony. In fact, 40% of marriages are NOT religious.* We’re talking about the state showering benefits on one kind of couple, and refusing those benefits from another couple.


              And now you’re saying we should have laws against ADULTERY?? (That’s probably a good example: Most people agree that adultery is “wrong,” or at least “counterproductive,” but most people would also agree that the state should NOT punish people for the act.)

  6. Sam – you said this: (a bit of punctuation added)

    “Because of my spirituality and belief we incarnate to perform a lesson plan, that we planned it before arriving, and it involves other souls .Free will and choice can always alter the original plan. People may have actually planned to be a homosexual or have a specific abortion between souls or before soul entry to the fetus. That’s the reason it is none of my or politicians business.”

    On the abortion front, i can see where your beliefs on the origin of life back your beliefs that it is none of your, or government’s business. Am i understanding your statement accurately to mean that: you cannot be against an abortion because before this existence the pre-existent child may have made a deal with the pre-existent mother to abort?

    As to homosexuality, i can also see where your beliefs on the original of life back you belief that this is none of your or government’s business. It seems you are essentially saying they are born that way because they chose to be in a pre-existence.

    But if pre-existent deals and decisions negate existent logic how then can you identify any action as illegal? It seems that any kind of decision or deal could be made in pre-existent state that would negate the normal application of laws against such behavior.

    If a child made a deal with parents to abort…what about abuse? What about any law.

    How can you decide what should or should not be illegal based on an unknown pre-existent decision. There’s no paper trail, so how can you *know* that’s what’s decided.

    In this world we know that people murder for bad reasons. Why would you assume that the parents would always have good reasons for aborting? And that the child always agreed to it?

    Going off of the world today, outside of war, most people take someone else’s life because of either self defense, accident, or murder. I would think that the same group of souls would make the same decision process…so again…how can you know for sure that the aborter made a deal with the abortee they are both OK with? And the same question about any law…how do you know the offender didn’t have some deal with the offendee?

    • Josh;

      My answer and opinion to both your questions about abortion and homosexuality are: Yes – For further debate please read first “Journey of Souls” by Michael Newton, Ph.D.And further tweak and explanation “Destiny of Souls”.

      I further opine “We are spiritual beings not of this world but in this world for a human experience” – Kinda like going to a movie and getting so involved we feel like we are in the movie. And the reasons we go to movies are to have fun or learn something – sometimes both.

  7. Josh…evidently you didn’t read Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist thoroughly. It was only three paragraphs, with the second paragraph answering their request::

    Quote: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions (this means you actions come under the law. You can think whatever)), I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion ( this means ALL faiths), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, (means: go to the church of choice, when you want to)” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State ( The wall of separation means :the church and state are two separate entities and that one cannot encroach upon the other) Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience(meaning: this would include religious reasoning on equal but not privileged footing. Humanists, atheists, agnostics would all be treated the same) That is, arguments would be evaluated on their merits—on t, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

    Thomas Jefferson did not not believe in the God you speak of. He was a Deist and did believe in a Creator.

    No where in the Bible will you find the word abortion. We deduce from reason and Church teachings that abortion is intrinsically evil. Since 2004 one cannot sue medical practitioners for negligence because a fetus is not a “person” or “individual” under state laws, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled. Yet the State has passed laws that have closed all but about two hospitals that do abortions.

    • Tess – i’m not sure whether you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. Jefferson’s religion is a matter of much debate. Secularists claim he was a deist, Christians claim he was a Christian. Jefferson himself said clearly…I am a Christian, he also called Jews ‘deists’ – so it would seem his views of deism and christianity differ from those who define the terms today.

      To be clear – my reference to this quote is to point to a principle that you and I agree on – “..that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions…” I completely agree this means that, as you stated, ‘your actions come under the law. You can think whatever’. It is this principle that Jefferson pointed to as the basis for the separation of church and state. It is also the principle that the militant gay agenda violates.

      In pointing to that quote I was referring to the militant gay agenda and how it violates this principle, using the bakery example. Can a bakery refuse to sell a cake? It would seem to the militant gay agenda that it depends on your reasons. That goes into ‘opinion/thought’ legislation, and not action legislation. There’s a real problem going on in our society and government where people are wanting government to legislate against thought persecution. As if harming someone because they are gay is somehow worse that harming someone for any other reason. It creates a special class of citizen, and violates the equal protection clause…as well as the Jefferson quote i referred to.

      Not sure whether you are against or for abortion. Your statements of fact don’t really point either way.

      While you do not find the word abortion in the bible, you don’t find the name Tess either…is that supposed to mean something, too? What you do find is a law about if two men fighting somehow cause a woman to go into labor and the child dies, one of the men fighting is liable. You also see John the Baptist spoken of as ‘leaping in the womb’ You also read about Samson’s mother given instructions to follow a nazarite diet while carrying samson…because samson would be a nazarite ‘from the womb’. All of these speak to a person being in the womb, and being valued in the womb.

      Plus, even scientifically speaking, the person is there from the point of conception. Effectively all we are physically is an expression of our DNA and genes. DNA and genes are established at conception…so from a natural perspective the person is there. Also, from a natural perspective this is no reason to value life at conception any more or less than near its ending…so life ought to be valued the same.

      But again, not sure whether you are for or against abortion…don’t disagree with what you posted, just not sure which way it was pointing to.

      • Josh — Tess Liehard has no clue on anything (other than posting a copy of a text from somewhere, in her idiotic belief it must be true, since she googled it). LOL!

      • Josh: Nobody is “FOR” abortion. It is disingenuous to even suggest it. It’s a drastic measure that no one “wants.”

        At the risk of irrational attack, let me see if I can give you an analogy:

        Nobody “wants” to declare bankruptcy. Anti-bankruptcy people say there are “alternatives” to bankruptcy–and extremists think a totally ruined rest of the life is justified, if only as an example to others. But most people believe in second chances. And most people believe the decision rightly lies with the individual.

        Back to abortion, someone has to decide if and when an abortion should be “allowed.” I have no respect for people who say “abortion is murder, but then say, “BUT *I* will allow it in case the woman’s life at risk.” Or you might say that YOU will allow it in case of a brutal mass rape. Or you will allow it in case of known horrible birth defects, or if it is known that the fetus could not survive on the outside. Or you will allow it if the father raped the eight-year-old. Or on and on. If YOU want to decide when abortion should be allowed, you are “pro-choice, but only YOU can make the choice.

