Now that the gloves have REALLY come off, let's just say that the Hillary juggernaut has slowed considerably:

"Clinton clearly had decided she must defend herself from rivals who are right on her heels in the leadoff voting state of Iowa and who pose a real threat to her winning the Democratic nomination.

Still, she continued her strategy of avoiding direct answers to questions: She wouldn't say how she would address Social Security; she declined to pledge whether she would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, or say whether she supports giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrant.

Instead she tried to tried to turn every issue into an argument against President Bush. She said Bush's name 25 times, more than all six of her rivals combined."

http://www.againsthillary.com

Herb

Herb where were your buds when China, India and Pakistan developed Nuclear Weapons?

What a bunch of BS from the troll. Clinton leads over her opponents by double digits. Clinton is GAINING votes from previous "negative votes", furthermore she has made gains with Republican women! She is attacking Bush cuz she's the front runner and doesn't want to badmouth fellow democrats because she doesn't have to.

I've no idea of Clinton will be the Demo choice, but it appears likely and the troll is terrified.

"Herb where were your buds when China, India and Pakistan developed Nuclear Weapons?"

Conservatives were fighting democrats who wanted us to go easy on evil & dastardly communist Russia regarding Star Wars, the SALT talks and our basing missiles in Europe.

Like a good duck hunter, we went after the target moving fastest, so as to pick off the slower moving ones in due course...IN SPITE OF LEFTISTS like Frank Church and Ted Kennedy who never met a commie they didn't like.

But ask any now-free Eastern European and they'll tell you they're happy to longer be under the jackboot of godless Russian communism.

Herbert Milhous Nixon III

Stars Wars doesn't work, it's been proven. It's just another Urban Legend like the WMD's in Iraq.

"Stars Wars doesn't work, it's been proven."

They said we couldn't make it to the moon, either.

If you don't think you can, you're probably right. Thank goodness conservatives have a 'can do' attitude. Leftists have proven to be little more than a bunch of hand-wringers. And with an 11% approval rating for the democrat-led congress, it's no wonder they're worried.

Herb

They also said we couldn't break the sound barrier, Gen Yeager proved them wrong.

Righties have a "Can Do" attitude? They just don't want to pay for it.

"Democratic rivals target Clinton’s vote on Iran"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21548813/

Nice attempt to hijack this thread. Were I a leftist, I'd want to change the topic, too.

Herb

Anytime you're the front runner you will be attacked from all sides. It's the nature of politics. People want to knock you off your pedestal. You see the same thing with the GOP. Nothing new here Herb. Nice try. Weak...but a nice try.

If you watched, or read a transcript of the debate, it's obvious that Mrs. Clinton is going to have a much harder time defending her own record among democrats than anyone else.

The hard left is angry at her.
Conservatives want nothing to do with her.
A huge number of voters do not trust her.

Hillary is the most polarizing candidate the democrats could choose. She makes Geraldine Ferrraro look good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Ferraro

Herb

I never said I liked her as a candidate. I actually agree with some of what you're saying, however the bottom line she's in front and everyone is doing what they can to pass her. If what you're saying is true she should be in 3rd or 4th place.

"..the bottom line she's in front.."

As Mr. Nixon used to say in his gravelly-low voice: "Uhhhh...That's all very well and good..."

Here's the deal. No negative ads have been run against her yet. For the moment, she may stand out with some coat-tails simply because her husband was president. Wait until she has to defend her meagre, flip-flop record, as was the case last night. She's never run a business. She's never been in an executive position. And there is PLENTY of intel on her that even now she wants silenced at the national archives. Just wait until some of that stuff hits the fan.

Herb

Herb who has gotten the most money this time round from the Defense Contractors. Let me think which Republican it must be, oh wait a minute it's Hillary who has gotten the most.

So it seems even Defense Contractors have come to the conclusion that you and your type are in your own little world.

troll sez:

"The hard left is angry at her.
Conservatives want nothing to do with her.
A huge number of voters do not trust her."



The "hard left" hates her so much she's breaking records in the money raising dept.

Conservatives NEVER want anything to with ANY Democrats.

The "huge number of voters that don't trust her" the troll refers to are conservatives -- of course they don't trust her. She is however leading other Democrat candidates by double digits.



So, who do YOU trust? The troll's spin? Not me.

Must be the season of the witch...

Hillary is not my first choice, and I would be hard pressed to scribe the oval next to her name if she were the only choice. With all that said, I am glad she is holding the administration accountable and -- for a few moments -- not playing into the bickering.

Primary season character attacks by members of the same party are irresponsible. They erode trust, show disunity and make the process even dirtier. The shrub utterly ruined John McCain nationally, shrugged it off and then picked a kingpin from the underground economy to be his Veep. Sleazy, and in the long run, nothing short of stupid. Once a viable candidate, McCain has no pull in an already weak GOP field.

"Star Wars"

Herb, does the thought of your house -- or town -- being set ablaze by a malfunctioning satellite make you comfortable? Complex automated weapons are the most dangerous route to security. Red button diplomacy is a falsehood. Humans must be the main equation, or they will not matter in the final equation.

"PLENTY of intel"

There is plenty of intel at the National Archives being hushed, shredded and lost by all sides. For decades, what could not be hidden in the bureaucratic labyrinth has been spirited away to secret sections of Presidential libraries. We are still in an era of dark secrets and rampant corruption. The brave folks at George Washington University go to bat for all of us every day to get the truth. See their efforts here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

"Just wait until some of that stuff hits the fan."

I agree, it will be like a Gallagher concert during a typhoon.

"Hillary On The Ropes"

Why that kinky little minx! Probably walks all over her biggest contributors in those spikey little ankle boots too!

"it will be like a Gallagher concert during a typhoon."

Best line I've read on this thread.

Oh for a Republican candidate to be on those kinds of ropes. They would be happy to be there.

"Herb, does the thought of your house -- or town -- being set ablaze by a malfunctioning satellite make you comfortable?"

The far more likely concern is a need to defend against incoming missiles, thanks to Mr. Clinton, who sold the communist chinese our once-secret technology.

Herb

Well at least we can thank Hoover for giving a "DAM".

It's getting bleaker by the day for the GOP.

Herb old buddy technology changes by leaps and bounds every 6 months. Clinton's technology is archaic now days.

Why not spend your energy on a more positive endeavor than this constant gloom and doom. You're playing right into the producer’s hands of "Fear Factor."

'You're playing right into the producer’s hands of "Fear Factor."'

Fair enough. But I'll sleep like a baby when we stop killing them and overturn Roe v. Wade, along with stopping commies like Castro and Kim Jong Il once and for all.

You might say that's what's on my Christmas list for 2007. Perhaps Ruth Bader Ginsburg and those other two dastardly commies will all retire between now and Advent.

Herb

Well since you brought up the "A" word "A"-gain, here's a take on the issue I'm you'll have comments about.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/10/tackling-abortion-the-cruel-co.ht ml

I like the last paragraph that states: "As we move into the 2008 presidential election cycle, let's quit demonizing each other and get to work meaningfully addressing the cruel connections underlying America's heartbreaking abortion statistics. The most important debate is not between "pro-life" and "pro-choice," but between those who will continue to be demagogues on this issue and those who will choose to pragmatically work together to save unborn lives."

Herb said>>>
Fair enough. But I'll sleep like a baby when we stop killing them and overturn Roe v. Wade.

But it's okay with you that those babies grow up and get killed in Iraq.... That's F'ed up!!!!!

This just in:

Obama's jabs at Hillary just bounce off

http://www.suntimes.com/news/hunter/630494,CST-NWS-hunter01.article

Clinton has a certain force majeure, and she keeps her equilibrium no matter what grievous things she is charged with: waffling on the war, shuffling the cards on Social Security, sticking by a sexually insatiate man who beds every femme he can. The truth is, Clinton comports herself like a CEO charting a blue-chip company; she is driven.


Let me quote that last sentence again in bigger type:

"The truth is, Clinton comports herself like a CEO charting a blue-chip company; she is driven."

This is why the GOP is TERRIFIED of her -- she's ruthless, just like them! Heh.

I'm with you on this, Chris:

"...work together to save unborn lives."

Hopefully everyone...except planned parenthood and naral, WHICH BOTH PROFIT FROM ABORTION....will agree.

You may be willing to give those two groups a pass in the spirit of kum-bah-yah.

I'm not. Not now, not ever...until they stop killing the unborn.

