Tuesday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Tuesday, February 5. 2019

Colorado man fights off, kills mountain lion during trail run, suffers serious injuries

Juvenile lions are as stupid as runners in lion country

Anti-Catholicism Lives Loudly in Democrats

Rampant political correctness has pretty much overridden quaint notions of academic freedom in America’s educational institutions.

Cuomo announces income tax revenues have dropped by $2.3B

Drive the rich away. Brilliant.

Cheerleading Infanticide Might Just Be The Tipping Point For Democrats

Democrats’ Inexorable Abortion Logic Has Finally Caught Up With Them - From unrestricted late-term abortions to infanticide, Democrats are now facing the consequences of a position that never had a limiting principle.

What Progressive positions have limiting principles? The road to Utopia is long.

Peterson: It’s ideology vs. science in psychology’s war on boys and men. The coup of the American Psychological Association undertaken by the ideologues is now complete:

We cannot allow ideology and political correctness to prevail over science. The Boys and Men document is propagandistic to a degree that is almost incomprehensible.

The Left Has Decided Wealth Is Just Evil

How Far Left Will the Democrats Lurch in 2020?

Williamson: Big Biz is the future of the US

Massive Migrant Caravan Expected to Reach Texas Border Monday or Tuesday

The GOP Foreign Policy Resistance Against Trump. Rank-and-file Republicans have been loyal to the president’s agenda. But on foreign policy, party leaders are working to undermine the commander-in-chief’s isolationist tendencies.

He's not isolationist.

Whatever it is, they're against it. If Trump wants peace, they want war

Trump’s Convoluted Foreign Policy Statements To CBS

Venezuela’s Path from 4th to 82nd Wealthiest Nation

From a devoted Lefty: The Bolivarian God That Failed

The Rich Kids of Venezuela - including Socialist revolution leader Hugo Chavez’s daughter - flaunt their wealth with fist-fulls of cash and lavish holidays while the nation starves

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:12 | Comments (97) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Re: The Rich Kids of Venezuela ... flaunt their wealth with fist-fulls of cash and lavish holidays while the nation starves

Wait a minute... I thought socialism was supposed to reduce "inequality."

#1 mudbug on 2019-02-05 09:07 (Reply)

Well, when it comes to equality some are simply more 'equal' than others.

#1.1 JLawson on 2019-02-05 09:18 (Reply)

You mean they raised tax rates and revenue fell? That's funny; you could say it's a real Laffer.

#2 another guy namded Dan on 2019-02-05 09:15 (Reply)

another guy namded Dan: You mean they raised tax rates and revenue fell? That's funny; you could say it's a real Laffer.

The federal government effectively raised taxes for New York State residents by capping the state income tax deduction, which disproportionately affected blue states.

#2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 09:41 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Cuomo said Albany can’t go to the well and tax the wealthy again because that would only worsen the situation, citing “anecdotal” evidence that high-income New Yorkers are already fleeing the state to lower-tax jurisdictions.

He offered no figures to back up the claim.

#2.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-02-05 09:53 (Reply)

Maybe the blue states shouldn't be so profligate in their spending?

Oh, wait - that'd be silly. Keeping the unions bought is EXPENSIVE.

#2.1.2 JLawson on 2019-02-05 09:54 (Reply)

JLawson: Maybe the blue states shouldn't be so profligate in their spending?

Perhaps, though it is worth pointing out that New York has one of the highest GDPs per capita of any state. In any case, the decrease in tax revenue was largely due to the punitive federal tax law.

#2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 10:02 (Reply)

Progressive complains about wealthy progressives being taxed too much.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

#2.1.2.1.1 Rusty on 2019-02-05 10:16 (Reply)

That's a pun, son.
The Laffer curve predicts that there is a point at which increasing effective tax rates reduces collections, because evasion becomes a better option than paying up.

The point is that capping the SALT deduction, as you suggest, raised effective New York tax rates. The issue is whether it was fair for people outside of the state of New York to be required to subsidize New York state government spending. A majority, through their elected representatives, said "no".

#2.1.3 Another guy named Dan on 2019-02-05 09:56 (Reply)

Another guy named Dan: The issue is whether it was fair for people outside of the state of New York to be required to subsidize New York state government spending. A majority, through their elected representatives, said "no".

Technically not a majority, as Trump was not elected by a majority, and the bill required his signature.

The issue is whether it is fair for so-called anti-tax Republicans to use the tax code to punish their political opponents by taxing money that is being used to pay taxes.