        • Goethe – I think you need to think through this a little more….*Nobody* is for abortion? If *nobody* wanted abortion…then Roe never would have sued Wade. If *nobody* wanted abortion…Roe v. Wade would never have been taken to the supreme court. If *nobody* wanted abortion, we would not have had 60 Million+ abortions since 1973.

          For bankruptcy, i get your concept, but you can’t equate money with life.

          The things you listed are NOT why people want abortion, they are the reasons they pro-choice people hide behind because the ugliness of what they really think and really want is too horrid to be admitted publicly…Ayn Rand didn’t have such timidity but openly said:

          “A piece of protoplasm [a child in the first 3 months of development] has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term.”

          “Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives.”

          “For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.”

          “For such young people [those who are poor and would *want* to raise the child], pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs.”

          These are the REAL reasons people want abortion in America. 99% of all abortions are for the above reasons, not for the reasons you mentioned. How do I know that…because there is NO WAY those who give those reasons for abortion would limit abortions to only those types of reasons. Those reasons are a foot in the door, nothing more, nothing less.

          • Josh: I stand by my statements:

            Nobody WANTS an abortion. Why would anyone WANT an abortion?? It’s like saying someone WANTS a root canal or a heart bypass. It’s a medical procedure with risks.

            Likewise, I stand by my comparison of abortion to bankruptcy. Both are traumatic events. While it may be true that some individuals don’t take abortion seriously, there are also people who don’t take bankruptcy seriously enough. Does that mean we should outlaw both?

            Let me ask you this: have you ever KNOWN anyone who felt that they had to have an abortion?? And as for regret, don’t you think the regret comes from people wagging fingers at them (indirectly, of course)? There is a stigma for both abortion and bankruptcy.

            But again, do you KNOW anyone who felt they had no choice but to have an abortion?

            • I think you’re splitting hairs on what ‘wants’ means. The way you are defining the term want doesn’t really apply, or you’re just playing word games.

              You cannot compare life to money. So bankruptcy is a decent comparison, but it really falls short…no ones life is at stake, just their livelihood (99% of abortions have nothing to do with the life of the parents, just their livelihoods)

              Yes, as i’ve already stated, I knew a couple who had to have an abortion because attempting to carry the child to term would have killed the mother. I have known other people who had abortions. My best friend in college got a girl pregnant, and they aborted the child. Both of them were from well to do families (foreign from Morocco the other from Venezuela). They aborted to save their future. I have known other people who had abortions. A friend had 3 abortions…she grew up being abused by her dad (she never said whether the children were from that or not, but at least some of them were from boyfriends).

              She really struggled with forgiving herself because she knew she was killing innocent children, regardless of the circumstances…the child is not at fault.

              Here’s a way to look at it:

              If a 5 year old child had been conceived by abuse, and the mother just couldn’t take the reminder anymore, would anyone be OK with killing that child?
              If a 5 month old child’s parents both simultaneously lost their jobs, would anyone be OK with them killing that child?
              If a child with down syndrome was 5 days old, would it be OK for the parents to just leave the child in the hands of a doctor?

              Its amazing that people value life based on location. If you move a child about 1 foot away from the mother, it suddenly has a right to exist, but cover the child with the womb and you hear things like: “Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives.”

              1 foot makes all the difference in the world…

            • Josh:

              (1) No, that’s not “splitting hairs,” it IS the point. NOBODY “wants” an abortion. It’s a drastic act. Everybody knows that. People who are “pro-choice” don’t like the idea of abortion, either. So they should probably be called “pro-woman,” instead, since the point is that women can and should be the ones who decide that issue. Anti-abortion people want the state to punish women.

              (1a) Nobody “wants” an abortion,but for some reason, you think passing a law will prevent it. It won’t. There were abortions before Roe, and there will be lots of abortions in Texas now that the clinics have been shut down–but they’ll be done with coat hangers, and the fact that the women are not going to get sterile treatment will show up as a “reduction in abortions.” Oh, happy day!!

            • Josh:

              (2) I wasn’t comparing life to money. I was comparing crisis to crisis. The decision to have an abortion or a bankruptcy are equivalent in depth and trauma. Period.

              You mentioned that you know a couple (Moroccan and Venezuelan) who got an abortion just because continuing the pregnancy would be inconvenient. That’s your interpretation (judgment). So what’s your attitude toward them? Should we charge them both with murder, or just the woman?

              The point above stands. Abortions WILL happen. I believe that (a) men should not be saying women are incompetent to make the decision, and (b) in most cases the abortion will happen anyway, it’s just nicer for the well-to-do, who can simply go on a “miscarriage” vacation to Europe.

            • Goethe – of course people want to have an abortion. Nobody is forcing them to have it. It is a choice. People choose to do what they want to do. So, yes, people want an abortion. I’m not sure why this is hard for you to see that people want to have abortions.

              Is it a difficult decision? Yes But just because its a difficult decision doesn’t mean people don’t want it. yes they do.

              As for making abortion illegal…I’m not so naive to believe that passing a law will automatically mean that the behavior will stop. I will ask you though, if murder was *not* illegal…do you think people would kill other people more often? If perjury was not illegal, do you think *more* people would lie on the stand?

              Making laws shapes people’s behavior. That’s why Obama and the democrats outlawed not having health insurance.

              For the couple, since what they did was legal you would not charge them, they broke no law. I would have to have made a call on that if convenience abortion was illegal. Generally speaking, yes, i would say that a person is liable for murder charges (not knowing the technicalities of murder). People are charged all the time with multiple murder charges when an unborn child dies along with the murdered mother. I don’t see how it would be any different than that.

              for example, A self seeking guy doesn’t want to take care of a child he helped conceive, the wife (or girlfriend) wants to keep the baby, so he kills her. He should be charged with 2 murders. If abortion is made illegal again, and parents get a convenience abortion, I would be OK with murder charges against them and the doctor. A life is a life, the parents wanting or not wanting the child is not what makes it alive.

            • Josh – I think was Goethe was saying is “Oh Boy, I’m gonna go get knocked-up on purpose, so i can then get an abortion! Sounds like a fun thing to do.”