Herb

Herb, if Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and all like organizations disappeared, and were not replaced by similar groups, do you think that abortion would also disappear?

It's already been proven as FACT that abortion rates are the same whether it's illegal or legal. Changing the law won't change people's choices. If you're wanting to stop abortions, work to educate people and work to make contraception available to anyone that wants it.

Fair question, Edselehr.

If drug dealers disappeared and were not replaced by similar groups, do you think that drugs would also disappear?

In my view, abortionists are a little lower than drug dealers, for at least drug dealers peddle death with the consent of the one killed.

Herb

One wonders why thousands of women haven't been jailed for killing unborns? Or sued. Or better yet, EXECUTED, for offing those unborns? The mindset of the moralists are warped indeed.

Moralists are considerably lower on the food chain than drug dealers. Drug dealers aren't trying to mandate that everybody use drugs and they ESPECIALLY don't claim to be speaking for God.

Americans have said they want choices and the courts to this day have preserved that right.

Herb, you aren't really answering my question, at least not directly. So I guess I'll look at what you said:

"In my view, abortionists are a little lower than drug dealers, for at least drug dealers peddle death with the consent of the one killed."

Do you believe that Planned Parenthood, et. al. "peddle" abortions in the way that drug dealers peddle drugs? That they actually coerce women to have abortions that they would not have otherwise? Please show me some evidence of this, beyond unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence or your 'gut' feelings.

"If drug dealers disappeared and were not replaced by similar groups, do you think that drugs would also disappear?"

No, drugs would not disappear. People would figure out how to grow or manufacture their own drugs. Kids would keep sniffing glue, and meth labs would still be out there. But due to the reduced availability of drugs, I think drug use overall in society would decrease.

However, this example is not analagous to abortions. Illegal drugs (dealer provided or homemade) have no quality control, and are inherently risky not simply because they are drugs, but because of the other potential problems such as impurity, rat poison, etc. But abortions conducted through Planned Parenthood (which admittedly end the existence of the fetus) are provided to make sure little or no physical harm comes to the mother - and to help them with the emotional trauma as well (carrying to term would also be physically and emotionally traumatic in it's own way). If these abortion providers disappear, at least some of these mothers will try to perform these procedures on their own, and may seriously, perhaps fatally, injure themselves, or damage (rather than abort) the fetus resulting in birth defects, or maybe both.

Abortions will not end with the disappearance of these organizations. But the dangers to the mother involved with such procedures are drastically lowered with the use of these services. I have seen nothing to indicate that Planned Parenthood, etc. "promotes" abortion. If you have seen something, please share it.

The only rope I'd like for Hillary would be one around her XXXX! Edited: You fill in the blank with what ever you want!

Note to the NSA, Secret Service, Homeland Security, etc. (In case they are monitoring)This is not a threat, just my humble opinion!

"just my humble opinion!"

Careful, Skybill. One of my students got expelled and disappeared permanently a few years ago after threatening an elected official (Bush) online and the Secret Service caught wind of it. Your disclaimer may carry little weight in their minds.

"Do you believe that Planned Parenthood, et. al. "peddle" abortions in the way that drug dealers peddle drugs? That they actually coerce women to have abortions that they would not have otherwise?"

They're both merchants of death, no matter how you slice it.

Herb

Yeah, you are probably right Edselehr!

I edited my post to be a little more innocuous. (There, that word should confuse anybody in the government)

Actually, "redacted" is their favorite writing style.

"They're both merchants of death, no matter how you slice it."

If a mother self-aborts, is she also a "merchant of death?"

Agreed! (OK, I confess I had to go to Wikipedia to find out what "redacted" was!!)

My only question about the abortion issue is, Who would love and care for those that were unwanted?

Too many young spend their lives bouncing from foster home to foster home and NEVER have a true "FAMILY".

The sadness is those that put themselves in a situation to have to decide the fate of an unborn, because of their own laziness or stupidity. Yes there are rapes that result in pregnancy, that is uncontrollable... the issue really is those who don't think the consequences before the action. Whether legal or not this issues never can have a good outcome for those it affects!

mer·chant
Pronunciation Key - Pronunciation[mur-chuhnt] –noun 1. a person who buys and sells commodities for profit; dealer; trader.

Herb

Merchant, Natalie:

An American singer of Sicilian origin. She joined the alternative rock band 10,000 Maniacs in 1981 and left it and began her solo career in 1993.

Ah, I finally figured it out, Herb - you were listening to O'Reilly last week!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510130009

"mer·chant: a person who buys and sells commodities for profit"

MediaMatters: "Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, with a policy of providing services irrespective of income. Many Planned Parenthood clinics offer services on a sliding scale based on ability to pay; the organization's website states that it is committed to "ensuring that financial concerns are not a barrier to necessary health care." These policies and rates extend to all services provided by Planned Parenthood."


Time to toss the "merchant of death" argument.

"One of my students got expelled and disappeared permanently a few years ago after threatening an elected official (Bush) online and the Secret Service caught wind of it."

I find it hard to believe I'm saying this but John Ashcroft is on our side of this snooping business.



The troll is a merchant of coat hanger deaths. May the dead souls haunt the troll forevermore.

Herb your "merchant of death" phrase is the kind of semantics that builds a wall that does not allow for constructive dialogue.

I'm not asking you to change your position or others in your court. What others like myself are asking for is an attitude that comes to the table to find solutions. Your negative posturing does not work well in the negotiation process.

"The troll is a merchant of coat hanger deaths. May the dead souls haunt the troll forevermore."

Halloween's over, Skep. Stop creeping me out.

He doesn't care.

It's not about working to find solutions. It's all about just holding the extreme, in the hopes it's painful enough the human race will reconsider.

Futile, but there it is.

"He doesn't care. "

Okay maybe I'm being a bit too much like Luke Skywalker thinking deep down Herb has good in his heart.

BTW-How are you feeling this days Doug?

"Herb your "merchant of death" phrase is the kind of semantics that builds a wall that does not allow for constructive dialogue."

Chris, I understand your position and genuinely strive to find agreement and compromise when possible. I also respect you, even while disagreeing with some of your views.

We both can agree that some things are much easier to compromise upon than others.

I believe two men whom you and I both respect, Rev. Martin Luther King and Deitrich Bonhoeffer would both take issue with the thought of even one child being killed. That's because both of these Christian men gave their own lives to defend the innocent.

As for the rest of the shrill and unregenerate anti-life crowd, I don't expect them to get it, for it's the Holy Ghost that takes the scales from our eyes.

Herb

For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. Psalm 139:13

Just for clarification, Bonhoeffer knew he was going to be executed, MLK recognized the danger he was in and was aware of the death threats.

It's a little dangerous to presume what historical figures might have thought about contemporary society. In Bonhoeffer's situation he took no great pleasure in being associated with those who wanted to kill Hitler. It would be interesting for a man whom you and I would think to be a Pro-lifer would take part in a plan that attempted to take a life and possibly others. I don't think it's as cut and dry as you may think. But I could be wrong.

Martin Luther King Jr. was far more charismatic and demonstrative, but even his life is suspect to sexual immorality.

This does not in anyway take away the important work both this great men of God did.

"Do what is right not only to respectable citizens, but especially to the disrespectable ones as well; be at peace not only with those who are peaceable, but especially with those who do not wish to let us live in peace."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

Martin Luther King Jr.

Bonhoeffer ,Adm Canaris and some other conspirators didn't know they were going to be executed, until the guards went in their rooms, and demanded they strip, they were marched naked to the gallows, then hung by a rope being put around their necks and being pulled up, they were held up for a couple of minutes, then let down, after catching their breaths, they were pulled back up, and left,until found by the Russians a few days later.

Not trying to dwell on the execution of an individual, but being imprisoned by the Nazi's and moved around, Bonhoeffer surely knew his fate.

The bigger point here for me from my previous post is the internal struggle that Bonhoeffer was having being apart of the plot to kill Hitler. If Bonhoeffer were alive today and running for some political office surely this issue would be brought out. How are you pro-life when you plotted to kill another human being?

I don't think there is an easy answer and I believe Bonhoeffer really struggled with it in his own life.

"Halloween's over, Skep. Stop creeping me out."

I don't know if its appropiate, but it does bring to mind the song "Everyday is Halloween" by Minstry.

When Canaris was arested, he requested a private meeting with Himmler, which was granted. Afterwards he and Oster Bonhoeffer were not executed with the rest of the conspirators.