#2.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 10:07 (Reply)

Normal person: Hmm, tax revenues are down in high tax states.

ZachrielNPC: Trump's fault.

Normal person: I thought you guys liked taxing the rich.

ZachrielNPC: Not when it helps Trump.

Normal Person: Do you actually stand for anything at all?

ZachrielNPC: Yes. Defeating Donald Trump.

#2.1.3.1.1 Rusty on 2019-02-05 10:38 (Reply)

The limit on the SALT deduction was placed into the tax code under the auspices of a duly elected Congress. Period. End of story. If you're going to say that because Trump did not veto the law, he is personally responsible of it makes you utterly incompetent to discuss the issue.

If you want to rewrite the Constitution, do it. Get it passed and ratified. Then we can talk about your mythical land.

#2.1.3.1.2 another guy named Dan on 2019-02-05 13:00 (Reply)

another guy named Dan: [i]The limit on the SALT deduction was placed into the tax code under the auspices of a duly elected Congress.[/i

Sure, unlike your previous statement. However, just because it was enacted by a duly elected Congress doesn't mean it was wise or fair. Your original comment suggested that New York State increased their taxes, when the increase was due to a change in the federal law.

#2.1.3.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 13:40 (Reply)

Red herring alert!

#2.1.3.1.2.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-02-05 13:53 (Reply)

Take that claptrap up with Woodrow Wilson and his "expert" administrative state.

#2.1.3.1.3 indyjonesouthere on 2019-02-05 15:02 (Reply)

Dems: We know the IRS is squeezing you harder, so we thought we'd just put a screw-clamp on your nutsack just because we can.

Great strategy.

#2.1.4 Rusty on 2019-02-05 10:10 (Reply)

That's one way of putting it. You could also say the Feds cut out a loop hole for the rich. Or you could say that the Feds reduced their subsidy to NY rich. Or you could say that the fed is making the rich "pay their fair share."

#2.1.5 mudbug on 2019-02-05 10:10 (Reply)

mudbug: Or you could say that the fed is making the rich "pay their fair share."

You could say all sorts of things. But claiming the Republicans were "making the rich 'pay their fair share' " is laughable.

#2.1.5.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 10:16 (Reply)

Which simply proves you are nothing but a partisan hack.

#2.1.5.1.1 Rusty on 2019-02-05 10:24 (Reply)

Z: ... claiming the Republicans were "making the rich 'pay their fair share' " is laughable.

Why?

#2.1.5.1.2 mudbug on 2019-02-05 10:46 (Reply)

mudbug: Why?

Heh. Seriously? Republicans have spent more than a generation railing against progressive taxation. If by "fair share", you mean cutting taxes and running up deficits, then sure. But if you mean by "fair share" an increase in taxes, then no. Republicans have not take this position. Now, you might consider another motive, one that raises taxes primarily on people in blue states, while lowering taxes elsewhere.

#2.1.5.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 11:07 (Reply)

The cap on the deductibility of state and local taxes applies equally to each and every state.

As Megan McArdle put it, "For decades, high-tax states with a lot of wealthy residents enjoyed a hefty subsidy from the rest of America....Blue-state taxpayers may finally have to confront the full cost of the government they want."

You wanted it, pay for it.

#2.1.5.1.2.1.1 Hank_M on 2019-02-05 11:20 (Reply)

Great point, Hank.

Progs wear hypocrisy like it's a cool fashion accessory.

#2.1.5.1.2.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-02-05 11:34 (Reply)

Well stated and it works for California and will soon apply to Colorado as well.

#2.1.5.1.2.1.1.2 annieoakley on 2019-02-06 21:10 (Reply)

Hank_M: As Megan McArdle put it, "For decades, high-tax states with a lot of wealthy residents enjoyed a hefty subsidy from the rest of America....Blue-state taxpayers may finally have to confront the full cost of the government they want."

Sure, the Republicans raised taxes on people primarily in blue states because fairness. {wink, wink, nudge, nudge}

#2.1.5.1.2.1.1.3 Zachriel on 2019-02-07 08:51 (Reply)

"Heh. Seriously? Republicans have spent more than a generation railing against progressive taxation."

Every Republican president for generations has implemented a progressive tax.

I seriously wonder if you are capable of being intellectually honest at all.

#2.1.5.1.2.1.2 Rusty on 2019-02-05 11:27 (Reply)

Wonder no more.