              Tess – Every state has different laws – in Colorado the baby has to take a breath on its own before a double murder charge can be issued. Just had a case here recently and everybody was going non-linear and now bills are in congress to change it. But, until Dems are out of control, won’t happen.

            • Josh: I stand by my assertion that nobody “wants” an abortion. Just like people don’t “want” to go through an eight-hour heart surgery. They see it as the lesser of two evils.

              It’s like politics. Most peple don’t “want” the guy they vote for. They just DON’T want the other guy more.

              And that’s what abortion is–a horrible, terrible decision, akin to “choosing” to go bankrupt in court. Nobody “wants” either, and that’s what makes it so difficult.

              Made more difficult because of finger-wagging prigs who have no idea of the person’s circumstances or condition.

            • Josh..Let me give you a woman’s view on abortion. Abortion is about choice. This is a factor that people tend to forget. It is not about the fetus because legally the fetus has no rights. While I understand that people will argue that life begins at conceptions and fetus’s have rights because they are people. Other religions, however, do not say so and do not believe so. Further more, the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, so to give a fetus rights based on purely Christian beliefs and not science, would be a violation of this amendment.

              The murder of a pregnant woman is not the practice of medicine but instead a willful act of violence. In most cases the alleged murderer of a pregnant woman is charged with double homicide only if the fetus was viable outside the womb. At eight months into a pregnancy it is illegal (and rightly so) to obtain an abortion (unless the mother’s life is at stake).

              I don’t know where you live but in my part of the country the self seeking man is not a murderer. His unchargeable crime is leaving a woman and child to try to survive without the necessities of every day living.

            • Tess – i don’t forget that women (as well as men) want the ability to choose not to raise a child because it is expensive and life altering. They want their “happiness and fulfillment” and a child interferes with that…at least that’s what pro-choice people like Ayn Rand think.

              It is *not* purely about choice, and never has been. Otherwise would there not be similar outcries and supreme court challenges when the mayor of new york limits the soft drink size *choices* of people? Wouldn’t people start organizations like Planned Softdrinkhood? Or when the federal government limits the light bulb *choices* people can make? Do you not realize that government limits people’s choices all the time?

              In many states, if a man fathers a child he is accountable for child support…no choice in the matter (i agree with this by the way, its as it should be). Is this a men’s rights issue?

              The selectiveness in the objection to choice restriction reveals that the choice excuse is most likely dishonest. I don’t believe that women would give the father of the child a right to choose NOT to pay child support. So it is not about *choice*.

              As for the non-establishment. You are correct, it would violate the constitution to point to the bible as a legal reason that abortions should not happen. However, if people based their right and wrong beliefs on the bible, it would not be a violation of the establishment clause to represent those beliefs. We live in a representative republic where the people’s values are represented by the government, not the government telling people what their beliefs should be.

              Beliefs are not the issue, establishment of a national religion would be the issues that violates the constitution. To give rights to a child at conception has *many* reasons, and would not establish any particular religion, and would not violate the constitution….otherwise Roe v Wade would have used the 1st amendment as justification, not the 14th amendment.

            • Josh:

              You say the “government limits our choices all the time.” Sounds like the teen who wants to go drinking and tells his parents, “everybody’s doing it!!”

              But worse is your choices–outlawing large soda pops and light bulbs. Could you have chosen LESS popular government meddling? And doesn’t that make abortion restriction look equally frivolous?

              Glad you chose to change sides in the discussion.

            • Josh…I noticed that you have quoted or referred to Ayn Rand in reference to pro choice and child rearing. The lady had no children. Ayn Rand was an amphetamine-addicted author’ who said “the United States should be a democracy of superiors only,,with superiority defined by being rich.” Through her books and essays she founded a new philosophy called Objectivism that glorifies selfishness as a virtue. For child rearing or any moral attributes, Ayn Rand Is a poor choice to quote.

              Roe vs. Wade was argued using Amendments 1,4,5,9, and 14.

              Many, many women give the father the choice of not paying child support (if he can be located), and if he accepts, forfeits custody rights. There are many, many good father who accept their responsibility but there are many more who are irresponsible, paying only when the state catches up with them. This is not about choice…it is about character.

            • Tess: These discussions always raise such interesting points.

              I have a young friend/acquaintance who wants to have a baby, because she’s afraid she might not have much time left to do so. I called my attorney to ask if I could “help” her with that project if we signed some legal form. He said, no. He says “child support” has been ruled to be paid to the child, so a woman can’t turn it down. That is, a prior agreement wouldn’t work.

              But once the child is born, the woman becomes his/her legal/financial guardian until the age of 18. So it seems to me that after the child is born, the woman could turn down support. BUT it also seems as if she might also change her mind any time in the next 18 years.

              Back on topic, “child support” is paid TO the child, but it does not begin until AFTER birth. There is no requirement to pay for prenatal care. That’s an important point as to the nation’s view of personhood.

            • Tess – while roe v wade was argued using the privacy related portions of those amendments, the argument was not used to point to religious reasons (ie – the violation of the separation of church and state). But regardless, the court’s decision was based on the 14th amendment not the 1st amendment.

              Your statement:

              “Further more, the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, so to give a fetus rights based on purely Christian beliefs and not science, would be a violation of this amendment.”

              The court did not decide roe v wade based on the reason you stated here, it was 14th amendment and privacy.

              As for Ayn Rand – her quotes – as crazy as they are – accurately reflect the sentiments of the pro-choice crowd.

              Goethe – funny..your selective critique is funny, too. I listed a few things about government limiting choices…including one you agreed with as valid…that men have zero choice in paying child support (…a good thing I might add..).

              My point stands….this is not about women’s choice (ie – freedom) and never has been….and it never has been exclusively about women.

            • Josh: While the 14th Amendment was the primary basis for Roe, it’s not the only basis. I found an analysis at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University Law School:


              FIRST, FOURTH, FIFTH

              It says the 1st comes in play as “right to privacy.”

              “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment. . .in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments,. .in the Ninth Amendment. . .”


              It says there are rights to physician-patient privacy.

              “James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician [argued against standing abortion laws, saying] that they violated his own and his patients’ rights to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship and his own right to practice medicine, rights he claimed were guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.”