Unfortunatly for Canaris, Himmler was dismissed from office, and arrested, and Hitler remembered about the group, and sent one of his aides to carry out the executions, just days before he commited sucide.

The soviets could have captured the concentration camp earlier, there is some that thinkit was delayed so canaris could be killed.

Canaris provided info to the Soviets, British and Americans all through the war, and knew an awful lot about Hitlers dealings with Stalin before the war.

Well, if you give someone enough rope they usually wind up hanging themselves with it. But it is very helpful with Bill tying the noose on the end of it for her though!

Again my point is the innner struggle Bonhoeffer, a pastor, theologian and bible teacher, had to come to grips with his actions and his association with the circle of people who wanted Hitler dead.

How do you justify the killing of one human being, albeit one of the worst the world has ever known (and possibly others), and yet come out as someone who is for the sanctity of life?

How about this, Chris:

Why would there be any grey area in halting a home invasion murderer with deadly force, or stopping someone like Hitler who murdered millions?

Herb

That was probably a very easy argument, Hitler was killing millions.

But the group against Hitler contained many sub groups, from those like Canaris and oster who opposed Hitler from before the war, to those like Lt Col Steffenberg(sp) who only opposed Hitler after he started losing.

Actually, the US government opposed killing Hitler, the war would have been much more difficult with Hitler dead.

Just for the sake of debate.

Bonhoeffer is apart of a pre-meditative movement to kill Hitler. If we as believers are to uphold the 10 Commandments, aren't we now breaking one of the biggies?

The point is how does a clergyman whom we will assume cares for the sanctity of every human life, come to the conclusion that taking a life is justifiable? Herb you may need to help me here a bit. I can't seem to find anywhere where Jesus says anything about this in scripture?

I'm trying to put myself in Bonhoeffer's shoes...which as we know is pretty much impossible.

The 10 commandents say "thou shall not commit murder", I don't think many if any would consider killing Hitler Murder.

What is it then?

"If we as believers are to uphold the 10 Commandments, aren't we now breaking one of the biggies?"

I think not.

But let's be clear. The commandment is thou shalt not murder, not thou shalt not kill. There is a difference and it involves the defense of innocent life.

If I may, let's attach that to the fact that St. Augustine stated that there is such a thing as 'just war.'

http://butler-harris.org/archives/173

Indeed, I've read about a place in Israel where righteous Gentiles who sacrificed themselves during WWII are honoured.

Herb

What's the difference between killing and murdering?

Biblically, since you are using that.

Show your work.

Re-read my post. It's there, in the 5th sentence.

If you want a dissertation, that might take more than a minute.

Herb

So, War? That's the difference? When someone dies during/because of a war ( Sorry, a JUST War ) then it is killing - God says that's OK where?

But outside of that, it's murder.

Do I have that right?

In Scripture, Israelites killed Egyptians and David slew Goliath.

In each instance, it was to protect innocent life.

Herb

Neither God or Jesus forbid, or even condemn war in the bible.

"Neither God or Jesus forbid, or even condemn war in the bible."

Picture Jesus as Rambo.
Doesn't work for me.

So do I have that all right or not Herb?

Yes or No. Correct me where I am wrong if I am.

Author: Herb
Friday, August 24, 2007 - 1:31 pm


So Andrew's decision is to be a victim.

Fine. Go right ahead.

Just don't mess with my God-given and legal right to defend myself.

Herb

-----------------------------------------------

Author: Herb
Friday, August 24, 2007 - 2:02 pm


"...would you agree that deadly force should only be used as a last option."

Sure, in an ideal world. Bu you tell me-If your door is being broken down at 3 AM by a 250 lb. guy on PCP, you're going to try to wing him?

Not only are you putting your own life and the lives of your family at risk, the psychopath will likely end up owning your home...that is, if he doesn't take you out, first...because you were kind enough not to dispatch him.

It's all very well and good in the hypothetical. Reality is often different.

Herb

-------------------------------------------------

Author: Herb
Friday, August 24, 2007 - 8:44 pm


That's fine if the guy isn't hopped up on meth or PCP, I guess.

Whatever defends the innocent from a potentially lethal intruder. A man's house is his castle...especially with the human beings in it.

Herb


--------------------------------------------

Edit Add:
If someone breaks into my home and threatens me or my family I will use any and all means at my disposal for protection of same, up to and including deadly force. If I fall from grace as a result, yet in the process saved my families lives, I can live with that. Judge me not for the thing's I have done but for the reason's why.

I stand by each quote.

The bottom line is to protect innocent life as much as humanly possible.

You won't meet a more law-abiding group of citizens than concealed carry permit holders, who believe as I do in protecting innocent life from murder and mayhem.

Herb

The fallacy that concealed permit holders are more law abiding than anyone else is a joke. Any idiot can obtain one with minimal training.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/10935581.html

OK. That shows 1 bad example. And he should loose his permit.

How about some proof of your statement though. Go do some research. Yes there are some that abuse it, but as far as gun crimes go people who hold a CHP are far less likely to be involved in a crime.

You have to go through a FBI background check and be fingerprinted and photographed to get a CHP.

Let me get back to what I was initially attempting to bring to this thread.

Bonhoeffer, a man of faith, theologian, finds himself involved in a pre-meditative murder plot. Yes it is Hitler, but it also a plot to commit something that by all intense purposes is biblically wrong.

Herb I totally get your point. What I'm trying to do is establish in Bonhoeffer a deep struggle with going along with such a plan.

Please try and answer my question directly.

"...it also a plot to commit something that by all intense purposes is biblically wrong."

I like peace and like Rodney King, I'd like us all to get along. However, Chris, I respectfully disagree with your premise.

God does not want anyone to harm anyone, but preventing harm of the innocent is not unscriptural. That's why even police can use deadly force in virtually every nation on the globe.

Herb

I'll agree that deadly force is needed; I'm not that ignorant. And at some level Bonhoeffer had to make the decision that killing Hitler and any of his advisors was better than doing nothing at all.

Bonhoeffer probably realized he signed his own death certificate when he returned, by choice, to the Germany instead of living in America to teach and learn.

I think this is what makes me appreciate Bonhoeffer's writings and life. His life was in many ways a dichotomy.

Herb, in all seriousness, riddle me this:

If you were the jury, would you have convicted Hill? (yes or no)

Did Hill commit a sin by killing Britton and Barrett? (yes or no)

Having been found guilty, what do your think is an appropriate punishment for this double murderer? (please accept the validity of this verdict for the purpose of this question)

Is the state committing a sin in this execution?


Abortion-clinic killer to face execution
Oakland Tribune, Aug 29, 2003

Barring the unlikely possibility of a stay, a Presbyterian minister who gunned down an abortion doctor will next week become the first American executed for anti-abortion violence.

To a loyal core of admirers, Paul Hill is a martyr-to-be whose actions were justified by the Bible. To others, on both sides of the abortion debate, he is a zealot undeserving of respect or pity.

"In a very significant way, it's a sad day," said Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "It's sad that people like Paul Hill would murder in the name of life."

Hill, a 49-year-old father of three, is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection Wednesday in Florida for the 1994 shotgun slayings of Dr. John Britton and his volunteer escort, retired Air Force officer James Barrett, outside the Pensacola, Fla., clinic where Britton performed abortions. Hill wants to die and is not pursuing an appeal.

Abortion-rights groups worry that Hill's execution will trigger a backlash by those who share his steadfast belief that violence in defense of unborn children is justified. Several Florida officials connected to the case received threatening letters last week, accompanied by rifle bullets.

"We need to take these threats seriously," said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation.

Though Hill still has supporters -- they have maintained a Web site in his honor, with snapshots and ballads -- most major anti- abortion groups have repudiated him.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20030829/ai_n14554279

"You have to go through a FBI background check and be fingerprinted and photographed to get a CHP."

Big deal! Who couldn't pass that? Any idiot can obtain a CHP, it's a low bar to meet. I'm not saying they commit more crimes, what I'm saying is that a CHP doesn't really mean shit. Any idiot can get one, therefore, I hold no more respect for someone that has a CHP compared to the average idiot out there, because based on the laws of statistics, it's a good bet the average idiot is the one with the CHP.

Any one with a felony, spousal abuse or mental health history can't pass the background check.

"Any one with a felony, spousal abuse or mental health history can't pass the background check."

You sure about all those?

I'm not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho

I bet I can find someone who has been convicted of spousal abuse with a permit.