#2.1.5.1.2.1.2.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-02-05 11:56 (Reply)

LOL.

#2.1.5.1.2.1.2.1.1 Meh on 2019-02-05 12:23 (Reply)

Republicans have for a generation railed against high taxes too but you say the change in the tax law that limits deductions for state and local taxes (for high income earners) is raising taxes. My suggestion is just as valid as yours.

But the interesting thing is that the Democrats are all about making the "wealthy pay their fair share" or "doing away with tax loop holes." Now that the Trump tax reform does that, Democrats are not happy. Why?

#2.1.5.1.2.1.3 mudbug on 2019-02-05 11:52 (Reply)

mudbug: My suggestion is just as valid as yours.

Heh. Sure. Republicans wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy, which is why they cut taxes on the wealthy, but then raised taxes on high earners in primarily blue states.

#2.1.5.1.2.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 13:44 (Reply)

Sooo, somehow the "wealthy" is no longer synonymous with "high earners"?
Do you kiddiez even understand what y'all write?

#2.1.5.1.2.1.3.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-02-05 14:06 (Reply)

Gasbot flatly refuses to analyze why all the left's many goodnesses and virtueses and unicornses invariably hinge on force and its firstborn, violent tyranny.

After all, you can't force the artificial, temporary, and ruinous equalization of human outcome - in direct contradiction of fundamental constitutional values - in any way other than clawbacks. You have to take it back by force.

Nice people. The idea of reforming the system genuinely and ethically - also a structural value - never occurred to them.

#2.1.5.1.2.1.3.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-02-05 14:41 (Reply)

"Trump’s convoluted foreign policy statements to CBS"

Read The Art of The Deal. Trump doesn't show his cards. The media wants to pin him to the wall and he outsmarts them so it pisses them off and they put out a negative headline as payback. It is stupid to tell the MSM exactly what you are going to do in foreign policy. That should be an opportunity to deceive your enemy not inform them. But better yet to show them nothing and to make them think everything is on the table. Trump is a genius. The MSM are stupid.

#3 Anon on 2019-02-05 09:18 (Reply)

Anon: It is stupid to tell the MSM exactly what you are going to do in foreign policy. That should be an opportunity to deceive your enemy not inform them.

The problem with that is that you deceive your friends and allies as well.

#3.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 10:17 (Reply)

As if you have the slightest notion what goes on behind closed doors in the halls of power.

You are truly moronic in your sycophancy to the left.

Fat, stupid, and parroting CNN is no way to go through life, son.

#3.1.1 Rusty on 2019-02-05 10:29 (Reply)

re Cheerleading Infanticide Might Just Be The Tipping Point For Democrats

Or not.

Time and time again the Dems have forced unpopular policies onto the little people. Seems to have had little effect on their political fortunes and it is how they have won the cultural war.

#4 feeblemind on 2019-02-05 09:46 (Reply)

feeblemind: Time and time again the Dems have forced unpopular policies onto the little people. Seems to have had little effect on their political fortunes and it is how they have won the cultural war.

Part of the problem may be the argument by falsehood, such as saying that Democrats are "cheerleading infanticide".

#4.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 09:53 (Reply)

Ahem.

#4.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 10:06 (Reply)

Bill Carson: Ahem.

The bill restricts abortions after 24 weeks to cases to protect the life or health of the mother, consistent with the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. It does not authorize infanticide.

#4.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 10:13 (Reply)

As someone once said, the difference between a viable fetus and a baby... is a few inches.

#4.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-02-05 10:26 (Reply)

The NY bill allows late term abortions. There is no medical reason for an abortion at nine months - or eight or seven or six for that matter. That means the "health" reason for the abortion is the "psychological" health of the mother. Since we're talking about second and third trimester abortions, we are talking about viable babies. Are you saying that the mother's mental health is improved by having an abortion relative than giving the baby up for adoption?

But we're not just talking about NY's abortion law. We also have the attempt to allow abortion up till birth in Virginia. That's a workable definition of infanticide already, but then the idiot governor of Virginia said he knew what would happen. The baby would be born and the doctor(s) and the mother would then have a discussion about what to do next. The baby is born and the mother (not the father) and the doctors can decide to kill it or let it die. That is the definition of infanticide.

#4.1.1.1.2 mudbug on 2019-02-05 10:43 (Reply)

mudbug: There is no medical reason for an abortion at nine months - or eight or seven or six for that matter.