              Based on family and sexual rights:

              “On the merits, the District Court held that the fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment,
              in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras. . .or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment. . .”

              FOURTEENTH & NINTH

              Rights reserved to the people:

              “This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

            • Josh: Regarding your response to my tongue-in-cheek comment–sorry to see that you still have not regained any sense of humor.

        • Goethe…somehow, I missed your post. I may not approve of abortion myself (sounds familiar doesn’t it) but I am “pro-choice”. I do believe it is the basic human right of every woman to make that decision. The federal and state government have really bungled this situation. Defunded Planned Parenthood who was the salvation of women. Young girls could get birth control pills and take away the need for abortion. Young mothers,married or not, and children could get good, free health care. Doctors did do abortion in surgical settings and because of this, Planned Parenthood was defunded. Accomplished by a group of self righteous, loud-mouth pretenders.( in Texas).

          • Tess: That is the distinction. Nobody WANTS to have an abortion, but some people think that women are smart enough and moral enough–or just have the right–to decide. Others think that women need to be treated like children (“no, no, no!”).

  8. on topic — “Defining and redefining Reagan has been a national pastime for Republican presidential candidates. It appears 2016 will be no different.”

    Nate — spot on — only Rand Paul can be seen as the NEW Reagan!

    The rest are yapping jackals with no chance, but wannabes — so dangerous riff-raff to our Cause: to elect a Real American as US President for a change, in order to save our nation from what ‘King’ Obama & Evil Co. wants to do to US!

  9. Josh…I don’t believe you will in authentic writings ever find that Thomas Jefferson professed to be a Christian He did express in cpmplimentary terms that the Christian religion had the best code of morals which has ever been offered to man. Thomas Jefferson repeatedly expressed his belief in a deistic Creator and his admiration for Jesus as a moral teacher. In his 1800 campaign for the presidency, Jefferson had critics who argued that he was unfit to hold office because he did not have orthodox religious beliefs. James Madison and Jefferson carried on a long and successful campaign against state financial support for churches in Virginia.

    You know, Josh, everybody has an agenda. I just wasn’t familiar with the gay militant agenda term. I’m not sure of your stance but this is mine. We are all children of God which makes us equal, one and all. We all have sinful flaws so “judge not”. Each person has the right to pick and choose who they cohabitate with. Their lifestyle may not be mine but that is their choice. Yes, I think Gays are entitled to the very same government benefits as any other citizen. They pay the same taxes as you do, maybe more. As for the Baker…he is in business to sell to and serve the public. A customer’s sex life, or how many warrants are waiting to be served or is that lady his wife is none of the Baker’s concern.

    You’re right, that the name Tess, along with abortion is not in the bible. Perhaps both are unworthy. I will concede that I do not approve of abortion, but like the Baker. it is none of my business if it is the choice of another, then the responsibility lies with them. Scientificially speaking, life has not begun at conception. There is a few weeks before the sperm attaches itself onto the womb’s wall and has life. Doctors cannot seem to agree on this subject and there are a lot of timelines on when life begins.

    • Tess Liehard — you state: “You know, Josh, everybody has an agenda”.

      Correct — and yours is to lie as much as you can to support the Criminal in Office Obama’s anti-American agenda and his evil underlings wannabe clones!

      Why are you such an American hater…Tess lLehard?

    • Tess – staying on theology instead of CPAC:

      Jefferson was raised an Anglican but i’m guessing that he began to question the “desecrated writings” (his words) of the KJV at a very early age and started his own “bible”. He believed the Source-Creator-God was the “first cause” versus “ever expanding universe” that Atheists think. In that sense he was a Deist. The 18th century Deists called the Creator a “Watchmaker God”. I believe Jefferson was actually a Theist and for the same reason I do. The Source is a Living God, not static, who created and moved on. As I opine, the Source does not actually tinker but there are millions (maybe more) of Evolved Disciples who don’t interfere in our incarnation movies but are mini Creators and modifiers of this and maybe other universes.

      Jefferson also believed in the Doctrine of Jesus. I did some research on Jefferson but won’t list any URL’s here

      The key about the Bakery is the Gays wanted a wedding cake of them and the couple owning the bakery wasn’t comfortable with that. That are several close by bakeries and they were within their rights to say – No. Had it been “just a cake” the subject would have never come up and they would have built the cake as they have built thousands previously- that is the Gay force that Josh was referring to.

      Life: “A zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism’s development. Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum (female gamete) and a sperm cell (male gamete)—which combine to form the single diploid cell. Such zygotes contain DNA derived from both parents, and this provides all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual.

      A human zygote exists as a single cell before undergoing cleavage, forming blastomeres,[5] and becomes a blastocyst on the fifth day.[6]”

      Sam’s opinion from an earlier comment on a different thread:
      Neville – whatever % of the abortions whose brain synapses haven’t started development (17 – 28 weeks) don’t know they are a “people”, and it’s said that the soul doesn’t coalesce with the fetus till sometime in the second trimester, and if aborted, it was probably pre-planned, or if done by free will choice, then that soul will simply write a new contract with a new mother and father. If you don’t believe in eternal life then it is just plain evolution.

      • Sam – Not agreeing or disagreeing with any statement here, but an observation about some of the facts about zygotes…it seems amazing to me the lengths people will go to in order to justify the lengths to which they will go to avoid responsibility for their actions. One thing i will say is that one cannot determine the origin of life by scientific method. Life is an intangible thing, science can only study tangibles.

        To me, since life is precious, one should err on the side of life.

        Its like a fireman…to what extent should a fireman risk life and limb to save another life? Most all of us would accept that the fireman took on the responsibility to be a fireman, and look down on them for running from *every* fire. We would also not count it against the fireman to not run into a burning building when chance of survival is slim. We would also consider a hero one who would risk all because they consider the life of the endangered as precious.

        Abortion in this country is about people who accept the risk of pregnancy, and then want to run from the responsibility of the child created. Nothing more, nothing less.

        After the free love explosion of the 60’s too many women were left holding the bag when the loser of a man walked out the door. So what was the answer of the 70’s? Self control? No, that’s too old fashion, that’s sooo 50’s. Instead, let’s enable women to act like men, and walk away from the child before its born. Effectively giving women the legal out to act like a loser of a man.