Here are the rules (part of them anyway) in WA;

You must meet all of the following requirements:

21 years of age or older at time of application.
United States citizen or have an alien firearms license issued by the Department of Licensing in Olympia. Our phone number is (360) 664-6616.

No pending trial, appeal, or sentencing on a charge that would prohibit you from having a license.

No outstanding warrants for any charge, from any court.

No court order or injunction against possessing a firearm.

No mental health conditions that would prohibit you from having a license.

No felony convictions.

No convictions for any of the following crimes committed by one family member against another on or after July 1, 1993:
Assault IV
Coercion
Stalking
Reckless Endangerment in the second degree
Criminal Trespass in the first degree
Violation of the provisions of a protection order or no-contact order restraining the person or excluding the person from the residence.

Is there a background check?

Yes, you will need to be fingerprinted and have a criminal history background check before you can be issued a license. Please see Frequently asked questions for more information about licensing requirements.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/faconceal.html

Oregon is similar as some of those requirements, especially the ones for domestic violence, are Federal requirements.

CJ. Sure you can. Just like you can find people driving cars with out a license.

Those are the exceptions, not the rule.

Edit add: Oregon's rules; http://licenseinfo.oregon.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=license_seng&link_item_id=14705

Why when you add a link on an edit does it not show up as a link?

Vitalogy,

For some interesting reading on Concealed Carry go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry

Pay particular attention to the paragraphs under the title: Research into the effects of concealed carry laws on crime (a little more than 1/2 way down the page.)

If you were the jury, would you have convicted Hill? (yes or no)

I'd have to sit through the whole trial to know all the facts.

Did Hill commit a sin by killing Britton and Barrett? (yes or no)

Quite possibly. But your question presumes the child murderer is innocent. I'd guess that both men were wrong.

Herb

Obfuscation, Herb. Your moral certitude sure gets squishy when faced with a real-world situation.

"I'd have to sit through the whole trial to know all the facts."

The facts are that Hill shot and killed an abortion doctor and his assistant with premeditation. Now answer the question.

"Did Hill commit a sin by killing Britton and Barrett? Quite possibly."

You say that in the eyes of God, Hill did wrong? But Hill would certainly call himself a defender of the innocent, no? I'm confused...

"But your question presumes the child murderer is innocent.

My question presumes nothing (but nice try at flipping the question and blaming the victim). Hill's actions are in question here. He did not kill in self-defense. His actions were premeditated. Do you condone them? Did Hill break the law? Did he commit a sin (break God's law?) Don't duck and weave - answer the questions. BTW, this is an open note (for you, open Bible) quiz.

If one breaks any law, then they need to pay for it.

Those who shed innocent blood of any kind are not guiltless.

But the left ignores the fact that there are none more innocent than the unborn.

Herb

Herb I really would love to see abortion no longer be done. But until you are ready to negotiate from a place that takes steps and not legislate laws over someones body, I fear you will continue to see what you don't like.

But I also believe you can't be the morality police, that is a slippery slope.

Author: Herb
Friday, November 02, 2007 - 3:41 pm

"The bottom line is to protect innocent life as much as humanly possible."

You don't say *legally* possible, but *humanly* possible. So you defend Hill's actions, correct?

One more time, Edselehr:

If one breaks ANY law, then they need to pay for it.

Those who shed innocent blood of ANY kind are not guiltless.

But the left also ignores the fact that there are none more innocent than the unborn.

Herb

I heard you the first time, but it's not a direct answer to the question.

"If one breaks ANY law, then they need to pay for it."

This seems clear enough, but you never say that lawbreakers are guilty, only that they have to "pay for it". So, Hill must "pay" for his actions, but by your statement Britton and Barrett don't have to "pay" for anything because they did not break the law.

"Those who shed innocent blood of ANY kind are not guiltless."

So, I assume you're implying that Britton and Barrett are "not guiltless" because they performed abortions. So, they are guilty - but of what? And if guilty of *something*, what price should they pay? Or should only the "lawbreakers" pay, but not the "guilty?" See how this is confusing? You don't seem to recognize your own non sequitors.

"But the left also ignores the fact that there are none more innocent than the unborn."

This is where you are wrong, and this is where the abortion debate always falls apart. We need to agree on our terminology before any true debate can occur. This "left" is ignoring nothing, but they may be disagreeing with your premise, which is that a fetus that is unviable outside the womb has "life." Pro-choice advocates would respond that an unviable fetus does not have "life" yet in the same way that you and I have life. Just as a man and a woman meeting at a party is "potential life"; just as a sperm that is swimming toward the egg is a "potential life"; just as a fertilized egg dividing for the first, then second, then third, etc. time is a "potential life"; in all these cases, "life" that can exist beyond the womb is not present yet. It seems that the right ignores the fact that the unborn are exactly that - unborn. Note that I spoke of viability - I would stand strongly against abortions in the third trimester, because with modern medicine, most unborn are viable at that stage.

Speaking of modern medicine...If you are now thumbing through the Bible for some defense of the "unborn innocent" keep in mind that prior to modern medicine (the 20th century) a woman was not considered pregnant or "with child" until the 'quickening', or when the baby begins to kick, sometime in the middle of the second trimester. Prior to that, there was no way to positively determine if the mother was pregnant (in times of hard physical labor or famine, cessation of the menstrual cycle was not unusual so could not conclusively prove pregnancy). The church did view abortion as sinful, but only abortions after the quickening. If a woman thought she might be pregnant prior to quickening, there were no social or religious barriers stopping her from "reestablishing her menstrual cycle".

Anyway, if your source of meaning is an ancient text, you should read it in an ancient context.

Have yourself a good weekend, Herb.

Herb said>>>
The bottom line is to protect innocent life as much as humanly possible.

When it's convenient for YOU....

Just because man hasn't had the technology nor understanding to grasp when life begins doesn't make man right. The instruments which measure preganancy are still, pardon the pun, in their infancy. But we do know that abortion typically stops a beating human heart and that pre-born babies feel pain before so-called viability:

Day 22: The unborn baby's heart begins to beat with the child's own blood, often a different type than the mothers'.

Week 3: By the end of third week the child's backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming. The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.

Week 4: By the end of week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg.

Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop.

Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.

Yet PETA and the laughingly 'progressive' left wants the rest of us to stop fishing because they're worried more about fishermen possibly causing pain to a fish.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-larimore061203.asp

And since you're big on 'viability' as the determiner of life, you're playing God. Who decides what is viable and when? The 139th day? The 144th day? Talk about a slippery slope.

Just as the left is so quick to continually cut slack regarding the death penalty as applied to convicted criminals, the innocent child should be given no less leeway with life.

What are you going to say in 30 years when we find out that life indeed begins at conception?

Ooops. Sorry? No thanks. Protecting innocent life is the only way to go.

Herb

When we reach that point, and it's peer reviewed, then it's worth a conversation.

Today, it's a matter of personal belief. Here, in this country, we get to make choices about what we believe and how we act on it.

It's a totally slippery slope Herb. That's why the pro-choice position, tempered with technology is the most realistic one!

Denying people the option, based on the whole "just you watch, you are gonna feel really bad about it" chest thumping, fear based thought, has no real merit.

It does make for good advocacy though. I encourage you to continue that and invest heavy in SCIENCE based research into viability and life in general.

As the tech gets better, abortions will get done sooner and will be avoided completely in a growing number of cases.

This is a win-win all around, no matter what your stand is.

And I too don't like abortions. Would love it if there were none. But I'm also a realist and know better.

So, I'll focus my advocacy on prevention and alternatives, such as adoption. The very best prevention is strong education on all aspects of sexuality and pregnancy --and on the effective use of the tech to clarify peoples choices.

Are you a real Pro-Lifer Herb?

You would really go for the petri dish with multiple lives in it, leaving the child already viable to burn in the building fire?

Of course you wouldn't. Nobody I know would!

So then, early abortion is a matter of choice as we clearly value known viable live over potential viable life. This is true as a people, not just lefties or righties.

Go and find me somebody who would take the petri dish and then we have a conversation.

Until then, early abortion is not murder because we've yet to establish there is a self in that case. If there is no self, there is no murder, period.

I play god every time I get in the car, with my family and drive. Played god when I met my wife as opposed to that other girl.

BTW: I am completely opposed to the death penalty.

Take a look at what you just posted!

Seems to me, no heart, no potential viability right? So, abortions before day 22 are no different than momma playing god, walking on ice, falling and shaking things loose enough to prevent progress.