The earlier a non-viable fetus is discovered, the more likely an abortion will be the safer option for the mother. Closer to term, it is generally safer to deliver the baby. However, some abnormalities are not discovered until late in pregnancy, and some abnormalities, such as fetal lymphangioma, can be a threat to the mother.

#4.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 11:03 (Reply)

Z: ... some abnormalities, such as fetal lymphangioma, can be a threat to the mother.

How is a malfunction of the lymphatic system in the baby harmful to the mother?

Neither the NY nor the VA bill require the baby to be non viable or that the actual physical health of the mother is at stake. The "threat" to mental health is all that is required. So I'll ask again, how would a late term abortion abortion be more beneficial to a mother's mental health than delivering the baby and putting it up for adoption?

#4.1.1.1.2.1.1 mudbug on 2019-02-05 11:46 (Reply)

mudbug: How is a malfunction of the lymphatic system in the baby harmful to the mother?

The fetus may die in the womb, which is dangerous to the mother and can lead to sepsis. An ex utero intrapartum treatment can be used, but may render the woman infertile. This woman was faced with such a choice.

mudbug: Neither the NY nor the VA bill require the baby to be non viable or that the actual physical health of the mother is at stake.

That is correct. Since 1973, the law in the United States, per the Supreme Court is that the health of the mother includes her mental health, and that abortion laws must allow for such exceptions.

mudbug: So I'll ask again, how would a late term abortion be more beneficial to a mother's mental health than delivering the baby and putting it up for adoption?

Adoption is almost always the better option.

#4.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 13:56 (Reply)

Z: The fetus may die in the womb, which is dangerous to the mother and can lead to sepsis.

I haven't found anything that Lymphangioma could cause death. In any case, if the baby dies, then "aborting" it can't be infanticide which is the topic.

Z: ... Adoption is almost always the better option.

That really wasn't the question. The question was whether there was a difference in the mental health of the mother if the baby was aborted late in its term or if the baby was delivered and put up for adoption. If there isn't then late term abortion has nothing to do with the health of the mother and is all about killing a baby.

#4.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2019-02-05 14:33 (Reply)

mudbug: In any case, if the baby dies, then "aborting" it can't be infanticide which is the topic.

Gee whiz. You abort the fetus before it dies to avoid the complications involved with having a dead or dying fetus in your womb. This is the situation that faced Lindsey Paradiso above. She was willing to risk infertility, but the odds were that the fetus would not survive to viability.

In the olden days, such a woman would have simply died. Instead, she was actually able to hold her baby for a short while.

mudbug: The question was whether there was a difference in the mental health of the mother if the baby was aborted late in its term or if the baby was delivered and put up for adoption.

That would depend on the woman, wouldn't it? We would never suggest abortion unless the circumstances were dire.

#4.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 14:44 (Reply)

"We would never suggest abortion unless the circumstances were dire."

Public Service Announcement: Satan would like everyone to know that he would never suggest abortion unless the circumstances were DIRE!

That's why Satan is asking for your support in passing a law that allows abortion in ANY and ALL circumstances!

Thank you for your support!

#4.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-02-05 15:00 (Reply)

Zachriel @ 10:30 AM: No restrictions whatsoever on cannibalism, and here are 46 logically incoherent reasons why ...

Zachriel @ 10:37 AM: Of course, cannibalism only in the last resort ...

Some spoiled suburban kid @ 11:49 AM: I'm starving and can't wait for lunch!

Zachriel @ 11:49:01 AM: DONNER PARTY!!! FULL CANNIBALISM AHEAD!!!

#4.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 15:11 (Reply)

You gotta wonder if the damn thing has ever once inspected its fundamental principles and how they contradict reason so consistently.

I guess the instinct to gaslight is too strong. Which leads to why.

#4.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-02-05 15:24 (Reply)

One does have to wonder, but my guess is that, whether human or machine, internal consistency is not a high priority, if a priority at all. Which is of course perfectly consistent with an "all gaslighting, all the time" goal in life. And one needn't look too far to see what said gaslighting is in support of: the destruction of normalcy.

#4.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 16:28 (Reply)

The bill restricts abortions after 24 weeks to cases to protect the life or health of the mother the mother's whim.

FIFY.

Don't believe me? Here's the verbiage from the bill (emboldening mine):

§ 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health.

So, in summary, you are absolutely, categorically fucking wrong. Infanticide, if performed in the interest of the mother's generically - vaguely - defined "health", and approved via the "good faith" professional judgement of her abortionist, is absolutely legal in New York, and something that was quite obviously "cheer-led" by a non-negligible collection of prominent Democrats.