        It would be reasonable if the life of the mother is legitimately at risk to consider whether or not to abort the child…a decision I would not wish on anyone. I had a couple of friends a few years ago who had to make a decision like this. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

        [i realize that’s a tough pill to swallow for some…but it is what it is. If anyone is reading this and are struggling with an abortion you’ve had, the best thing you can do is forgive yourself and go can’t do anything about it now, its in the past, leave it there and just decide not to repeat]

        • Josh – from a personal perspective I agree with every thing in your last comment. My soul would never let my human be involved in an abortion except to save the mother’s life and if it were mother vs child live saving, they would have to decide, but would go with mother if she couldn’t, but would continue a healthy life. When I was young and more foolish and more ignorant I did take chances but there was never any doubt that we would marry and take responsibility if a pregnancy happened. And I think that was the attitude of most of my generation (pre-boomer and early boomer). For most of those generations, Family values and responsibility was automatic for the vast majority. As time marched on and the government helped the poor so did traditional family values and responsibility become deposed and spotty at best. It even started with my generation and i am guilty – prior to my generation divorce was very rare, and non- life threatening abortion was even more rare. Family values and child rearing were taking hits during my pre-teen years.

          Tess – your comment: March 15, 2014 at 11:11 am · Reply (above or below this one):
          I agree – and read probably much of what you did, including “The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson – Page 91” by Charles Sanford – and parts of Monticello. I opine he probably was “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.” During his lifetime, probably not so much anymore. He was a theist in the sense that he believed God tinkered with the universe, stars appearing / disappearing and species disappearing to prevent chaos.(more of Sanford) Natural evolution and Einstein’s speed of light had not been discovered yet. He was very much ahead of his time.

          • Sam: I feel the same way–that I would never have an abortion. But that’s easy to say when one will never confront the crisis.

            I was close. I had a girlfriend who got pregnant (she claimed she could not get pregnant–and told me NOT to use precautions). Never-the-less, I did not suggest that she end the pregnancy. I did not feel I had a right to control her.

            HOWEVER, I am not going to condemn a woman who feels that she cannot deal with a pregnancy. And, you know, I would be a lot more comfortable with the topic if MEN would shut the f up about it. It only affects women, and women should decide if other women should be forced to go to term.

      • Sam…You believe Thomas Jefferson was a theist…I believe he was a deist…and a whole host of people believe he was a Christian. His writings give each of us a glimmer of hope that we are right. Perhaps this was his intention. Before 1784, the only recognized religion was the Anglican Church of England which colonist were expected to attend so I don’t give that much consideration. It is a questionable thought to say Jefferson believed in the Doctrine of Jesus. He respected the teachings of Jesus. If you visit Monticello, they suggest he was a Unitarian. This is my conclusion: Jefferson wrote to Ezra Stiles Ely, “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.” (Letter dated June 2, 1819)

      • Sam: Well put. Another thing to remember about the Founding Fathers is that they were well read and could write well. And as such, they knew the power of words, including metaphors.

        It is much more powerful to say we have “God-given” rights, as opposed to “shucks, this’d be swell.” So references to religion, and tellingly, “nature” may well be just poetic license.

        Another thing to remember is that they were fighting against the Church of England, which was an integral part of their “enemy.” It could be seen as waging war against God–so it would be tactically necessary to claim that God was on OUR side, instead.

        Put another way, Josh’s claims are like saying an atheist actually is a believer if he uses common expressions,such as “thank God” when relieved, “goddamn” when angry, or “God bless you” when someone sneezes.

        In fact, we say “God bless you” because it was once thought that the soul temporarily leaves the body during a sneeze. Does saying the expression mean we believe that today??

  10. Tess – my point about the gay agenda is this – it crosses the line of this principle “..that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions…”

    It seems you and I both agree that in society people have their lifestyle choices, that is each of our rights. However, none of us have the right to demand that our lifestyle choices be accepted.

    By only stating that it is none of your business what other people’s lifestyle choices are…do you also agree that the possible homophobic life choice of the baker is not the business of the gay customers? Should the road not go both ways?

    • Josh…I was born in the American era of “Live and let live.” Education did not remove these thoughts from my brain. To me, business should be conducted as a business. I find no excuse for people who hide behind religion. I do not believe an individual has the right to condemn another’s lifestyle. Jesus walked among the lepers and they were cleansed, the blind receive their sight, the lame could walk, and the deaf could hear. An example we should all try to follow…help but don’t condemn.

      • tess- are you saying that a business owner should *never* be allowed to refuse to sell a product?

        I don’t think you see that you only apply live and let live to some and not others.

        should not both groups (believers in gay normalcy and those who don’t believe its normal) live and let live?

        shouldn’t the gay couple have let the baker ‘live’ instead of suing?

    • Josh: I can’t believe that you can say “people have their lifestyle choices,” and in the next sentence say they have “no right” to have “lifestyle choices accepted.”

      Doesn’t “acceptance” MEAN “allowed”?

      Or are you saying they “can,” but “MAY” not?

      Regardless, you’re still claiming that being gay is a “choice.” Have you never met a gay person??

      • Yes, i have met and known gay people. For everyone that had a *why* answer, none of them said I was born this way. If they didn’t experience abuse or rejection, then they’ve been bi-polar or schizophrenic (well, one bi-polar guy said he always felt different and never had been abused). I knew a girl once who had a lot of gay friends and went to gay bars. When I asked her if a lot of them had abusive pasts she said…practically every single one of them. I have a friend’s son who said he is gay, and has also said he is gay because his dad wasn’t around when he was growing up.

        So, yeah, I’ve known gay people. Being gay is a choice…even if they don’t realize they’re making the choice. You aren’t born that way there is zero evidence that gay people are born gay.

        No, acceptance does not mean allowed. The polygamists are a perfect example. Wife 1 is legally recognized, but wife 2-?? is not legally recognized and socially rejected. However, they still go on their merry way. That’s a perfect example because society is not have to accept polygamy as normal in order for the polygamists to continue their polygamy….and I don’t think wive 2+ gets the ‘marriage’ benefit.

        • Josh:

          Your claim is that ONLY “damaged” people turn gay. My immediate response is that we are ALL damaged, to some extent, so to ask gay person if he’s had a hard life and finding that he has, is hardly proof of cause and effect.