Did she murder?

No.

I like this post. You've made an excellent case for our current pro-choice law to stand until such time as technology can meet the burden in a court room.

Invest now. You will get there faster Herb.

"Just because man hasn't had the technology nor understanding to grasp when life begins doesn't make man right."

The point of the 'quickening' story was to illustrate that if (as I'm sure you believe) the Bible calls for the protection of the "unborn", we have to be careful - in the time of the Bible "unborn" may have meant something completely different that what you define it as. You profess to be a biblical literalist and believe in the original intent of the words, but that requires putting the words in their original context.

"But we do know that abortion typically stops a beating human heart..."

Um, beating fetal heart would be more accurate. What is a human? - again, definitions matter.

"Yet PETA and the laughingly 'progressive' left wants the rest of us to stop fishing because they're worried more about fishermen possibly causing pain to a fish."

If you want to talk about PETA being concerned about trauma and pain due to aborting fish eggs, THEN we'll have an analogy we can work with. Otherwise your example is way off base.

"And since you're big on 'viability' as the determiner of life, you're playing God. Who decides what is viable and when?"

And you are willing to play God with the life of that fish in your above example ;-)

But honestly, I leave it to medical experts to determine these things. And you seem to feel that as science progresses, the unborn will have more and more viability outside the womb. Is this not the ultimate form of playing God? What right do we mortals have, using our 'science', to keep fetuses, or severly underdeveloped infants, alive when not carried fully to term? If God intended them to live they would not have been born prematurely in such a vulnerable condition. In fact, isn't modern medicine nothing if not Man playing God with lives?

"Just as the left is so quick to continually cut slack regarding the death penalty as applied to convicted criminals, the innocent child should be given no less leeway with life."

Definitions, definitions. All will agree the convicted death row inmate has life. We are still debating whether a zygote has "life" as traditionally defined. The two situations are not analagous.

"What are you going to say in 30 years when we find out that life indeed begins at conception?"

Oh, so you agree that the jury is still out on that one? Great - glad we got that settled. ;-)
(And, what are you going to say when we find out it doesn't?)

"Protecting innocent life is the only way to go."

Again, we therefore agree to stop the US military killing of Iraqi citizens and bring our troops home. I'm getting that warm kum-ba-ya feeling here, Herb...

The only one who doesn't have a "choice" is the murdered baby.

"What is a human? - again, definitions matter."

Nazi Germany and pre-civil war America tried to re-define what is human. Jews weren't fully human, nor were slaves.

"...stop the US military killing of Iraqi citizens..."

Moveon.org got to you. I gave you more credit.

Herb

"The only one who doesn't have a "choice" is the murdered baby."

Yet more convincing arguments for ending our occupation in Iraq, and the intentional and unintentional deaths of innocent children. Thanks, Skybill.

"...stop the US military killing of Iraqi citizens..."

Moveon.org got to you. I gave you more credit.

Herb

You think that no single non-combatent Iraqi citizen has died at the hand of an American soldier, and that they don't continue to die due to our actions? I'm not saying that death would end if we left, but death *caused directly by our troops* would end, and unfortunately much of that death is the death of innocents. As you said Herb, "any way humanly possible to end the death of innocents". Is a cluster of cells in a womb more precious to you than a child killed in war?

Show me the self, and I'll help you write the law for murder.

Here's the ugly question:

You've got a dish with some fertilzed eggs in it, and a small baby child in a burning building with only time to act on one or the other before both are killed.

If you really believe that life begins at conception, and that said life is to be valued as we value our own, then you would grab the dish, walk outside and say to the mother, "sorry about your kid, but look, I saved a bunch more!" and be able to feel good about that.

If not, then it's a choice thing, particularly early on.

Ideally, with the morning after pill to make the whole matter moot. (that inhibits conception)

Would you take the dish Bill? I wouldn't and don't know anybody that would.

That's where our understanding of where life begins and what it means lies today. That's not enough to meet the definition of murder in a court of law.

Here we are splitting hairs about whats IN the Bible before we've even established conclusively that the Bible is actually the "word of God".

In my Bible, the one commissioned by the planet Earth, says the demise of individual humans enabling the deaths of future humans by knowingly disregarding the health of this planet, is permitted.

Heck, if there IS a God, THIS is the Bible She'd write.

Skeptical, Herb will only come out and play if he can stay in his own yard. I'm usually cool with that. But you're right, it gets monotonous.

Shall I start eviction proceedings?

"If you want to talk about PETA being concerned about trauma and pain due to aborting fish eggs, THEN we'll have an analogy we can work with. Otherwise your example is way off base."

Say what? Nice try. You can spin, but you cannot hide from Ol' Herb.

Here's reality: PETA and the hard left place more value in a fish than the life of an unborn child. That's a fact. A dog has more rights, according to the radical left than the preborn.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18765

So go ahead and run, dodge and deny. Yet that's the kind of world liberals want, as they attempt to re-define the value of human life. But the biggest joke are liberals en masse. They hate Mr. Bush so much that they're willing to throw in with these pathetic PETA losers.

Leftists will get my fishing pole when they pry it out of my cold, dead fingers. And don't lecture me unless you're a vegan and don't wear leather.

Herb

Nobody wants the troll's fishing pole. He can take it with him when God calls him home early for spoiling His planet.

Classic leftist drivel.

If I couldn't debate my way out of a paper bag, I wouldn't try either.

Herb

"but you cannot hide from Ol' Herb."

Truer words were never spoken, ol' buddy.

(Yea, my 'fish abortion' statement was on the margins of sensibility, but I stand behind my basic point, which is the inherent disconnect of comparing a living adult animal to a recently fertilized human egg that may only be a few cells developed. Read Missing's 3:56pm post and insert the beloved family dog in place of the small baby child - would you still save the fertilized eggs in the petri dish over Checkers?)

"..Yea, my 'fish abortion' statement was on the margins of sensibility.."

Unlike many on the left side of the aisle, at least you have the guts to come clean now and then.

Herb

And how about all the HOMOSEXUALS on the EXTREME RIGHT that HIDE in the background until outed???? What about their guts?????

If you're looking for a conservative to defend Larry Craig, sorry and good luck. The guy's toast.

Herb

Why is Herrbocrite comparing PETA with abortion?
Did I miss some sort of factual information post that even remotely links these 2 subjects? Has someone (besides HerrB) surveyed PETA supporters on their abortion beliefs?

Why use PETA? Why not NASCAR? The KKK? NAMBLA? How about the many volunteers from every walk of life at the fish hatchery in the middle of Issaquah? Did anybody ask them their views on women's choices? Do they need to pass some sort of Roe (hahaha) vs. Wade test before they're allowed to club the fish and then "milk" them?

Gawd, Herbb, that is such a lame stupid analogy, I can hardly believe it.

After you're finished trying to grasp those straws, I suggest you go "milk" yourself. You'll feel so much better after you go kill millions of sperm.

Mrs. Merk....I think I have come to believe you are the WMDs Bush has been looking for. You just exploded all over Herb.

She is a real chum. :0)

The WMDs that seem to scare some folks the most are Women Making Decisions.

RE: WomenMmakingDecisions. Just wait until Jan, 2009. The troll's head will explode like the ones in the movie "Scanners".

Herb said - " If I couldn't debate my way out of a paper bag, I wouldn't try either. "

Believe me, we know.

Every single time you don't answer a question ( which is noticed by all of us ) or say " Fair enough " or " Good question " or " Nixon " or " Abortion " or apply your " logic " to other situations that causes it to fall apart or change the subject to one you have passion about ( even though you willingly participated in the original topic...until it got sticky for you ) or post a new thread that is meant to put some kind of fear in our hearts about how hopeless we as Democrats are going to be and are currently - we are reminded.

Here's another question that you won't answer; When you see a thread started by someone that shows that you, as a Republican, are going to get crushed in the upcoming election, does it make you lose hope? Does it make you change your mind about something?

No. It doesn't. So why do YOU do it? Is it just a matter of " I got pushed, so I'm pushing back!"? Is it that simple? Or do you really think your reputation is a trustworthy source that you, as a Republican, feel the need to correct the Democratic agenda?

How's that workin' out for ya'? Had a victory yet on that front?

You have all this wisdom, and I mean that sincerely, that you could impart on those that are willing to listen. Experience. Memories. Possible times you had a change of heart about something and went another direction.