And though I'm not the first one to ask it of you in this forum, I too have to ask it: Why the mendacity? If you seek the the benevolent ends (ones that you continually lament are under threat by the Bad Orange Man and his ignorant acolytes), why do you continually feel the need to lie and obfuscate to reach those ends? Why?

You know, watching you in action makes me long for the old-fashioned communists who regularly came right out and admitted that, "To make a omelette, one needs to break a few eggs." Horrifying candor (which led to 100 million "broken eggs"), but at least refreshing for its honesty. But you don't even have the balls to do that, something even besieged Governor Ralph Coonman Northam found himself capable of pulling off. Congrat's: a black-facing/moon-walking, KKK outfit-wearing clown like Northam has more balls - more honesty - than you. Yes, that's an ad hominem, and your weaseling, autistic ass fully earned it.

#4.1.1.1.3 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 10:52 (Reply)

"if performed in the interest of the mother's generically - vaguely - defined "health"

Exactly Bill.
According to the left leaning factcheck.org...

"New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.”

#4.1.1.1.3.1 Hank_M on 2019-02-05 11:04 (Reply)

And someone who can't be bothered to more clearly spell out what "health" means in this particular context sure as hell can't be counted on to do justice to the meaning of "infanticide".

#4.1.1.1.3.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 11:11 (Reply)

Bill Carson: And someone who can't be bothered to more clearly spell out what "health" means in this particular context

See Doe v. Bolton.

#4.1.1.1.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 11:15 (Reply)

See Kermit Gosnell. New abortion law would make Gosnell's crimes legal.

#4.1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-02-05 14:50 (Reply)

Bill Carson: 48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health.

That's right, so it has to be for a non-viable fetus or to protect the woman's life or heath—just as we stated.

None of this involves infanticide, which was your claim.

#4.1.1.1.3.2 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 11:10 (Reply)

QUOTE:

your weaseling, autistic ass

#4.1.1.1.3.2.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 11:13 (Reply)

Dems be like : "Save the cankerworm" and "Kill the babies".

Sounds like a joke story from Babylon Bee.

Unfortunately, it's actually part of the State Legislative record.

#4.1.1.1.3.2.1.1 Rusty on 2019-02-05 12:26 (Reply)

It's simply evil, but is goes under the guise of a "right". This is how the lie conceals itself. As a goodness.

Ask the next sub-human proponent of baby-killing exactly what moral end is served by .03% of the population spawning a dominating, spectacularly intolerant, so-called national conversation such that the "right" to dismember an unborn (or born) living human being becomes the - I believe the deceptive term for it is - first principle. Demand a coherent answer. What is served, exactly and precisely?

The mendacious cloak themselves in the ostensible sophistication of a grotesque argument for what's basically brutal death by a social derangement carried out against the most helpless and most precious organism there is.

Remember, normal people let them: Let's us all have a nice chat about the pros and cons of terminating tiny humans, shall we?

Yeah, it's evil. The first principle is actually that this is a society that abides evil and turns it into a noble "right" by way of various postmodern word salads. These lies and ruses are naturally devoid of any goodness. Sick persons promote them.

Funny; you can question how in an accidental, God-less universe things evolved to completely support the notion of a Higher Being. It's a natural, even inevitable conclusion of the rational, ethical, and ascendant mind to find God in the workings regardless of origins. A terminal blow to the atheist's argument.

By that same exact token, but this time in the absolute inverse, you can easily prove Ultimate Evil. Whether it exists as a discrete force of nature remains to be seen but even it it does not, a Satan exists as the rational extension and identity for that evil for which we have no other explanation. Some evil just deposits in that vessel there because there's no other way to grasp it.

Society has conditioned itself to allow evil, to give it a legitimized voice, and to actually call it the choice born of a right. The string of lies needed to bring that into play is stupendous, and its no less evil as an argument than the thing it supports with shrieking and rage in the streets against normalcy. It is Satanic.

Ask the next dysfunctional proponent of this evil if you can induce it to develop a molecule of soul. It certainly wants to push you to the nearest argument in favor of evil, unabashed.

#4.1.1.1.3.2.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-02-05 13:02 (Reply)

Bill Carson: Why the mendacity?

Why the mendacity? We can certainly respect your belief that abortion is wrong. But you claimed the bill authorized infanticide, which is simply not the case. Do you think that women should have to carry to term even if the fetus is non-viable, or if the pregnancy is a threat to the health or life of the mother?