          My best friend through school had a perfect home life. I used to like going to his house, since it was so much more fun than mine. He set off my “gaydar” when we were quite young, but he never made any advances. It was not until college that he finally “came out.”

          But look, if you talk to any male or female on any street in anytown in the USA, and they tell you their life story, you’ll find a dramatic episode or circumstance. Gay people are not any more “twisted” than any of us.

          On the other hand, now that you bring it up, the most fanatical religious people I’ve met have been those who have had horrible experiences (such as routine rape by a father), and they turned to extreme religion because reality was too hard to accept. Now, THAT is likely cause and effect. . . .

          • Goethe – I never claimed that ONLY damaged people turn gay. You seem to be setting up another strawman argument to defeat…an argument I am not making.

            It is undeniable that a very large portion of the gay community has either chemical imbalances or a history of abuse and rejection. Obviously not all.

            The current argument under way that ALL gay people are born that way is ridiculous. There are tons of people who are gay where homosexuality is a symptom of a larger issue. If we tell them their homosexuality and all their feelings are normal, then they will live the rest of their lives in a messed up state. What kind of compassion is that? The dishonesty of the argument for the pro-gay movement is preventing society from honestly addressing these issues, and people are living their lives in pain they should not have…pain they are told is normal…that they were born with.

            I believe the partial reason for the dishonesty is because they likely know that if this were truly discussed openly the ranks of the homosexual community would reduce, as would the ranks of those in the militant gay agenda army. Liz Cheney experienced their onslaught…as did the citizens of California who amended their constitution by popular vote only to have it overturned by a small portion of their society.

            • Josh – I think you misinterpreted what I said about choosing a gay life before arriving. From my studies we may pick a gay life but we are not born that way. The veil between our non-physical eternal memories and an incarnation memory set, slowly becomes opaque by the time we are about 5 yrs old and everything is brand new to us. So who knows what trigger we selected or event(s) or someone else’s influence. Plus we still have free choice and will and can always decide yea or nay almost any decision throughout our lives. We will still learn while here but it may not b e the exact gameplan we set up before arriving for an incarnation. It’s basically a crapshoot with our free will capability.

            • Sam: I don’t think we will ever know why humans are the way they are. But I do NOT believe being gay is a “choice” of ANY kind. A “choice” is a conscious decision that is made in the mind. You can choose to buy a new car. A lesser “choice” is deciding whether to go to work, because of the repercussions on one side of the scale. And you can “choose” to have an abortion.

              I do NOT believe that anyone “chooses” to be gay. Anti-gay folks try to sell the idea that every morning, gay people wake up and think, “Hmmm. Yep, I believe I’ll continue to be gay today.” It is NOT a “choice,” it’s a way someone IS.

              It’s like people who CRAVE chocolate. While it is true that they can “choose” whether to eat that chocolate, they do NOT “choose” to be “a person who craves chocolate.” So the question is, who has the right to tell those people they are not allowed to eat chocolate, or the right to punish them if they do, or at least withhold benefits others get?

              That’s what we’re talking about

            • Goethe – I see your points, but I contend that homosexuality is a emotionally driven physical response. In a way desire and love can physically drive all of us. We see someone and we are attracted – for about 75%(??) of us if we (or they) are already “taken”, we just lick our lips and move on. If not, then we pursue to see if mutual and next step -.most often there is some kind of a trigger when instantly our emotions change. And it isn’t just physical. I’ll grant that almost all men are nymphos and probably 50% of women – but I am speaking about that trigger that says I sense feelings for this person. There are also other triggers (that lead to decisions) like what you talked about and we choose to or not pursue them.

              All of us when young, either naturally will choose male oriented toys, or female oriented, and that is usually dependent on our ecology as well. It is still a choice and how we are most comfortable. There are also youth that are only comfortable doing what the opposite gender does and they don’t know why.

              Again with my studies about “LBL – Life between Lives” I’ve read that God as well as all of us are androgynous when in a non-physical energy state. so when we incarnate we can chose to be male or female. while in the pure energy state though and androgynous we usually prefer a set of masculine or feminine roles. Someone could feel one role and incarnate in the other role and be uncomfortable and assume their comfortable role when in the energy state.

              This is really “only the Shadow knows” thing.

            • Sam: I am not so sure a person’s sexual orientation is controlled by environment. I think there are a lot of facets to one’s personality.

              I think sexual orientation is like loving chocolate–most people do, some people don’t. If you don’t like chocolate, you’re “not normal,” only in the sense that you’re in the minority. Why do some people not like chocolate? Were they born that way, or did a giant chocolate bar fall on them, or some other trauma?

              Here’s another thing–some white women ONLY want a black man (I know, I’ve been told, straight out). Is that a “choice”? I don’t believe it. It’s a deep-seated need, yearning, desire. Why don’t these women like white guys? I don’t know, but I can tell it’s not a simple “choice.” They just don’t respond to a white guy as a prospective mate–not even considered an option.

            • Josh:

              -/-/-“BORN THAT WAY”
              You said:
              “NONE of them said I was born this way. If they didn’t experience abuse or rejection, then they’ve been bi-polar or schizophrenic”

              Now you say, “I never claimed that ONLY damaged people turn gay.” If NONE of gays are NOT damaged goods, how can ANY be otherwise??

              Your whole point was that being gay is a perversion caused by some kind of trauma.

              [It’s really your dogmatic approach that turns me off. If your attitude were, these are nice enough people, but I don’t feel comfortable with gay marriage yet, I’d have to say I agree. But I’m not going to outlaw everything I feel uncomfortable with.]

              You keep coming back to the idea that being gay is not “normal.” Well, if you look up the meaning, it’s just as true to say blondes and blue-eyed people are also “not normal.” Nobody is arguing that the “norm” is hetero, because heteros have the numbers on their side.

              -/-/-DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
              I see no power in your argument. Changing the definition of marriage does NOT hurt you. If the change was to restrict it to whites or Christians or those over 30,then yeah, that’s not fair to someone. But to change the definition to be fair to MORE people does NOT hurt you. YOUR definition does not change at all.