Instead, you fill this site with stubbornness, pride, obstinance and holier-than-thou rhetoric that slits your own throat at every turn.

Show me some ability to consider another's opinion around here and give it the validity that it deserves and I'll show you a BIG open door from someone who is BEGGING for something that will get us ALL somewhere around here. Until then, man - it ain't worth it. Wouldn't you agree?

*gets up, goes to the bar, and buys CJ a pint of Stella*

Couldn't have said it better myself.

"Here's another question that you won't answer..."

Then I shan't disappoint you.

Herb

I think your posts "disappoint" most of us on a daily basis.

Which of course, you're so very proud of.

And I think you meant "shat"

Definitions:

Herb: Profundus Maximus

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/profundusmaximus.htm


Merkin: Kung-Fu Master

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/kungfumaster.htm

Merkin has a Black-Belt in *Plonkology*

With leftists outnumbering conservatives by a large margin on this site, it's a badge of honour to stand against their socialist agenda.

Herb

Leftists? Socialists? What? Where? Here? Who knew?

Please point one out to me. Then let's round them/him up and run them outta here. We can't allow this!

BTW, is there even one Hillary supporter here?

(At least anyone that has come out of the HRC closet yet?)

Well, from a moderate, I sort of like this guy:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tom-tancredo/

BTW, is there even one Hillary supporter here?

Not I, said the pig!

She can huff and puff but according to Bill she can't _ _ _ _ like Monica.

Really hoping for Edwards.

However, should Hilary get the nomination, she's got my vote.

No GOP, period, for any reason. There are good members, that likely deserve votes. They can always run as Dems, or Independents and I'll look them over with no bias.

Party line voting.
Spoken like a true open-minded liberal.

Herb

Now, now, Herbster, you also are a party-line voter, are you not?

My sentiments exactly.

Although there is a side of me that would like to see a moderate (real) Republican take the party back to some sembalence of reality.

(ditch the Christofacists and the Neocons)

Unlike Mr. "No GOP, period, for any reason," I would gladly consider any democrat, independent or green party candidate who's pro-life and anti-terror.

This underscores the fact that democrats are lock-step in their anti-life, socialist agenda. There's no real diversity there.

Oh the left tries to talk a good game. But when it comes right down to it, they're more often the real partisan shills.

Herb

Where are the Hatfield Republicans these days?

Didn't the McCoys shoot all of them?

Herb said>>>
This underscores the fact that democrats are lock-step in their anti-life, socialist agenda.

How about YOUR lock-step against abortion and terror??? Just askin'....
BTW... My wife is a DIE HARD Dem and would fight tooth an nail with you here Herbarino (but she questions your intelligence) but she is 100% AGAINST abortion and about 50% of the Dems social programs. YOU generalize EVERYONE! On a consistent basis. What kind of world do YOU live in??? You ALWAYS say LEFTISTS and SOCIALISTS.... What about YOURSELF? WHAT ABOUT YOU?
Generalize all you want. You put EVERYONE on the left in a little tiny box. Maybe that's why EVERYONE on here puts you in that same box....
My wife would like to know what happened to you in your childhood that would fill you with so much hate. She will gladly write you a prescription for Prozac if you need one.....

"My wife would like to know what happened to you in your childhood that would fill you with so much hate. She will gladly write you a prescription for Prozac if you need one."

You must not have confessed to your constantly calling Bible-believing conservatives 'Nazis.' Otherwise, you'd be the one she's medicating.

"...she is 100% AGAINST abortion..."

Please let your wife know that I'm honoured to share her pro-life views, even if we share little else in common. She must be a wonderful and fine lady.

Herb

She may be 100% against abortion, as a lot of pro-choice people are, but that does not necessarily mean that she wants to make it illegal like you do.

"She may be 100% against abortion, as a lot of pro-choice people are..."

Saying 'pro-choice' people can be 100% against abortion is like saying 'those who think fur wearing is fine' can be 100% against trapping.

Saying either group is ambivalent, at best, gives both the benefit of the doubt.

Herb

I'm 100% against religion. But, that doesn't mean that I'm willing to make religion illegal.

With any continuum, 100% is at the far end of the scale. 100% is the maximum.

If you're 100% against religion, then what's the percentile for those who DO wish to outlaw religion and feed believers to lions?

There is no 110% on this stuff. That's like saying you donate 110% of your blood. There's only so much and any more is not an option.

Herb

You're missing my point, I think.

My point is that it's possible to be 100% against something, yet allow other's the freedom to make that choice for themselves, if they so choose.

I agree, in some things, some people like NASCAR, others can't stand it, some like football others prefer baseball. However where a human life is concerned, I don't see that reasoning apply. Its like saying I personally wouldn't rape someone, but if someone else wants to do it, thats fine with me.

"Its like saying I personally wouldn't rape someone, but if someone else wants to do it, thats fine with me."

EXACTLY. Or like saying "I wouldn't own a slave, but if you want to, then that's fine."
It's ridiculous.

It's also convenient for so-called 'pro-choicers' to say that an unborn child is not human...just like during slavery when a slave was not considered fully human. They have to de-humanize a baby, or they'd have to face the dreadful truth of their actions.

Herb

Rape is against the law, abortion is not.

Not an apples to apples comparision. Nice try though.

Slavery was once legal, too.
And Hitler made all kinds of unjust laws.

That did not make them right.

Cuba will be free and Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

Herb

LOL!! Kinda chaps your ass doesn't it Herb?

Open minded? Yes.

Stupid? No.

The GOP got themselves here and it's gonna take some pressure to get them back on solid ground. Clearly it's not gonna happen in the courts and Congress seems to be afraid of it, generally. So, it's the ballot box.

Some level of accountability for these last years has gotta happen. You are conservative right? You do believe in accountability and personal responsibility right?

So then, we have accountability happening at the ballot box. And what's it gonna be like with all those shiny new presidential powers being held by somebody on the Democratic side?

You read it here first. The GOP "do as I say, not as I do" party will squeal like stuck pigs over that! (I do have popcorn ready.)

As for personal responsibility, I really can't feel all that bad over my situation, or the nation generally, if I fail to act. Buying into bullshit is failure to act.

They lied about their platform, have lied while in office and will lie again about getting into office again! So, no votes. Period, end of story.

(got a fair number of people doing the same thing, BTW. Full tickets. Good, bad, ugly, it's just Dem all down the line.)

The way I see it, the GOP shrank by a third. Another cycle and we will see it about half it's former size. Since it tends to only follow those rules that serves it's interests, having it get nicely sized down is probably about right when it comes to checking the Dems this next time around.

Maybe then it will be small enough for some serious reconsideration to occur. When that does occur, I'll be ok with the party again. I've plenty of conservative leanings.

I also think having checks and balances is a good thing. The current GOP just doesn't. That's not American and cannot be rewarded at the ballot box.

As for good people within it, think of it as helping them out. If they are really good, they are highly likely to continue public service. So, cutting down the party size is really like clearing away some of the crap for them.

Their voices will be louder, and that's a good thing. Maybe solid change will happen faster!

At the least, we might see some really great Independents run and win some races and that too is a good thing.

Been hearing rumors of the hard ass, "not getting all the morality we want legislated, legislated" 23 percent crowd is thinking of forming their own party!

Wish they would, because then we might actually have an excellent GOP to deal with going forward.

Such a GOP would have to work their asses off, or risk too many spoiler votes from that 23 percent bloc.

So yeah Herb. Party line voting. This is the kind of crap that happens when politics gets too divisive. (we really do need to pay more attention to our smarter moderates)

If I have to pick, one set of clowns over the other, it's the Democrats! No question.

So, given we are here, not only am I gonna make that self-interest pick, but will work double hard to help others arrive there too.

"Party line voting."

At least you admit to giving no thought between candidates. It could be Stalin incarnate, and you'd vote for the 'D.'

Herb

Really Herb? That's ALL you got out of what Missing said? You don't see the reasoning or valid thought he gave it before deciding to vote party lines? He's wrong on all accounts?

Chapped ass is right.

Abortion has been legal for decades and now that we're nearing the end of Bush's term, abortion is STILL legal. All those years trying to shove things down our throat hasn't paid off one iota.

In America, Americans want choices!

I hate to break it to you, but Cuba will not be free any time soon, and Roe v Wade will not be overturned any time soon either.

A while back, Chris sed: "Okay maybe I'm being a bit too much like Luke Skywalker thinking deep down Herb has good in his heart."