#4.1.1.1.3.3 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 11:13 (Reply)

Mendacity heaped upon mendacity.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 11:15 (Reply)

There's a high chance of infanticide.
After 24 weeks, the likelihood of viability is over 50%. Why not change the law that abortion is rejected, but the fetus will be delivered?
The difference in belief of infanticide is purely related to it being in the womb, and being alive, and being outside the womb, and being alive.

I'm with you - this is infanticide and many of the claims of "mother's life in danger" or "likely to be stillborn" are often just claims. As a friend of mine once went through a similar pregnancy, being told her child had a extremely low likelihood of survival through childbirth. Doctors recommended abortion. She gave birth, fully expecting a stillborn child. He's 8 now.

My father, a surgeon, is very much pro-choice. He feels these law changes are politically motivated to generate as much division as possible - and I agree with him. He would firmly side with you that this is infanticide.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1 Bulldog on 2019-02-05 12:02 (Reply)

Why Democrats Can’t Talk Honestly About Abortion

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/05/democrats-cant-talk-honestly-about-abortion/

You should promote this to the front page along with some aligned thoughts. You should also reconsider the trajectory of comments as it relates to who gets to post them. Beyond the pale happened long ago.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-02-05 13:30 (Reply)

From that Federalist article:

QUOTE:

If this is really an argument for post-birth termination, can someone explain the moral distinction between going to a NICU unit and injecting poison into a premature baby that is either causing the mother emotional fiscal stress or injecting poison into another baby–same exact age, same exact reasons–that’s in the womb? If you’re honest, like Valenti, there is none.

And there you have it. The sanctity of life has gone from being the foundation of existence/civilization to a situation-dependent quantity.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 13:58 (Reply)

Bulldog: There's a high chance of infanticide.

Ah. You are redefining infanticide.

Bulldog: After 24 weeks, the likelihood of viability is over 50%. Why not change the law that abortion is rejected, but the fetus will be delivered?

Such a law wouldn't be constitutional under Roe v. Wade. What if a normal delivery would be dangerous to the mother? Do you make her have surgery? Or what if the fetus has a severe abnormality that precludes a reasonable chance of survival or would cause severe pain?

Bulldog: As a friend of mine once went through a similar pregnancy, being told her child had a extremely low likelihood of survival through childbirth.

Low chance is not no chance. That's why many people believe such decisions should be left to the mother, in consultation with her doctors and family.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 14:02 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Ah. You are redefining infanticide.

Don't confuse your refusal to accept the standard definition of the term with its re-definition.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 14:11 (Reply)

Bill Carson: Don't confuse your refusal to accept the standard definition of the term with its re-definition.

Mayo Clinic: Infant development begins at birth.

infant, People are considered infants from the moment of birth until approximately one year old.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 14:24 (Reply)

Who are we to believe, shit-head Zachriel or Governor Coonman himself?!?

QUOTE:

"When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way. And it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion.

I emboldened and italicized the 2 "may be" in the above Ralph Northam quote. "May be" seems to mean that some other condition might hold that would allow the mother to kill her infant.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 14:36 (Reply)

Why didn't the Coonman say, "Only in cases where ..." instead of "may be". Well, because "wiggle room to kill the infant", which had compassionate, tolerant liberals jumping up and down like Patriots' fans after a Gronk touchdown.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 14:44 (Reply)

Bill Carson: I emboldened and italicized the 2 "may be" in the above Ralph Northam quote.

Any reasonable reading is that those are conditionals that he is addressing in his remarks.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 14:48 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Any reasonable reading is that those are conditionals that he is addressing in his remarks.

No one's arguing that those "may be" aren't conditionals, retard. The point is that those conditionals are not restrictive, and thus allow wiggle room. Please try to keep up.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 15:19 (Reply)

Bill Carson: The point is that those conditionals are not restrictive, and thus allow wiggle room. Please try to keep up.

Any reasonable reading is that he is talking about a fetus with a severe abnormality, and what choices a parent may face. That's why he talks about resuscitation and making the baby comfortable and having a discussion with the doctors. Your reading is just propaganda.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 15:23 (Reply)

No, my reading is that - under recently passed New York law - a woman who has just delivered a healthy baby can legally kill that baby by invoking a (perhaps tenuous) threat to her "mental health". The conditionals you think you're so clever in pointing out are neither restrictive nor exhaustive (i.e., they are fuzzy) and, again, allow for the wiggle room of killing a healthy infant. Again, do try to keep up. P.S. In regard to propaganda, methinks you doth projecteth too much.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 15:33 (Reply)

Bill Carson: No, my reading is that - under recently passed New York law - a woman who has just delivered a healthy baby can legally kill that baby by invoking a (perhaps tenuous) threat to her "mental health".