            • Goethe – you say “I’m not going to outlaw everything I feel uncomfortable with.” – neither am I. I am not talking about outlawing anythhing…name 1 thing in this message string on homosexuality I have talked specifically about outlawing? One thing…

              My approach is no more or less dogmatic than yours…you just disagree with it.

              You are trying to find a contradiction in my statements that is not there…here is my full statement that you only pulled pieces of:

              “i have met and known gay people. For everyone that had a *why* answer, none of them said I was born this way. If they didn’t experience abuse or rejection, then they’ve been bi-polar or schizophrenic (well, one bi-polar guy said he always felt different and never had been abused).”

              To be clear…these are *all* that I have met and known personally.

              Traumas and chemical imbalances do lead to homosexuality in some…that’s a fact. It’s not a popular fact, its not a politically correct fact…but its a fact. Not *all* that would be ridiculous to make an *all* statement like that

              “You keep coming back to the idea that being gay is not “normal.” Well, if you look up the meaning, it’s just as true to say blondes and blue-eyed people are also “not normal.” Nobody is arguing that the “norm” is hetero, because heteros have the numbers on their side.”

              I’m not talking about what I myself consider normal, but society as a whole. Society does not consider homosexuality to be normal behavior. It is seen as a personal choice by society, this is why when given a chance to vote 9 times out of 10 (even in California) the people vote that marriage is 1M1W…not 1M1M, 1W1W, 2M1W, 2M2W,,,etc…society defines normal relationships as 1M1W.

              -/-/-DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
              “I see no power in your argument. Changing the definition of marriage does NOT hurt you. If the change was to restrict it to whites or Christians or those over 30,then yeah, that’s not fair to someone. But to change the definition to be fair to MORE people does NOT hurt you. YOUR definition does not change at all.”

              It hurts society when something that is fully within the scope of society and government to determine the legal definition, is decided by those who hold the minority viewpoint. This is my country, my society, my government…I have as much say as you do in what defines marriage. If we took a vote (which people have) and the majority loses…how is the majority not hurt? Who decides what’s fair? Does the majority or minority decide what’s fair. this is about representation, in addition to the moral issues.

              People have a right to decide what is right and wrong, and what does and doesn’t hurt them. They don’t have a right to impose that on others, but in a representative government, they do have a right to representation. To deny them the right of representation is to hurt people.

            • Josh:

              You said:
              “name 1 thing in this message string on homosexuality I have talked specifically about outlawing? One thing…”

              Well, duh.

              Gay marriage, silly.


              Humor check. You’ve been so strident and unwilling to recognize any humor lately. See if you like this:

              Heard about a comic in which a husband and wife are sitting in bed, and the husband turns to the wife and asks,

              “What do you think about some-sex marriage?”

            • Apparently the wife wasn’t for redefining it…

              Goethe – as for illegality…that’s where you apparently don’t understand. And apparently many people who are for redefining the legal definition of marriage. Gay people can already get married, I’ve already mentioned this. They can hold a ceremony, invite friends and family, share property, name inheritance, have a life long commitment…etc. The most that happens is they don’t get a few government benefits…which is debatable.

              Lack of recognition and illegal are 2 different things.

              It seems there are people who think that the only actions possible by people are those written on the books. It would make sense then why some people think gay people can’t get married…there isn’t any government text that says they can, so they don’t believe a lifelong commitment is possible. I wonder if there is a law on the books about how to properly drink water? It would seem that those who are for redefining marriage don’t think they can drink water either…since there isn’t any specific legal definition for how to drink water properly….

              ….and since there is no specific law defining how to drink water…i guess that outlaws drinking water, doesn’t it.

            • Josh: Actually, I sent the joke for another reason than to see if you have any sense of humor left.

              The joke was about a hetero couple who no longer have sex. And that’s part of the point. Gay marriage is not really about sex. It’s about love. And it’s about having rights and preferential treatment that single folks don’t have.

              So if you’re disgusted with the thought of men having sex (it sorta grosses me out, too), that’s really beside the point.

              My guess is that if this were only about lesbian marriage, the people screaming against it would change their mind if they could watch. . . .

  11. Josh…My thoughts…A successful business does not cater to the owner. . it is the needs and desires of the consumer that is foremost. If a business owner does not want to serve a particular clientele a sign should be posted on the door, as “we do not sell wedding cakes to Gays”. Then the baker would not have been libel. All over the South, you will see signs “No shirt…No shoes…No service”. I have no fault with honesty.

    Whether I believe that Gay is normal or not is of no importance. I do not believe being the town drunk is normal. I would not ask a person if they were gay anymore than I would ask if they were Catholic, or penniless, or dying before forming a friendship tie. It is how the person responds to the occasion. That I call live and let live.

    • Tess – your suggestion to the Bakery owners may be a little too rude or upfront – something like “I am a Fundamental Monotheist, please don’t ask for Service that would violate my beliefs” I would probably chase some away but may bring others.

    • Tess: People who are anti-gay play word games. Very technically speaking, being gay is not “normal.” which means “conforming” to what is “typical” (American Heritage).

      If you are blonde or blue eyed, you are also “not normal.”

  12. Sam….For such a “Gruffie” you do have a beautiful spiritual side. If you have an unpleasant me the only answer is upfront and open. Not one person out of ten would understand the beliefs of a” Fundamental Monotheist” and you would be in court with the Baker.

    • Tess – I think that was a backhanded compliment, thank you – that sign was for the Baker, why chase away customers or invite trouble with a straightforward “I don’t do faggot or dyke weddings!” Me personally, i think i explained earlier why someone might be homosexual. While straight – throughout my life including the service and many workers who were personal friends, i’ve run with gays both male and female. A company I worked for had a female HR who was gay and our workforce in that location was about 25% gay. no one thought or cared one bit, And I have always supported their rights for insurance, next of kin, family and surviving spouse.

      What I don’t have a lot of tolerance for are the forceful type (as Josh described) who overly demand, combative demonstrations, or sue just because they can. Much like the demonstrators of ‘Nam that affected the morale of the service people and turned the general public against both the service people and the conflict and even worse the uneducated – low-info young who were negatively influenced; while maybe a relative was in-country.

      A difference in demonstrating is Tea Party vs Wall Street.

      • Sam: I agree. With the swift (I think too swift) movement toward gay rights, it is sad that some gay people are so adamant about it.

        But I disagree with you about what such actions do. In the case of Vietnam, in the 60s, the public was moving solidly against the war (even Romney)–because Americans hate all long wars. And they were questioning what we were doing over there, why, and what was the plan?

        This was helped along by peaceful demonstrations and folk songs–which raised awareness. BUT the violent demonstrations did NOT further their cause. (The idea of using violence to fight violence is insane.) The result of the violent demonstrations actually caused the BACKLASH against the protestors (by people who were not really pro-war).

        I think gays who are too boisterous risk causing a similar backlash. That doesn’t mean their cause is wrong, but gays should really shut up, because things are already going their way.

    • Tess: That’s probably true–a sign wouldn’t authorize discrimination. (But I still would never antagonize someone fixing my food!)

      It would be like putting up a sign that says “we serve white people.” That would be legal, and a person would have to be “not served” before they could take action.

      • Goethe Bore — Freedom means I can put a sign on my PRIVATE Business stating: “We serve to all EXCEPT Idiots like Geothe Bore”…!

        Freedom denotes not only with whom you can do business, but, also with whom you do not wish to — otherwise, you are NOT a Free Citizen, but a Subject to a Despotic Gov!

        Naturally a clueless idiot like you, would not understand Logic, nor what Freedom ACTUALLY means!

  13. Freedom denotes not only with whom you can do business, but, also with whom you do not wish to — otherwise, you are NOT a Free Citizen!

    If any new US Government does not recognize ALL The Rights of Free American Citizens, than such a Gov usurps our constitutional rights as Free People and treats US as Subjects of the State! Such a Gov is therefore, despotic, and must be overturned, if we value our Freedoms as Free Americans!

  14. NEW TOPIC:

    I have been watching the “Crimea crisis” carefully. Ukraine was there at the founding of the Russian state. In fact, the word “Ukraine” means “borderlands,” and they don’t like the traditional name, “THE Ukraine,” since it suggested that Ukraine was just the borderlands of Russia–like a suburb.

    But Crimea and eastern Ukraine speak Russian, and most people in Crimea do consider themselves Russian. SO should we consider yesterday’s referendum simply a matter of self-determination?


    Ron says the overthrow of the Ukrainian leader was a US-backed coup. He says billions of US dollars were pumped into Ukraine to destabilize the country, and that sanctions against Russia are an “act of war.”


    Rand started out saying McCain’s complaints about Russia were “misguided.” He said,“The Ukraine has a long history of either being part of the Soviet Union or within that sphere.”

    THEN, three days later, Rand backpedaled, saying, “The United States should make it abundantly clear to Russia that we expect them to honor the December 1994 Budapest Memorandum,”

    NOW, Rand did an op-ed in Time Magazine, entitled, “Sen. Rand Paul: U.S. Must Take Strong Action Against Putin’s Aggression.”

    I have said it before. Rand is QUITE different from Ron, and those who admire Ron should look at Rand with skepticism.

  15. NEW TOPIC #2:

    Some Conservatives and Libertarians are now leading the charge for an increase in the minimum wage.

    The American Conservative says that elites say more education is the answer, but a degree is only needed for 20% of jobs. Also, wages become less valuable due to inflation.

    The Daily Caller says increased minimum wage would actually SHRINK government:

    Cato says increasing the minimum wage will stop illegal immigration:

  16. Goethe…I read all your attachments…and, there was a point or two in each that struck home with me. The political surge for increasing the minimum wage is for getting the vote. Texas has fallen into disgrace by sinking into a tie with Mississippi for the highest percentage of low-wage workers in the country. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2010, 550,000 Texans earned no more than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. That figure rs much higher now, thanks to our Governor, using low cost labor in his ads and TV pitches trying to get corporations to come to Texas. A lot of votes can be garnered from suggesting the minimum wage should be raised. This figure does not include our illegal workforce…they work for less income, however, they come out with more money in their pocket. It isn’t always education’s fault, inquire and you will find many men and women, over forty, with a Bachelor Degree working in Walmart, Sam,s,Target for under 10.00 dollars an hour. These companies make millions and millions in net profit each year. This is Austrian Economics.

    • Tess: I think the thing that surprised me was that Republicans are trying to co-opt typically Democratic issues. Suddenly, most of the talk is about poor people.

      It’s particularly interesting that libertarians are supporting the minimum wage increase, since that is a government mandate.

      • Goethe: I would think that the only Libertarian or TeaParty supporting minimum wage increase are those not thinking. The change in minimum wage changes the baseline for wages U.S. wide. Unions and many businesses are setup that wages are a baseline + % of wages above the baseline. For instance – if wages go from $7 to $10 (~+40% inc) and someone was making $25, they will expect their pay to go up accordingly (~$10 => $35). It does affect wages everywhere. And either Obama is stupid, which he isn’t, then he is purposefully fk’g with the total economy some more.

        • Sam: No, that’s why I provided the links. There ARE now conservatives–and even libertarians–who are calling for an increase in the minimum wage. I noted the reasons they cite, including (but not limited to) health of the overall economy, fairness–since inflation robs proportionally more from low-wage people, and to stop illegal immigration. I brought it up because it’s a striking and historic change, not because I was promoting the idea.

          The Republican establishment is “talking the talk” in order to blunt the Democratic issue, since this year’s election seems to be shaping up as Obamacare vs. Minimum Wage. If both sides are talking “minimum wage,” that neutralizes the Democrats’ campaign.

    • Tess Liehard — another embarrassingly clueless post by you…to conclude your liberal rant with a fallacious “conclusion”: This is Austrian Economics.

      An independent observer would ask: “Have you lost your mind?”

      But not I, since I have seen all the pervasive, irrational, mendacious, pernicious and ALWAYS ILLOGICAL liberal tripe posts that you have made here so far, and are unashamed to continue to do so, and would respond: “No, since she has none.”

      • Oblivious: Have you ever thought of using a fact in an “argument.” You know, just because you’re being obnoxious doesn’t qualify as an “argument.”

      • Kooky Goethe & Tess Liehard — ever think of starring in another movie like ‘Dumb and Dumber’…?

        The two of you could not recognize a logical argument even if hit on the head with a tome of Aristotle’s’ Organon…..

Comments are closed.