I believe this. When I wrote he does not care, it's about value judgment differences, and their impact on reasoning, not that he just does not care in the common sense of the word.

CT: BTW-How are you feeling this days Doug?

Better!

Maybe I'll write about it at some point. Some good stuff happened, right as I was seriously gonna just crack and change things up huge.

Herb: It's chemotherapy for the GOP. Like cancer, sometimes one has to hurt the good to get rid of the bad. Maybe that might explain things quick and simple enough to matter.

As Mr. Nixon would say whilst shaking his big jowls, "That's all very well and good."

Personally, I'm ok with change.

But like everyone on this board, I have a few pet issues. A democrat or independent would be fine with me, if they're flexible on those issues.

I'd vote for some higher taxes to stop abortion.
I'd vote for a voluntary single payer health plan to stop abortion.
I'd vote to leave Iraq sooner rather than later, to stop abortion.

Other than my anti-terror stance, you might call me a one-note Herbie.

Remember one thing, though. Between the two main political parties, the democrats are not one whit better when it comes to corruption and dumb moves.

Herb

As Mr. Nixon would say whilst shaking his big jowls, "Well, Abe, you were lucky. They shot you. Come on clot! Move up to my heart! Kill me! Kill me!"

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75snixon.phtml

Yes they are.

"you might call me a one-note Herbie. "

And Herb(ie) I think the one-note, even as loud as you play it, isn't gonna work this time around. That note has gone sour because there are just too many other notes that the American people are asking about and progressive evangelicals and some conservatives are speaking out.

You need a new song or at least a new instrument.

Maybe just a hummer.

Herb, the only way to stop abortion is to make sure everyone has a full sex education and that contraception is available to anyone that wants it. Statistics prove that making abortion illegal does not end abortion. Unfortunately, it's folks like yourself that are willing to put youth at risk by not allowing them to learn about sex, and eliminating options when it comes to contraception.

"Statistics prove that making abortion illegal does not end abortion."

Neither does saying it's legal.

"...it's folks like yourself that are willing to put youth at risk by not allowing them to learn about sex..."

Wrong again. Show me where I've argued against age-appropriate sex ed. You can't, because I haven't.

Herb

Where do you stand on contraception?

Is it a good thing --like we could use more of it to keep problems down

,or

bad thing, as in "sex means babies, so just don't do it".

Making murder illegal doesnt end murder, so does that mean we should legalize it?

Why would we? There would be no reason to do that. So, no.

" age-appropriate sex ed."

Nice qualifier.

I had my first sex ed in the 5th grade. I'm sure folks like Herb would think that's too young...even though both boys and girls are capable of making babies at that age and should be educated about it. In fact, that sex ed class made me more scared about the pitfalls of sex rather than encouraging me to have sex, which is exactly the false argument the bible thumpers always trot out so they can keep their children ignorant on the subject.

Regarding contraception, I'd go as far as to say that the government should provide any form of contraception at no charge to us. It would help lower unintended pregnancies that either lead to an abortion, or lead to more taxpayer subsidies to raise that child. Plus, it would help control population, which will become more and more necessary as we continue to multiply exponentially.

THX 1138 and LUH 3417 you are in voilation of the law.

We have been having the sex talk for years with our two kids. (girl and boy)

What a gift it is to not only emulate what a good relationship is all about between two loving people, but what sex means in the confines of that relationship.

One of my favorite stories to tell from my childhood is the day my (pastor) dad took my brother and I into his bedroom. We were about 10 and 11 at the time. Each of us on one side of dad sitting on the edge of the bed. He began to tell us that in time we will find out that women are exploited in our society through magazines, movies, TV and dancing establishments.

After his short talk he uses an illustration. Playboy. As he's bent over skimming through the pages my brother and I lean back with our eyes wide open and mouthing the word "WOW."

After the talk my brother and I had lots of things to say....to each other and nothing to dad. In time those questions did get filtered to dad and mom too. It's a moment I will never forget.

Vitalogy I too was turned off by the consequences I learned from the sex ed I got back in middle school.

"I had my first sex ed in the 5th grade. I'm sure folks like Herb would think that's too young..."

Wrong yet again. Since you obviously have no clue what I believe, why not catch a clue from MissingKSKD and ask me, instead of lying about what I believe?

"Where do you stand on contraception?"

I don't carry H20 for the pope and in general have no problem with contraception. However, if you want to dispense birth control to a minor without the consent of their legal guardian, that's another matter entirely.

Herb

So you'd rather see a 14 year old girl pregnant?

Sorry, you present a false choice.

Herb

False choice my ass, this is real world dude. You think that by denying contraception to sexually active kids that it will prevent it? You are more delusioned than I thought. All that will do is increase "AT RISK" sex among minors as they will anyway and risk pregnancy or disease.

"However, if you want to dispense birth control to a minor without the consent of their legal guardian, that's another matter entirely."

Why?

"All that will do is increase "AT RISK" sex among minors.."

Hardly. And dispensing birth control to minors will only help spread diseases like AIDS, whilst increasing the rate of cervical cancer among women via HPV.

Herb

Hopeless, completely hopeless.

http://www.stressedpuppy.com/antistress.jpg

Look.

Just like handing out narcotics to minors, are you actually suggesting that providing birth control to minors doesn't both (1). Send a message of approval to YOUNG KIDS whilst (2). Endangering them?

Ever read about 'needle park?' A permissive attitude doesn't work. Not with drugs, nor any activity for which kids are simply not prepared to handle. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE MINORS.

NAMBLA wants to lower the age of consent. Bad idea.

Herb

Hey, if there is strong enough desire holding back on contraseptives will not prevent minor's from having sex. They will either risk it without, steal them, or pay some adult to buy them. It's going to happen so why not allow those who want them to purchase them.

"It's going to happen so why not allow those who want them to purchase them."

You could make the same argument for drugs and firearms.

"And dispensing birth control to minors will only help spread diseases like AIDS."

Wrong. Last time I checked, condoms help PREVENT diseases AND pregnancy and are NOT narcotic.

"whilst increasing the rate of cervical cancer among women via HPV."

Wrong again. There's a shot to prevent HPV, a shot that bible thumpers like you won't allow young women to get because of your fear that this will lead to women being permissive. NEWSFLASH: women who end up being permissive aren't doing it because they got the shot or use the pill. Not to mention, it takes two to tango, and whether a girl is on the pill or has had the HPV shot won't increase or decrease the pressure the guy will apply to the woman to have sex.

"are you actually suggesting that providing birth control to minors doesn't both (1). Send a message of approval to YOUNG KIDS whilst (2). Endangering them?"

It sends a message that it's better to be safe than sorry. To rely solely on the faith that your kid will choose abstinence is endangering them much more than being practical and educational about it.

There is a big difference between them. So then, drugs and firearms should be available when your are an adult? Oh wait, drugs are a controlled substance and firearms are regulated as well. Well, I guess when kids have to register their wangy doodles before use, then we can regulate them as well.

In Oregon, kids over the age of 14 (I think) can inquire about contraception and other things, parents might not want to handle as well as the kid would like.

IMHO, there really needs to be some slack in this area. If a teen is going to have sex, they are essentially gonna have it, parents say or no.

(C'mon, we were all teens right? I know it was a no-brainer for me to get a few hours free. Nothing has changed today.)

Educating them and providing them with the means and methods to keep themselves out of trouble has got to be a priority.

I had a pretty great sex-ed in 5th grade also. Had the same effect mentioned earlier up thread. Something to be careful about.

At a recent high-school reunion, it was very instructive to meet and greet some of my peers, who did get pregnant, married, etc... at an early age. Most of them have done well, but I could also see the potential lost too.

Really smart people, not in secondary education, raising kids instead.

Some will say, "but they made a choice", and they would be right. Here's my counter point to that:

We know the parts of the brain responsible for rational thought, value judgments and self-control (which really depends on the first two things) does not fully develop before ones 20's --sometimes longer.

We treat kids differently because of this. Criminal charges, sentences, --lots of stuff gets handled with some give and take to account for the young person not yet being complete.

Given this, contraception being given to minors not only should be allowed, but encouraged. (Which Oregon essentially does by allowing a doctor to handle this matter for kids over 14.)