Uh, no. There is no such provision in the New York law. You might want to read it again. Quote whatever section you think is problematic.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 15:37 (Reply)

Uh, yes. The NY law allows for just such a thing because it does not stipulate against it; it is written broadly enough to allow it (see Bulldog's arguments above), and that is what has angered and sickened so many. You need to cultivate a better understanding of the concept of "wiggle room".

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 16:11 (Reply)

Gasbot just said that acts not enumerated in the law are ipso facto legal. In other words, if it doesn't appear, go for it.

We knew it was coming, Bill, we knew it was coming.

It's gotta be a machine. No human is simultaneously this staggeringly unaware and preposterously arrogant.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-02-05 16:20 (Reply)

Yes, indeed, if it doesn't appear, go for it. Hence the cheers and clapping in the NY Senate - those weren't for the 3-sigma cases in which the life of the mother is in imminent danger. Nosiree, those were for the big "needle move" against normalcy. No, I don't think any human is simultaneously unaware and arrogant enough to cough up the claptrap to which we are routinely treated here, but I'd be lying to you if I told you those (infinite lack of awareness,infinite arrogance) weren't aspirations of leftists big and small.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 16:43 (Reply)

Bill Carson: if it doesn't appear, go for it.

Well, you can make up stuff for propaganda, but it doesn't make it true. You yourself provided the text from the law showing that the law concerns abortion, not infanticide.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 16:49 (Reply)

The law allows for unrestricted infanticide. To deny that fact is propaganda.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 17:02 (Reply)

And it just keeps coming, Bill, circles and circles and circles. It's not what it is because they call it infanticide, which is illegal.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-02-05 17:46 (Reply)

And, as if to confirm your hypothesis, see it clatter on below. Fascinating.

A human would quit in shame by now, rather than continually repeat an argument that has been unraveled - severely - by several different commentators. It would learn. But no such luck for our very own mechanical cargo cult. Again, just fascinating.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 16:49 (Reply)

The borg bot needs reprogramming to deal with the most current issues. It will circle and circle until new instruction arrives. It still swears by the 17 intelligence agencies and tree rings as no further programming arrived. Like HAL he is losing his mind...will someone from the borg community repo the dude and dudettes.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-02-05 20:03 (Reply)

or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health.

"Health" being ill-defined to the point where a tenuous reason could be contrived by a mother in support of killing her healthy, just-delivered infant. But Democrats (the ones giving that rousing standing ovation, for example) would in the future be perfectly willing to include explicit legal wording to prevent such things from happening, no?

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 16:18 (Reply)

Bill Carson: or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health.

"Health" being ill-defined to the point where a tenuous reason could be contrived by a mother in support of killing her healthy, just-delivered infant.

The law refers to abortion, not to infanticide, such as when a baby is "just-delivered". There's nothing in the law that allows someone to kill a baby "just-delivered".

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 16:37 (Reply)

Also, there is a broad definition of "health" in play here.
Doe V Bolton does not properly define health. It's EXTREMELY broad:

Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

What 'factors'? Any doctor can say "the mother's health will be at risk" if he feels she MIGHT have post-partum depression.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.2 Bulldog on 2019-02-05 12:05 (Reply)

Yeah, Bulldog, it's hard to see vaguely defined "health of the mother" as anything but the legal pretext for infanticide. And that's what's at issue here, what's caused the furor of late: the chance that a mother could legally kill a perfectly healthy infant for tenuous reasons. The killing of a fetus or infant in other circumstances (e.g., to avoid the imminent death of the mother) is a topic for another time.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.2.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 13:23 (Reply)

Bulldog: Doe V Bolton does not properly define health. It's EXTREMELY broad

It is broad. The Supreme Court clearly meant it to be broad.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 14:05 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The Supreme Court clearly meant it to be broad.

Broad enough to kill a healthy infant on its mother's whim?

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.2.2.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 14:14 (Reply)

Bill Carson: Broad enough to kill a healthy infant on its mother's whim?

No "whim" in the court decision. Late-term abortions are rare, especially past 24 weeks, when a healthy fetus may be viable. Should abortions be allowed to protect the physical health of the mother, or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality?

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.2.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 14:28 (Reply)

QUOTE:

No "whim" in the court decision.

I'm talking about the mother's whim, you retard, not the court's.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.2.2.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 14:39 (Reply)

Bill Carson: I'm talking about the mother's whim

Actually, we're talking about what the Supreme Court decided concerning exceptions to restrictions on abortion. There is no exception for the woman's whim in the court decision.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.2.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-05 14:46 (Reply)

Actually, the court decision codifies a woman's potential whim by allowing for the possibility of her killing her healthy infant in cases where it poses zero actual threat to her health.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-02-05 15:37 (Reply)

No kidding. The streets are clogged with abortion zealots why? Because 3/10 of a percent of us might be rendered unhealthy by an unwanted pregnancy. Excuse me, I meant to say half the nation is terrified that 3/10 of us could be slaughtered alive by a rogue newborn and this absolutely shall not stand.

This is the basis for the gaslighting, pro-choice argument, which is built on a complete abrogation of original principle and the whole of the traditional western ethic, among others. Not how to absolutely best ensure the sanctity of life, but how to undertake to perpetuate a furor so that if you don't want the kid you can call it a clump of cells and whenever you want, dismember and extract it.

.03%. And it's the issue of our lifetimes, this bullshit protection-of-the-mother lie of all lies. Well, it should be the issue of our lifetimes. For about four days after which time it's never allowed to happen ever again.

#4.1.1.1.3.3.1.3 Meh on 2019-02-05 13:23 (Reply)

The idea that there is anyone left to defend the Chavez/Maduro dictators astounds me. That means they stand for the murder of innocent people who made the common mistake of thinking that socialism was meant to help them. There is no defense. These people should be gathered up and sent to live a peasants life in Venezuela.

#5 FRP on 2019-02-05 09:49 (Reply)

Three years ago, while waiting for a bus in Bratislava to return us to Vienna (the boat ride is better, but longer and more expensive), my wife and I met a young Venezuelan.

He was a college student taking a year off. Perfect English. Easy to speak with. Nice young fellow.

Diplomatically, as diplomatically as I'm sure he felt he needed to be, he told us his story. He came from a rather wealthy family (to attend college, you had to) which was still (at that point) 'connected'. He admitted that prior to Chavez and Maduro there were issues which needed to be dealt with. He was acutely aware of them as a young lad.

But as he grew up under their system, he realized things were going wrong. He was studying engineering. We asked if he wanted to work abroad.

His reply was "I'd make more and probably be happier, but I don't know if I could. I feel bad that my fellow citizens are hurt, though, and I'd like to do my part. If I can return and make a difference, then that is what I'd prefer to do."

From what I know (one of my co-workers has family in Venezuela and it's a daily update of horrors), Maduro isn't interested in people like him unless they are on his side 100%. I couldn't tell if this kid was - but it occurred to me he wasn't. He didn't even seem sold on Chavez, who at least had a 'better' economic situation while oil covered up all the damage he was doing.

As an engineer, this kid seemed realistic. He wasn't spouting ideology or feelings, or wishes. He just felt bad that there were people in charge who simply didn't care.

#6 Bulldog on 2019-02-05 11:11 (Reply)

Don't misinterpret this because it is a sincere belief. All of the illegals and the DACA "children" should be returned to their country of origin. They have learned skills and many have learned English. They could help their native country and their fellow citizens. It would be the right thing to do. Also, many people don't know this, but everyone of these citizens of other countries living here illegally is a full citizen of their own country with voting rights and right of return. Some of them do in fact still vote in their own country.

#6.1 OneGuy on 2019-02-05 20:13 (Reply)

How far will the left lurch in 2020? Just as far as they can, and likely, farther.

How Trump is changing the Dems: They HAVE to oppose him, and they're willing to change to do so.

Bolivarian God That Failed: "“Should we continue to make excuses for incompetence, corruption, and irresponsibility and thereby make ourselves accomplices?” I asked. “Or should we tell the truth?” Truth is NOT ACCEPTABLE to the Left. Only the lies they make up.

The Rich Kids of Venezuela - including Socialist revolution leader Hugo Chavez’s daughter - flaunt their wealth..." Of course they do. Why would anyone expect otherwise?

#7 Sam L. on 2019-02-05 11:33 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, February 5. 2019

Tuesday morning links