Think about some of the scenarios that would be just hell for a kid (cue Pat Benatar - "Hell is for Children"):

-dogmatic parents wanting to exercise faith techniques for medical issues

(kid just wants to get better)

-abusive parents

(kid fears parents, so cannot ask for help)

-incest abuse

(So that's rape, and beatings, etc... all contributing to a high risk environment for a kid, who does not want to bear or be responsible for the bearing of another sibling before completing high school.)

-parent child differences in general

Kid, not allowed to have girl/boyfriend. (right) Has one anyway. Because the family environment is not open, kid gets info from peers, also role models and self-identifies with peers. Could be trouble.

Bottom line is we provide services to kids in trouble, runaways, abuse, etc... Contraception is a part of that.

It's necessary too. Having seen the stuff I've seen as a foster parent, and lived what I did growing up, believe me when I say not all parents are doing the right things.

Until that changes, kids need some confidential options --including contraception, councilling, etc....

And that's where Planned Parenthood does one hell of a lot of good, BTW. Those people stop more abortions than most people realize. Helping young girls to know *all* their options, not just the PC ones, is prevention at it's finest.

Extend that to doctors, councilors, etc... and those bad parents will get checked well enough to maybe keep an otherwise good kid, from being trouble and a liability to our system.

And just to be clear, the opposition to providing birth control to people that are young has mostly to do with God.

Right?

Absolutely, as does every thing else in their lives, as rational thought is a sin.

It mostly has to do with having sex before marriage. And sex outside of that, you know, is a sin. And since this is a way to try and control and fight it on a moral front, it's cause-celeb.

It's all about getting people into Heaven. Even though sex outside of marriage doesn't make you go to Hell.

Bill Maher is getting ready to release a documentary about Religion. I'll watch it just to gain another perspective and NOT to validate my own beliefs.

Others, on the other hand, will denounce it ( without EVER seeing it for themselves ) for that very same reason; It's another perspective that they already know EVERYTHING about and don't need to hear any more. They will find excuses that allow them to sleep at night without being an obvious hypocrite: It's rated R, it deals with sex, there is a curse word in it ( although they won't know that in advance - they'll just assume ), etc.

But if you took God out of the equation, all the other reasons for providing birth control to everyone that wanted it would stand up as rational and problem solving. Add God back in, and they all go away.

Therefore, it's all about God. Which is fine. But let's stop pretending that there are other justifications for not doing it.

Oh, and Hillary is not on the ropes. Neither is Guliani. Or Obama. Or even McCain. Or Paul.

Thompson however, yeah. He's enjoying some lemonade in his corner.

Lemonade WITHOUT sugar.....
YUCK!

My wife and I have never used the God angle in our family to scare our children from not having sex even though we are a family of deep faith. However we do use the common sense, educated approach.

Sex talk in our family is done in a safe, fun and at times humorous way. Both our kids are now beginning to understand the sexual innuendo’s my wife and I have been using for years. We've had to tone it down a bit at times, but even now if we want the kids to leave us alone so we can finish a simple conversation, VOILA...innuendo!!!

Bumper Sticker: Sex Happens.

One of my very first paid voice over jobs was when I was 17 years old. I was hired by Planned Parenthood along with another 17 year old girl. We were to be a young married couple who had sex the night before to help start our family. Talk about feeling somewhat awkward. I was very much a virgin and so was the other girl (whom I knew)...but here we were play acting in front of the microphones along with the clients like some newlyweds. Took us a while to get comfortable....If you know what I mean.

The voice over eventually was for a multimedia presentation about the services of Planned Parenthood.

Sorry for taking you all back to an interesting moment in my career.

Agreed, Chickenjuggler and Vitalogy! Also, head-in-the-sand syndrome comes to mind.

Parents raising girls: please teach them that no one respects their bodies as much as they themselves, and their choices can last a lifetime. They have control and options.

Parents raising boys: Girls are only 50% responsible for your unplanned grandchild. "Immaculate conception" is still untested theory, odds are your son was there and needs to contribute more than some DNA. Denial is the wrong example to set, and BTW, she's no worse than he is...

Open the conversation and listen, not lecture. It's easy to sneak in blips here and there, to de-capitalize "THE TALK". Our info is outdated, anyway :0) so let them tell you what THEY know. Urban legend is fascinating stuff. Don't oppose sex ed at school if you're not going to do it yourself in a timely manner. 36 is not timely, IMHO.

I think Entre Nous is a killer handle. I hope it was influenced from the song by Rush.

Thanks! Guilty as charged...NP puts my feelings into words better than I ever could. I know there are other fans here (you included) but that's another conversation.

God bless America, hey DT we have another Rush-aholic!

Ok, back to the topic at hand.

And God bless Canada! Bob and Doug for President!
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...
What were we saying about Hillary and rope?

She should be beatin with rope!

What were we saying about Hillary and rope?

See my post of November 01 - 4:00 PM!!!!

I think I get it...I'll be your decoy...you get the rope! :0)They might want me more anyway: I have questionable Western Union activity and our phone bill rivals the war debt...

Did somebody say Western Union?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJMwxucTJyo

You just never know where a thread will take you!

I especially like how the camera zooms to the guitar during the keyboard solo.

Looks like the gloves are really coming off now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id =492205&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

Herb

Let's get back to that letter from the president...It looked urgent.

Is the Arkansas Project still active?

THREAD HIJACK ALERT.

Herb

Herb, do you believe the claims in the book as cited? Clinton had something to do with her husbands death?

Kathleen Willey is a proven liar.

Proven liar?

Then prove it.

Herb

Ask an ye shall receive.

"The Final Report of the US Office of the Independent Counsel report noted that "Willey gave false information to the FBI about her sexual relationship with a former boyfriend, and acknowledged having lied about it when the agents confronted her with contradictory evidence. Following Willey’s acknowledgment of the lie, the Independent Counsel agreed not to prosecute her for false statements in this regard."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Willey

Your turn Herb.

I thought the libs/demos didn't think lying about sex was wrong?

Then that makes her certainly no worse than the proven and impeached perjuring liar, Bill Clinton.

I believe Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broadderick and all the other women who allege they were assaulted by the proven, impeached lying perjurer.

Remember this one: "I did not have sex with that woman...Ms. Lewinsky."

Herb

"According to Willey, during a meeting in the private study off the Oval Office, Clinton had embraced her tightly, kissed her on the mouth, fondled her breast and then placed her hand on his penis. Clinton denied assaulting Willey. This event occurred on the same day that Willey's husband committed suicide.

According to Linda Tripp’s grand jury testimony, Willey pursued a romance with Clinton from the start of her White House affiliation. Willey had speculated with Tripp as to how she might be able to set up an assignation between herself and the president. She routinely attended events at which Clinton would be present, wearing a black dress she believed he liked. According to Tripp’s testimony, she wondered if she and Clinton could arrange to meet in a home to which she had access, on the Chesapeake Bay."

Tripp also challenged Willey’s account of that Oval Office meeting. According to Tripp, Willey had arranged the meeting in part to see if her flirtation with Clinton might advance.[citation needed] After Clinton and Willey met privately, Willey rushed back to Tripp’s office to describe the meeting. According to Tripp, Willey “smiled from ear to ear the entire time” as she described the event. “She seemed almost shocked, but happy-shocked,” Tripp told the grand jury. Willey told Tripp that she and Clinton had "smooched," but made no mention of a sexual assault. When asked if she believed Willey's account, Tripp responded, "Did I believe her? Oh, absolutely. No question in my mind."

It sounds to me like Kathleen Willey is just another obsessed woman who is seeking vengance by lying about something that certainly didn't occur.

Juanita Broaddrick is another uncredible lair.

"The previous year, Broaddrick had filed a sworn affadavit with Paula Jones' lawyers denying that Clinton had ever assaulted her: "During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. ... These allegations are untrue ...."[1]

In November 1998, Broaddrick contradicted her sworn statement in an interview with (transcript)[2] "Dateline NBC". The interview, broadcast in February 1999, centered around Broaddrick's accusation that Bill Clinton had raped her on April 25, 1978 during his first campaign for the governorship of the U.S. state of Arkansas. In the interview, she declared that Clinton suddenly "turned me around and started kissing me, and that was a real shock. I first pushed him away. I just told him 'no.'... He tries to kiss me again. He starts biting on my lip... And then he forced me down on the bed. I just was very frightened. I tried to get away from him. I told him 'no.'... He wouldn't listen to me."

She recanted her earlier sworn statement when interviewed by the FBI about the Jones case; the FBI found her account inconclusive, and the affidavit denying the allegations remains her only sworn testimony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick